Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 07-20-2012, 03:33 PM

And all traditional religious and secular academia assume that this set of letters (or at least the proverbial "authentic " ones) were written by someone called Paul as the anchor for first or second century assorted mythist or other sects underpinned by wild claims of apologist church historians. Neither allows fot the possibility that none of them were written by a Paul or paulists, but are merely creative composites from the Constantinian church.

aa5874 · 07-20-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And all traditional religious and secular academia assume that this set of letters (or at least the proverbial "authentic " ones) were written by someone called Paul as the anchor for first or second century assorted mythist or other sects underpinned by wild claims of apologist church historians. Neither allows fot the possibility that none of them were written by a Paul or paulists, but are merely creative composites from the Constantinian church.

You have identified YOUR problem. You have IGNORED the Hard Evidence like the traditional religious and secular academia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

The Hard Evidence is SCREAMING at everyone.

If Paleographers were manipulated by the Church then we would expect them to DATE the NT manuscripts to the 1st century.

Remarkably, some have even dated NT manuscripts to the 4th century but NOT to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The dated evidence suggest that the stories of Jesus did NOT originate from the 1st or 4th century.

Grog · 07-20-2012, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And all traditional religious and secular academia assume that this set of letters (or at least the proverbial "authentic " ones) were written by someone called Paul as the anchor for first or second century assorted mythist or other sects underpinned by wild claims of apologist church historians. Neither allows fot the possibility that none of them were written by a Paul or paulists, but are merely creative composites from the Constantinian church.

You have identified YOUR problem. You have IGNORED the Hard Evidence like the traditional religious and secular academia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

The Hard Evidence is SCREAMING at everyone.

If Paleographers were manipulated by the Church then we would expect them to DATE the NT manuscripts to the 1st century.

Remarkably, some have even dated NT manuscripts to the 4th century but NOT to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The dated evidence suggest that the stories of Jesus did NOT originate from the 1st or 4th century.

While what you say about NT manuscripts is true (although there is a claim for a first century gMark, but I wouldn't bet that this claim is sustained), what do you say to the argument that we only have copies of copies going back to the first century? From the content in Paul, scholars date his writings to the first century. I don't think paleography alone overturns this view. I did ask you earlier for your analysis of the content in Paul that shows dependence on gMark. I would like to see it (or you could direct me to it...is it in the aa theory thread?).

aa5874 · 07-20-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

While what you say about NT manuscripts is true (although there is a claim for a first century gMark, but I wouldn't bet that this claim is sustained), what do you say to the argument that we only have copies of copies going back to the first century? From the content in Paul, scholars date his writings to the first century. I don't think paleography alone overturns this view. I did ask you earlier for your analysis of the content in Paul that shows dependence on gMark. I would like to see it (or you could direct me to it...is it in the aa theory thread?).

Why do you start by agreeing with me and then suddenly switch?? That has been a consistent pattern. You bring PRESUMPTIONS AND SPECULATION to the table by those who operate about 100 years away from the Hard evidence--about 100 YEARS away from actual recovered dated sources.

Scholars' CONVENIENT Presumptions and assumptions cannot ever overturn the Hard Evidence.

Now, the actual DATED recovered Texts is the HARD Evidence. One cannot simply Ignore the Hard evidence merely to ASSUME their own dates.

Paleography is an ACCEPTED method of dating Ancient writings.

Again, I expected that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence and the actual recovered DATED Texts support my expectation.

In fact, the DATED Texts have reduced to rubble any argument for early Pauline writings.

And in addition there are MULTIPLE sources that are compatible to the DATED Texts which CLEARLY support the argument that the Canonised Pauline writings were composed AFTER the short gMark.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46#Date

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

4. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

5. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

6. http://newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

7. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

8. http://newadvent.org/fathers/101601.htm

Grog · 07-20-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

While what you say about NT manuscripts is true (although there is a claim for a first century gMark, but I wouldn't bet that this claim is sustained), what do you say to the argument that we only have copies of copies going back to the first century? From the content in Paul, scholars date his writings to the first century. I don't think paleography alone overturns this view. I did ask you earlier for your analysis of the content in Paul that shows dependence on gMark. I would like to see it (or you could direct me to it...is it in the aa theory thread?).

Why do you start by agreeing with me and then suddenly switch?? That has been a consistent pattern.

I try to be clear on what points I agree with you on, what I accept and then I diverge from there. You are consistent in your handling of the evidence, you are consistent in your argument. I attempted to show, even given this, where I disagree with your use of the evidence, in that you are accepting a less likely proposition (that all Pauline manuscripts are dated too early and all gMark mss are misdated too late) than the more likely proposition that Paul's writings emerged before gMark. This is just based on palegraphic evidence, which, as you pointed out, is not the only way to look at this.

I asked for your analysis of Pauline knowledge of gMark, but I'm stilll waiting (and interested).

Quote:

You bring PRESUMPTIONS AND SPECULATION to the table by those who operate about 100 years away from the Hard evidence--about 100 YEARS away from actual recovered dated sources.

I understand your position on this. Sometimes they make inferences from the data at hand, you believe that is speculation with no grounding and I don't entirely agree with that.

Quote:

Scholars' CONVENIENT Presumptions and assumptions cannot ever overturn the Hard Evidence.

Scholars make inferences. Scientists make inferences.

Quote:

Now, the actual DATED recovered Texts is the HARD Evidence. One cannot simply Ignore the Hard evidence merely to ASSUME their own dates.

Paleography is an ACCEPTED method of dating Ancient writings.

But you don't accept the findings. You want to argue that the dating by experts is consistently wrong.

Quote:

Again, I expected that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence and the actual recovered DATED Texts support my expectation.

I suspect you are correct on this. I, too, expect no first century manuscripts to emerge and I think the claims made for the first century gMark will be debunked. IF a first century text ever was found, I would guess it would be a Pauline writing though.

Quote:

In fact, the DATED Texts have reduced to rubble any argument for early Pauline writings.

And in addition there are MULTIPLE sources that are compatible to the DATED Texts which CLEARLY support the argument that the Canonised Pauline writings were composed AFTER the short gMark.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46#Date

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

4. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

5. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

6. http://newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

7. http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ian-latin.html

8. http://newadvent.org/fathers/101601.htm

aa5874 · 07-20-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I try to be clear on what points I agree with you on, what I accept and then I diverge from there. You are consistent in your handling of the evidence, you are consistent in your argument. I attempted to show, even given this, where I disagree with your use of the evidence, in that you are accepting a less likely proposition (that all Pauline manuscripts are dated too early and all gMark mss are misdated too late) than the more likely proposition that Paul's writings emerged before gMark. This is just based on palegraphic evidence, which, as you pointed out, is not the only way to look at this...

I am really getting tired of your mis-representaion of the dated recovered texts.

Again, manuscripts dated by Paleography are within a range of years. It is perfectly reasonable to use the range provided by Paleographers.

I am operating WITHIN the range of years as provided by my sources for my argument.

You on the other hand have AGREED to accept those who operate about 100 YEARS OUTSIDE the range of years provide by Paleographers.

This is completely unacceptable and is pathetic.

Please, it is of little consequence if the Pauline letters were composed c 150 CE and gMark at c 300 CE since those are the range of years provided by Paleographers.

There is NOTHING dated at all for Pauline writings around c 50-60 CE by Paleography or C 14. I no longer accept arguments for early Paul that are OUTSIDE the range of years provided by Paleography or C14.

Please, EXAMINE the dated recovered NT manuscripts.

You are in for a MASSIVE surprise.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts could have been written BEFORE the Pauline letters since they are dated sometime before or after c 250 CE. See P 45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I asked for your analysis of Pauline knowledge of gMark, but I'm stilll waiting (and interested).

Please, MY ARGUMENT is that the short gMark was written sometime in the 2nd century and BEFORE the Pauline letters dated by Paleography.

Even if the Pauline letters were composed 150 CE and gMark 300 CE, that would NOT help you at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You bring PRESUMPTIONS AND SPECULATION to the table by those who operate about 100 years away from the Hard evidence--about 100 YEARS away from actual recovered dated sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...I understand your position on this. Sometimes they make inferences from the data at hand, you believe that is speculation with no grounding and I don't entirely agree with that.

Please, don't even try that!!! There is ZERO DATA at hand to date the Pauline letters to 50-60 CE. The Pauline writings themselves do NOT mention any date of composition and the supposed contemporaries of Paul in Acts did NOT even state that Paul any letters to Churches.

Please, I know the DATA at hand!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Scholars' CONVENIENT Presumptions and assumptions cannot ever overturn the Hard Evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Scholars make inferences. Scientists make inferences.

Your statement is WHOLLY ambiguous. Please state the dated manuscripts that was employed by scholars to claim the Pauline writings were early and before gMark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, the actual DATED recovered Texts is the HARD Evidence. One cannot simply Ignore the Hard evidence merely to ASSUME their own dates.

Paleography is an ACCEPTED method of dating Ancient writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

But you don't accept the findings. You want to argue that the dating by experts is consistently wrong.

Please, you are attempting to confuse the matter. I am using the range of dates provided by Paleographers. Paleography is an ACCEPTED method of dating Ancient writings.

You have accepted the dates for the Pauline letters PULLED from the AIR by experts that are NOT even found in the NT itself.

Please, where did you get your early dates for the Pauline writings?? From Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertulian, Origen???

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, I expected that Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence and the actual recovered DATED Texts support my expectation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I suspect you are correct on this. I, too, expect no first century manuscripts to emerge and I think the claims made for the first century gMark will be debunked. IF a first century text ever was found, I would guess it would be a Pauline writing though...

1st century Texts have been already found but they do NOT mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Please, we have the DSS.

aa5874 · 07-21-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

... I think Doherty and Ehrman rely on the content in Paul's letters to date them to the mid-first century. I more or less agree with that contention, but acknowledge it is pretty tenuous.

This is the massive problem that I see in YOUR response. You acknowledge that Doherty's and Ehrman's reliance on the content of Paul's letter is pretty FLIMSY yet support them.

You have EXPOSED that you are NOT really interested in ACTUAL Dated evidence but in known FLIMSY opinion of so-called experts.

1. The Pauline letters have NO date of authorship.

2. The author of Acts wrote NOTHING of Pauline letters.

3. Paul is mentioned in the 2nd Epistle of Peter but Church writers claimed 2nd Peter is NOT authentic.

So, in the NT Canon we have NO dates at all for the Pauline letters and NO corroboration from sources WITHIN the Canon itself.

Why have so-called Experts ASSUMED Paul wrote letters between c 50-60 CE and have completely IGNORED the Hard Evidence??

The very so-called Experts who claim the Pauline writings have been MANIPULATED have INVENTED their OWN dates of authorship and made their inventions WITHOUT employing any corroboration.

This is UNACCEPTABLE an any level.

So-called Experts are writing books based on KNOWN and ACKNOWLEDGED guess-work.

The Pauline writer claimed he WAS LAST to SEE Jesus yet so-called Experts are writing books attempting to show Paul was First and are doing so WITHOUT a shred of support from any source in or outside the Bible.

In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH he PRESENTLY PREACHED.

There were ALREADY Churches in Christ BEFORE any Pauline letter was written.

There is NO documented Persecution of any Jesus cult of Christians and NO acknowledgment of any Jesus cult called Christians in the 1st century.

The Pauline writings are NO earlier than the 2nd century if the Pauline writer PERSECUTED the FAITH and also Preached it.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline letters BOTH orally and in WRITING based on the very letters.

Grog · 07-21-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I try to be clear on what points I agree with you on, what I accept and then I diverge from there. You are consistent in your handling of the evidence, you are consistent in your argument. I attempted to show, even given this, where I disagree with your use of the evidence, in that you are accepting a less likely proposition (that all Pauline manuscripts are dated too early and all gMark mss are misdated too late) than the more likely proposition that Paul's writings emerged before gMark. This is just based on palegraphic evidence, which, as you pointed out, is not the only way to look at this...

I am really getting tired of your mis-representaion of the dated recovered texts.

Again, manuscripts dated by Paleography are within a range of years. It is perfectly reasonable to use the range provided by Paleographers.

I am operating WITHIN the range of years as provided by my sources for my argument.

You on the other hand have AGREED to accept those who operate about 100 YEARS OUTSIDE the range of years provide by Paleographers.

This is completely unacceptable and is pathetic.

Please, it is of little consequence if the Pauline letters were composed c 150 CE and gMark at c 300 CE since those are the range of years provided by Paleographers.

There is NOTHING dated at all for Pauline writings around c 50-60 CE by Paleography or C 14. I no longer accept arguments for early Paul that are OUTSIDE the range of years provided by Paleography or C14.

Please, EXAMINE the dated recovered NT manuscripts.

You are in for a MASSIVE surprise.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts could have been written BEFORE the Pauline letters since they are dated sometime before or after c 250 CE. See P 45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Please, MY ARGUMENT is that the short gMark was written sometime in the 2nd century and BEFORE the Pauline letters dated by Paleography.

Even if the Pauline letters were composed 150 CE and gMark 300 CE, that would NOT help you at all.

Please, don't even try that!!! There is ZERO DATA at hand to date the Pauline letters to 50-60 CE. The Pauline writings themselves do NOT mention any date of composition and the supposed contemporaries of Paul in Acts did NOT even state that Paul any letters to Churches.

Please, I know the DATA at hand!!!

Your statement is WHOLLY ambiguous. Please state the dated manuscripts that was employed by scholars to claim the Pauline writings were early and before gMark.

Please, you are attempting to confuse the matter. I am using the range of dates provided by Paleographers. Paleography is an ACCEPTED method of dating Ancient writings.

You have accepted the dates for the Pauline letters PULLED from the AIR by experts that are NOT even found in the NT itself.

Please, where did you get your early dates for the Pauline writings?? From Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertulian, Origen???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I suspect you are correct on this. I, too, expect no first century manuscripts to emerge and I think the claims made for the first century gMark will be debunked. IF a first century text ever was found, I would guess it would be a Pauline writing though...

1st century Texts have been already found but they do NOT mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Please, we have the DSS.

aa, thanks for the dialogue. You have a lot to offer this discussion and I find your consistent adherence to hard data intriguing. I do hope others will pay attention to what you say as I think it keeps us all honest.

It is important that we find no Christian texts from the first century, including in collections from the first century with no mention, no Christian texts. The problem is that we do not have a reason to necessarily expect to find Christian texts or mentions in the DSS. Still, it is an opportunity to find something preserved and we do not. I share your skepticism about ever finding any first century Christian texts. I certainly don't think any existed beyond the possibility of Paul's writings existed prior to the early second century.

aa5874 · 07-21-2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

aa, thanks for the dialogue. You have a lot to offer this discussion and I find your consistent adherence to hard data intriguing. I do hope others will pay attention to what you say as I think it keeps us all honest...

Actually, I OFFERED what I found ALREADY WRITTEN so please acknowledge the SOURCES.

Please, I am NOT here to keep people honest--just to present the Actual dated recovered Texts and sources that are COMPATIBLE with them.

There are people who will ALWAYS be dishonest no matter what.

I find it quite remarkable that you ADMITTED you agree with people whose position is TENUOUS.

I wish people pay MORE attention to the WRITTEN STATEMENTS from antiquity than on KNOWN TENUOUS opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...It is important that we find no Christian texts from the first century, including in collections from the first century with no mention, no Christian texts. The problem is that we do not have a reason to necessarily expect to find Christian texts or mentions in the DSS. Still, it is an opportunity to find something preserved and we do not. I share your skepticism about ever finding any first century Christian texts. I certainly don't think any existed beyond the possibility of Paul's writings existed prior to the early second century.

Again, why do you PRESUME that there is no reason to expect to find Christian texts or mentions in Texts recovered from the 1st century???

Your statement is completely unreasonable.

In the NT, Jesus was the Prophesied MESSIAH, the One BORN to be King of the Jews, and Paul a Jew and Pharisee supposedly PREACHED of Jesus the Messianic Ruler, the Son of God who ABOLISHED Jewish LAW.

Surely, it MUST have been UNPRECEDENTED that a PHARISEE would go AROUND the Roman Empire and claim a DEAD Jew BORN of the Seed of David was LORD and Messiah and that EVERY KNEE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE should Bow to his name.

Josephus wrote about a MAD MAN named Jesus son of Ananus.

Josephus wrote about a leader of a band of Robbers named Jesus, son of Sapphias.

Josephus wrote about a High Priest named Jesus, son of Damneus.

Astonishingly, Josephus seemingly FORGOT to write about the Pauline Jesus, the Son of God, who ABOLISHED Jewish Laws.

Astonishingly, Josephus seemingly FORGOT to write about the Synoptic Jesus, who LIVED Galilee and PREDICTED the Fall of the Temple.

Before Josephus composed his last books--there should have been MORE BOOKS and letters about Jesus than probably any Emperor of the same time.

A Jewish Messiah is the SINGLE MOST EXPECTED Jew in antiquity.

We Expect Jews like Philo and Josephus to have written about Jesus the Messiah who abolished Jewish Laws.

We EXPECTED that Jesus the Messiah would have a HAD an IMPACT on the Jewish community.

The reason there is NO recovered Texts of Jesus, the disciples and Paul is because there were NO such characters.

The 1st century history of the Church was INVENTED with Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Duvduv · 07-21-2012, 07:39 PM

It is not the original writers who do the dating but contemporary scholars analyzing the fragments and scraps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And all traditional religious and secular academia assume that this set of letters (or at least the proverbial "authentic " ones) were written by someone called Paul as the anchor for first or second century assorted mythist or other sects underpinned by wild claims of apologist church historians. Neither allows fot the possibility that none of them were written by a Paul or paulists, but are merely creative composites from the Constantinian church.

You have identified YOUR problem. You have IGNORED the Hard Evidence like the traditional religious and secular academia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

The Hard Evidence is SCREAMING at everyone.

If Paleographers were manipulated by the Church then we would expect them to DATE the NT manuscripts to the 1st century.

Remarkably, some have even dated NT manuscripts to the 4th century but NOT to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The dated evidence suggest that the stories of Jesus did NOT originate from the 1st or 4th century.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2012, 03:33 PM	#61
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And all traditional religious and secular academia assume that this set of letters (or at least the proverbial "authentic " ones) were written by someone called Paul as the anchor for first or second century assorted mythist or other sects underpinned by wild claims of apologist church historians. Neither allows fot the possibility that none of them were written by a Paul or paulists, but are merely creative composites from the Constantinian church.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.