Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-12-2011, 05:05 PM | #51 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
You KNOW that there is NO credible external historical evidence to CORROBORATE a SINGLE PAULINE letter yet you CONTINUE to promote PROPAGANDA. You KNOW that the CHURCH itself CLAIMED "PAUL" was AWARE of gLuke and that "PAUL" died under NERO. Do you see the PROBLEM? Not even the Church can SHOW that the PAULINE writings are AUTHENTIC. Stop your nonsense. There is just NO external EVIDENCE from antiquity that can SHOW an actual person who lived BEFORE the Fall of the Temple wrote a single letter to any Church about a character called Jesus, the END OF THE LAW, to whom every KNEE SHOULD BOW with the ABILITY to REMIT SINS by his own resurrection. |
|
03-13-2011, 06:49 AM | #52 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
|
03-13-2011, 04:15 PM | #53 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
|
Ehrman has briefly touched upon the HJ controversy in other books and his evidence has been less than impressive. Perhaps he will come up with something new but logic dictates against it.
If there was anything new it would have already been utilized by the jesus freaks. |
03-13-2011, 05:44 PM | #54 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 104
|
Ehrman stated, it is on youtube, that no serious historian believes that Jesus is not historical. When ever I hear that piece of close minded circular reasoning repeated like a mantra from one believer to the next my expectations of their presentation of actual historical evidence drops.
|
03-13-2011, 07:55 PM | #55 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
|
Quote:
I suspect that is because the jesus club refuses to consider anyone a 'serious historian' who rejects their godboy. It is a self-serving doctrine. |
|
03-13-2011, 08:57 PM | #56 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
From what-do-biblical-scholars-make-of-the-resurrection:
Quote:
According to Ehrman we may rely upon "the historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution". I would like to ask Ehrman if he thinks that Gandalf the Grey rose out of the pit in Moria after slaying the Balrog, to become Gandalf the White. It is certain that many of Gandalf's followers believed he had risen from death. This "public record" stuff is juvenile thinking. The Letter of Jesus to Agbra was on public record. The Testimonium Flavianum is on public record. As far as the unwashed public are concerned, they do understand forgery and its role in society. Despite his books, I cannot say the same thing about Ehrman. He might be able to identify and discuss forgery, but does he really understand it? I dont think so. The evidence seems to indicate that no matter how bright Ehrman may be in the field of "Biblical History", he deals with forgery in an extremely nieve way. You never know, Ehman might shoot himself in the foot with this new ebook. Quote:
|
|||
03-14-2011, 04:06 AM | #57 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
Quote:
Thanks for this comment about Pamphilus. To my untrained, and uneducated eye, however, it would appear that what little we know about Pamphilus, today, is derived from writings of Photius, as interpreted by Rufinus, when seen through the eyes of the latter's attacker, Jerome, which seems to bring us full circle back to David's post: Quote:
Was he this, or that, or something else entirely? Is it not, ultimately simply a question of faith? Do we accept Jerome, or Rufinus? How do we know which of the 3rd, 4th and 5th century authors to believe? Do we have genuine, unredacted manuscript evidence from any of them? avi |
||
03-14-2011, 04:11 AM | #58 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-14-2011, 04:59 AM | #59 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Hi maryhelena,
Thanks for posting this reference to this blog. I sent the owner a message asking for his opinion on this link: The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity. I have no idea what O'Neil's position is, although I noted he appears to think that some of the letters of Paul are genuine, unlike Detering. I'd also like to see Ehrman's response, or anyone on this discussion board, to this article, written by a long standing British archaeologist. Best wishes, Pete Quote:
|
|||
03-14-2011, 06:51 AM | #60 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Just noted ApostateAbe has gone self-ban.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|