Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-03-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

...Did you read the link? "Romans-Hebrews, P46, 200 A.D." and "Acts, P45, 250 A.D."...

You should know that Paleographic dating must be a RANGE of years and NOT a specific year. NO credible source will place P 46 to a single year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO known evidence from any non-aplogetic sources of antiquity that the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed in the 1st century and BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

No disagreement here. It's you and me against "the received consensus of biblical scholarship."...

I looked at the available written statements of antiquity. I do NOT review opinion. There may be billions of opnion with NO credible evidence or sources of antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

and before Acts of the Apostles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Except for the recognized and accepted dates of the earliest manuscripts. Subtract several decades equally from each one and you STILL have Paul's letters written prior to Acts....

You seem to have confused the dating of texts by Paleography and the LOGICAL deduction that Acts of the Apostles was written before the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The author of Acts did NOT ever claim Paul wrote any letters to Churches all over the Roman Empire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

..The author of Acts could have been ignorant of the letters.

Exactly, my argument. The author of Acts wrote BEFORE the Pauline letters were composed. His ignorance is compatible WITH the theory that Acts was written first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In fact, in Acts, it is claimed that it was JAMES who suggested that the JERUSALEM Church writer letters to be Hand delivered by Paul and his group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

The author of Paul's Epistles (the genuine ones) did NOT ever claim that James asked him to hand deliver the Jerusalem Church writer letters to his group....

I do NOT accept that the PRESUMPTION that there are authentic Pauline letters to the Churches. You cannot argue with me and then just PRESUME you are right about Paul.

I make NO presumptions with the UNRELIABLE Pauline sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, the most significant evidence that Acts was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Church can be found in the fact that ALL Apologetic sources that substantially mentioned the activities of Paul stated that he wrote Epistles EXCEPT the author of Acts....

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

....You have to remember, Paul ended up in house arrest Rome so he would have given copies of his letters to the church that was existing in Rome. And since he is on record of despising the the "super apostles" in J'lem why would he give THEM copies of his letters?...

You are asking me questions that you yourself cannot answer. Please answer your own questions.

I do NOT presume anything about UNRELIABLE Pauline sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

...Remember, this is the author who got his historic facts screwed up (Theudas, still in the future from the perspectives of Acts 5, put into the three-decade distant past?) so I'm not surprised he would be ignorant of Paul's letters. But why would Paul keep his letters from the author of Acts unless he had something to hide? :huh:...

You seem a bit confused. You keep asking me questions that you cannot answer yourself. I do NOT presume anything about Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

...Problem with internal evidence, all this, letters and Acts, could have all been made up.

We still have the EXTERNAL evidence: P45 and P46.

You don't seem to understand the difference between Paleographic dating of texts and LOGICAL deductions.

Paleographic dating gives a RANGE of years NOT a specific year and logical deductions are arrived at by the use information or data from sources.

The author of Acts claimed he traveled ALL over the Roman Empire with Paul but only claimed the Jerusalem Church wrote letters.

The Pauline letters are extremely significant writings and Canonised yet the author of Acts supposedly written AFTER they were composed wrote NOTHING of them or mentioned that Paul wrote a single letter.

Logically, Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters since virtually ALL other Apologetic sources that significantly mention Paul always claim he wrote Epistles to Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.

Quote:

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Not proven.

You asked questions that you did NOT answer and PRESUMED that there were Pauline writings that were authentic.

You have UTTERLY failed in your attempt to prove that Acts of the Apostles was AFTER the Pauline letters.

Presumptions and questions prove NOTHING.

la70119 · 02-03-2012, 07:31 PM

Forget it, I give up. Nothing can be proven. Period. :banghead:

All I know is, Justin Martyr, who never heard of Paul, any of the disciples/apostles staying in Jerusalem, the canonical gospels or Acts, mentioned Marcion in I Apology 26. Or did they redact that, too?

la70119 · 02-03-2012, 09:01 PM

@aa5874:

When the evidence is CERTAIN that Christianity was INVENTED sometime after 70 C.E., it is NOT POSSIBLE to establish, with any certainty, that the Pauline Epistles (all SIX of them) preceded the Book of Acts, OR VICE-VERSA.

You've said it was invented after 70 CE, yourself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the case of the character called Jesus, and the history of the Church there is an abundance of evidence to show that the ENTIRE Canon is NOT at all from the 1st century and that the character called Jesus, his disciples, including Paul were inventions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is ENOUGH Hard Facts that Paul, the Pauline writings, and Pauline Churches did NOT exist in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

We have NO credible source for the Bishops of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and Colosse. Most remarkably we have letters to Churches and NO credible sources for any names of Bishops of those Churches for at least 100 years after they were supposedly written.

In "Against Heresies" we hear of a Bishop called Clement of Rome of whom the Church cannot recall when he was Bishop. There is Total confusion in the chronology for the Bishops of Rome and for the SIX other Pauline Churches there are NO bishops named likewise for 100 YEARS after the Epistles were supposedly written.

There is NOTHING at all credible coming from a Pauline Church until 100 years after the Pauline letters.

The hard fact is that the the Jesus story is an INVENTION of the 2nd century and that apologetic sources did NOT account for the Pauline letters to the Churches even up to the mid 2nd century.

aa5874 · 02-03-2012, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Forget it, I give up. Nothing can be proven. Period. :banghead:

All I know is, Justin Martyr, who never heard of Paul, any of the disciples/apostles staying in Jerusalem, the canonical gospels or Acts, mentioned Marcion in I Apology 26. Or did they redact that, too?

So why are you arguing with me when your position is that Nothing can be proven?

You are contradicting yourself. Period.

Whatever you say about the Pauline writings cannot be proven at all based on your position.

Of course, I do differ. My position is that it is perfectly reasonable to establish the theory that Acts of the Apostles was written Before the Pauline letters based on the Extant evidence.

I don't give up that easily.

andrewcriddle · 02-04-2012, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montgomery Scott

I would like to know the mechanics of how a crucifixion was done.

Let's take a normal sized man. Lay him down on the cross.

Questions:

How big with the nails have to be?

Where would they be put on the hands? I would guess it would be the heel of the hand. What would keep the weight of the body to tear the muscles of the hand right off? Or if not, how much blood would come out?

What about the feet? Crossing them together would need a bigger nail. Can't really nail them seperately because there is only one piece of wood behind the foot. Possibly the vertical piece is much larger, round like logs.

I would think rope would be involved.

I would think that this would take a while for the person to die, which to me is fairly needless and could be much better dispatched as a beheading or something similar.

This seems a quite good article on Crucifixion

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver · 02-04-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montgomery Scott

I would think that this would take a while for the person to die

That's precisely why they did it. The whole point of crucifixion was to cause death very slowly and painfully.

aa5874 · 02-04-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montgomery Scott

I would think that this would take a while for the person to die

That's precisely why they did it. The whole point of crucifixion was to cause death very slowly and painfully.

Oddly enough, the author of gMark seems to have realized that his Jesus died too soon and claimed that Pilate was ASTONISHED that Jesus was already dead.

Mark 15:44 KJV

Quote:

And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead : and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.....

Isn't this just laughable!!!!

In gMark, Jesus claimed he would resurrect and one of followers asked for the "body" of Jesus BEFORE it was expected that he would have died.

Chili · 02-04-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Isn't this just laughable!!!!

In gMark, Jesus claimed he would resurrect and one of followers asked for the "body" of Jesus BEFORE it was expected that he would have died.

The tragedy of tragedies is to keep one eye asquint here now before the crucifixion, to show that 'one pig' remained and the house 'thus' was not swept clean, which here now is equal to Pilate placing guard before the tomb in Matthew.

la70119 · 02-06-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Forget it, I give up. Nothing can be proven. Period. :banghead:

All I know is, Justin Martyr, who never heard of Paul, any of the disciples/apostles staying in Jerusalem, the canonical gospels or Acts, mentioned Marcion in I Apology 26. Or did they redact that, too?

So why are you arguing with me when your position is that Nothing can be proven?

You are contradicting yourself. Period.

Whatever you say about the Pauline writings cannot be proven at all based on your position.

Of course, I do differ. My position is that it is perfectly reasonable to establish the theory that Acts of the Apostles was written Before the Pauline letters based on the Extant evidence.

I don't give up that easily.

Guess what i found!!!

In a CNN clip about ancient biblical texts hitting the road is one fragment from Romans ch. 9 & 10, dated to about 150 CE. Acts can't beat that!!! (It was written to Theophilus, no?)

CNN: Hobby Lobby Chief Shows off his Bibles

Chili · 02-06-2012, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Forget it, I give up. Nothing can be proven. Period. :banghead:

All I know is, Justin Martyr, who never heard of Paul, any of the disciples/apostles staying in Jerusalem, the canonical gospels or Acts, mentioned Marcion in I Apology 26. Or did they redact that, too?

So why are you arguing with me when your position is that Nothing can be proven?

You are contradicting yourself. Period.

Whatever you say about the Pauline writings cannot be proven at all based on your position.

Of course, I do differ. My position is that it is perfectly reasonable to establish the theory that Acts of the Apostles was written Before the Pauline letters based on the Extant evidence.

I don't give up that easily.

Guess what i found!!!

In a CNN clip about ancient biblical texts hitting the road is one fragment from Romans ch. 9 & 10, dated to about 150 CE. Acts can't beat that!!! (It was written to Theophilus, no?)

CNN: Hobby Lobby Chief Shows off his Bibles

Wow, the worm that never dies.

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

02-03-2012, 07:31 PM	#172
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	Forget it, I give up. Nothing can be proven. Period. :banghead: All I know is, Justin Martyr, who never heard of Paul, any of the disciples/apostles staying in Jerusalem, the canonical gospels or Acts, mentioned Marcion in I Apology 26. Or did they redact that, too?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.