aa5874

Your statement is most likely false. Please produce the names of all the New Testament Scholars, liberal, conservative, theist, atheist, and everything in between.

I asked for EVIDENCE you produce an UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION.

Please show that the unanimous conclusions of scholarship was NOT unsubstantiated or FAITH based.

Now, when I give you the Evidence you claim it is an OPINION.

Do you understand what EVIDENCE is?

Again, just read the NT Canon and Church writings and you will see the Evidence.

JESUS CHRIST in the NT was the offspring of the HOLY GHOST and Creator of Heaven and Earth. No such character ever lived on earth during the time of Pilate.

JESUS CHRIST was a story book character invented AFTER the Fall of the Temple and sometime after the JESUS CHRIST STORY was invented another writer claimed JESUS CHRIST sent the HOLY GHOST to the apostles and they began to speak in tongues.

It must be BLATANTANTLY OBVIOUS that anyone who mentioned the name JESUS CHRIST and talking in "tongues" lived after the invention of JESUS CHRIST and the talking in "tongues" storybook called Acts of the Apostles.

Pauline writers mentioned JESUS CHRIST and talking in "tongues" and admitted that they were NOT the FIRST to PREACH Christ.

You asked me for EVIDENCE but you are somehow immune from providing any Evidence. You regurgitate but your EVIDENCE is missing.

Now, tell me when does scholarship claim gLuke was written?

Well, after you find out just take a look at "Church History"3.4.8

Paul was still alive when gLuke had already been written. I have Evidence.

And Justin Martyr writing in the middle of the second century did not mention any writer called Luke, Saul or Paul. I have EVIDENCE.

Paul was a fraud. I have EVIDENCE.

Paul claimed he received his gospel from Jesus Christ before Jesus Christ the offspring of the Holy Ghost and Creator of heaven and earth was even invented.

It would appear that Paul did not know that the Jesus stories were not historical and were not written before the Fall of the Temple and became a victim of his own erroneous belief by writing stories that have turned out to be completely false.

Gundulf

aa5874,

I really have neither the time nor inclination to continue this conversation. I gave you links to the Wikipedia articles that discuss the scholarly consensus of Paul's life and the dating of his writings. I have the right to choose to agree with this consensus of scholarship, and need not defend my choice to do so.


Take a look at the Wikipedia entry Epistle to the Romans that discusses the date of the writing of the letter, and that discusses that most scholarly opinion dates it in the late 50s, with some minority of scholarship dating it to the early 50s.

Another page to look at, Pauline epistles, notes the following regarding scholarship of the Pauline epistles:

Authenticity of the epistles
Main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles.
Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)[3] considered genuine by most scholars (see main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles: section The undisputed epistles):

Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Ephesians
The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Colossians
Second Thessalonians



There is very little else to discuss. If you want to continue to discuss further, I humbly ask you to find a New Testament scholar to debate with you; I for one, on this topic, will yield to the consensus of NT Scholarship on this one.

aa5874

You cannot continue when you have no EXTERNAL EVIDENCE for any claims made by the Pauline writers.

You cannot produce a credible corroborative source for any of the Pauline writings. NONE.

I asked you for EVIDENCE you gave me your OPINION.

Gundulf

What you are basically asking me is to quit my job and become a New Testament Scholar. OK, if it makes you happy, I cannot provide such evidence myself. But again, you're not arguing against me, but against all of New Testament scholarship. There are far more worthy opponents than myself. I'm curious your evidence that all the New Testament scholarship is so utterly off base, but I fear you have not provided that either.

Fair enough. I concede. Goodbye! :wave:

aa5874

You do not have to quit your job to read "Church History" by Eusebius. You don't have to be a New Testament Scholar to show the EVIDENCE to support your claims.

And, of course I am arguing against you. You are the one who post here and make claims when you have NO EVIDENCE nor sources of antiquity to support you.

Neither the Pauline writers, the author of Acts of the Apostles and the Church writers claimed that "Paul" wrote his Epistles first.

The Church writers claimed gMatthew was written FIRST.

Please look at "Church History" 3.24.6 So according to Church writings, gMatthew was written very early and before gMark. And from the very source "Church History" there is a timeline for gMark.

"Church History" 2.16.1-2 So based on the Church writings gMatthew was written before gMark which was written while Philo of Alexandria lived. But Philo of Alexandria is claimed to have died around the middle of the first century.

We have a pattern that has developed, the Church writer has placed the writings of the Gospels far earlier than he should have.

And then the very same writer wrote in Church History 3.4.8 In revision, based on the Church writer, gMatthew was written before gMark which was written before Philo of Alexandria died at around c.50 CE and Paul was aware of gLuke.

Now the timeline given for the Synoptics are all wrong even based on scholarship, the Synoptics were written after the Fall of the Temple and gLuke is considered the last to be written.

Once Paul was aware of gLuke, then he was alive after the Fall of the Temple.

Now, Justin Martyr in all his extant writings up to the middle of the 2nd century, it would appear, was not aware of any Synoptic writers called Matthew, Mark or Luke and was not aware of any character called Saul or Paul, his Epistle to the Churches or that the Epistles were read in the churches.
"First Apology" LXVII Justin Martyr was aware of the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and Revelation by John and the very Memoirs were read in the churches on Sundays.

Now, it is clear that it is very likely that the Pauline writings were later than Justin Martyr.

Your concession is accepted but I had already anticipated that YOU would eventually RUN AWAY. And you are not alone.

I have Evidence, I am here to STAY.

Gundulf

The OT/dueterocanonical/pseudopigraphal books you mentioned are really off the topic of this thread - Pauline epistles are relevent since in those the topic of sacrificial/blood atonement is dated.

But the short answer, yes, I'm a theological/biblical conservative that takes Daniel at face value, have little concern over non-biblical books or claims therein, and disagree with pseudopigraphal authorship of NT books. And the gospel writers are using historical material to present sermons aimed at making people believe that Jesus is worthy of worship, they are hardly "objective" biography or journalism. But none of those are at issue at present - The epistles of (those, at least, that everyone, practically, agrees were written by Paul in the mid to late 1st century) do certainly deal with the blood sacrifice - and I know of no scholarship which dates these (agreed genuine) epistles to after the gospels.

Point remains, the concept of the blood sacrifice was around well before the gospels were penned.

aa5874

But, you are not providing any EVIDENCE for claim that the Pauline writings were before the Gospels you are simply appealing to authority or giving your opinion.

And the sacrifice of a man to God was not accepted by Jews. The supposed first believers were Jews, and Paul claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews.

Even in the writing of Minucius Felix, this writer called the sacrifice of a man to a God equal to murder.

"Octavius" 30 The sacrifice of a man to a God for salvation was a LATE INVENTION as found in gJohn but not found in the Synoptics.

You won't find these sacrificial words in the Synoptics only in the later Gospel of John.

Joh 3:16 -