Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Årçhai · 02-27-2008, 10:59 PM

I think it's fairly comparable to someone entering a discussion here over the evolutionary process and expounding upon the 'theory' of Lamarckism. It's just incredible, in the sense that it's so wrong it's beyond reason why anyone would believe it. . .

schilling.klaus · 02-27-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Årçhai

. Unless we get into people like Tom Harpur, movies like Zeitgeist and Gnosticism.

Harpur's approach is a correct one,
and there's no need to respect those fraudulent hucksters who deny that mystery and gnosis is the very origin of Christianity.

Klaus Schilling

Toto · 02-27-2008, 11:07 PM

Årçhai (Christian Hedonist?): may I suggest that you do a little bit more research before you say that "There is a pre-70 Jerusalem community by extension, which then gives high probability to first-century canonical Gospels. There's really no reason to think otherwise."

There are in fact many reasons to think otherwise, if you check out the threads on the difficulty of dating Paul's letters.

Årçhai · 02-27-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Årçhai (Christian Hedonist?): may I suggest that you do a little bit more research before you say that "There is a pre-70 Jerusalem community by extension, which then gives high probability to first-century canonical Gospels. There's really no reason to think otherwise."

There are in fact many reasons to think otherwise, if you check out the threads on the difficulty of dating Paul's letters.

Yes, Christian Hedonist. How would I define pleasure?
Pleasure, as I would define it, is found in Luke 10:27.

In any case. . . Between the 'Did God Rape Mary' and 'Mithras Quotes' threads, I wasn't able to see one on the dating of Paul's Letters.

I'm sure they're interesting, but there's no getting around that there are 6-8 letters which everyone agrees were written by Paul. I'll initially reference Dr. Gary Habermas, for that information.

Toto · 02-27-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Årçhai

,,,.

I'm sure they're interesting, but there's no getting around that there are 6-8 letters which everyone agrees were written by Paul. I'll initially reference Dr. Gary Habermas, for that information.

As I said in the other thread, Habermas is a crank He claims to believe in the supernatural. If you are going to argue from authority, you'll have to find a better one.

spin · 02-27-2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Årçhai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't mean to pull anyone's chain here, but... am I alone in finding that this forum is becoming increasingly dominated by marginal theories?

Well, I'm new here. . . Took a look through this forum and have to agree. What is going on? If I wanted to read G.A. Wells, then I'd go buy his books. . . Either that or I'd surround myself with Dan Browne.

I don't subscribe to the JM position, but your trivialization of the issue merely says you need to adjust your balancemeter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Årçhai

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

'stupid crap' characterises everything that those propagate who believe in first-century canonical gospels, a pre-70 Jerusalem community, authentic Paulines, authentic Clement and Ignatians, and other hilarious frauds.

Clement and Ignatius aren't as important as Paul (who is authentic, and even atheistic NT scholars agree on that; at least, between 6-8 of his books). Which it turns out. . . There is a pre-70 Jerusalem community by extension, which then gives high probability to first-century canonical Gospels. There's really no reason to think otherwise. . . Unless we get into people like Tom Harpur, movies like Zeitgeist and Gnosticism.

Again I don't subscribe to schilling.klaus's views, which beside the rhetoric does have more to it than you seem to be aware, but your potted approach appears to have missed out on the discussions we've had on the subjects you breeze over. Given that there is no substantive means of dating any of the new testament literature -- and you need to read the archives if you wish to disagree -- along with the total lack of archaeological support for the central issues of those texts, one has to attempt to estabish a terminus ad quem for the documents in order to start to say something meaningful about these texts, for without a historical context one cannot know what the texts or the traditions they contain mean.

spin

Årçhai · 02-27-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Again I don't subscribe to schilling.klaus's views, which beside the rhetoric does have more to it than you seem to be aware, but your potted approach appears to have missed out on the discussions we've had on the subjects you breeze over. Given that there is no substantive means of dating any of the new testament literature -- and you need to read the archives if you wish to disagree -- along with the total lack of archaeological support for the central issues of those texts, one has to attempt to estabish a terminus ad quem for the documents in order to start to say something meaningful about these texts, for without a historical context one cannot know what the texts or the traditions they contain mean.

The subjects I 'breeze over' are those subjects which I was not part of the original discussion. Nor do I at the moment have time to dig through archives; apologies for being impatient.

And so you've peaked my interest. Pray tell; I seem to find dates for almost every New Testament book (within a few decades)--how did we come by these dates?

Ted Hoffman · 02-28-2008, 12:06 AM

Vork and Doherty have fled? What a silly notion.

dog-on · 02-28-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Årçhai

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Again I don't subscribe to schilling.klaus's views, which beside the rhetoric does have more to it than you seem to be aware, but your potted approach appears to have missed out on the discussions we've had on the subjects you breeze over. Given that there is no substantive means of dating any of the new testament literature -- and you need to read the archives if you wish to disagree -- along with the total lack of archaeological support for the central issues of those texts, one has to attempt to estabish a terminus ad quem for the documents in order to start to say something meaningful about these texts, for without a historical context one cannot know what the texts or the traditions they contain mean.

The subjects I 'breeze over' are those subjects which I was not part of the original discussion. Nor do I at the moment have time to dig through archives; apologies for being impatient.

And so you've peaked my interest. Pray tell; I seem to find dates for almost every New Testament book (within a few decades)--how did we come by these dates?

Someone made them up...

Now...on with the show...

spin · 02-28-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Årçhai

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Again I don't subscribe to schilling.klaus's views, which beside the rhetoric does have more to it than you seem to be aware, but your potted approach appears to have missed out on the discussions we've had on the subjects you breeze over. Given that there is no substantive means of dating any of the new testament literature -- and you need to read the archives if you wish to disagree -- along with the total lack of archaeological support for the central issues of those texts, one has to attempt to estabish a terminus ad quem for the documents in order to start to say something meaningful about these texts, for without a historical context one cannot know what the texts or the traditions they contain mean.

The subjects I 'breeze over' are those subjects which I was not part of the original discussion. Nor do I at the moment have time to dig through archives; apologies for being impatient.

And so you've peaked my interest. Pray tell; I seem to find dates for almost every New Testament book (within a few decades)--how did we come by these dates?

Wishful thinking. Try this post on dating.

spin

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

02-27-2008, 10:59 PM	#51
Årçhai Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 33	I think it's fairly comparable to someone entering a discussion here over the evolutionary process and expounding upon the 'theory' of Lamarckism. It's just incredible, in the sense that it's so wrong it's beyond reason why anyone would believe it. . .

02-27-2008, 11:07 PM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Årçhai (Christian Hedonist?): may I suggest that you do a little bit more research before you say that "There is a pre-70 Jerusalem community by extension, which then gives high probability to first-century canonical Gospels. There's really no reason to think otherwise." There are in fact many reasons to think otherwise, if you check out the threads on the difficulty of dating Paul's letters.

02-28-2008, 12:06 AM	#58
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Vork and Doherty have fled? What a silly notion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.