Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-03-2009, 09:54 PM | #201 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
One test to determine if it really is later rather than earlier, would be to look for anachronisms. If they exist, then the weight of evidence favors a later dating. If there are none, ...well, this argues for an earlier date, since a later writer who writes a large enough volume is expected to inadvertently introduce some. Another way to determine if it really is an earlier dating, is too find where other sources have referred to the writings by name. (correlation in text doesn't work well, since a later fraud pretending to be from an earlier period would be expected to be constructed from known historical sources). Using the projections Stark came up with (see The Rise of Christianity, Table 1.1), in the mid first century Christians represented about 0.002% of the population....arguably, much too small to have garnered official attention. This throws into serious doubt some of the persecution ideas found in several of the 'authentic epistles (Romans, 1 Cor., 2. Cor, Gal, Thes.). This comes across to me as anachronistic. Detering has argued this is an anachronism for a totally different reason - namely - that it is not mentioned prior to Nero. So we have two independent approaches arriving at the same conclusion - strong stuff. Detering has also argued that the idea of Israel's repudiation in Romans (generally considered authentic), is anachronistic putting a no earlier than date of 135 on that text. There are several other argued anachronisms within the 'genuine' Pauline epistles. Ok, so we have some strong evidnece that at least portions of the 'genuine' epistles come from a later time period. We also know that ~half the epistles are later fakes. What then is the argument for an earlier dating? Establishing an early date is critical to establishing that a mid-1st century Paul is the real author. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
05-03-2009, 10:30 PM | #202 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
It is obvious that the letters with the name Paul virtually has no significance with respect to dating since so-called early christian writers were making references to passages that were supposedly made by Paul when now it has been found not to be the case. Ignatus, said to have died between 98-117 CE, made references to passages that appear in Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy and others, not seeming to know that these letters were not from Paul. It is inconceivable that within a church structure that the writings of Paul could have been already, and so easily, manipulated within the church itself in such a short time. And further all subsequent church writers continue with the manipulated letters even though writers like Clement was in the church before Paul and Peter died. Quote:
Perhaps you think that whatever scholars accept must be accepted without confirmation or evidence. Quote:
Quote:
If the all church writers got the writings of Paul wrong, I would be totally amazed if they got Marcion's right. The church writers got their chronology all screwed up you know. Don't tell me about the Apostolikon, tell me about 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thesalonians, Matthew, Mark, Luke John, 2 Peter, James and Jude. The church writers are not credible. They were wrong about the writings of the NT, I expect them to be wrong about Marcion. |
||||
05-04-2009, 06:43 AM | #203 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
|
05-04-2009, 08:06 AM | #204 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
I see you have changed your argument to become more defensible... very good. Of course Paul was familiar with the gospel stories... but not with the written Gospels themselves. I am glad we agree on this. I also appreciate you pointing out how consistent I have been... too bad I will not return the observation. I will not and can not prove ANYTHING to you. Proof is not something someone else can force upon you. |
|
05-04-2009, 08:09 AM | #205 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
|
05-04-2009, 08:31 AM | #206 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
|
Is this "secret evidence"? Do you think Paul's messages about Jesus and The Christ have NOTHING to do what the disciples were spreading throughout the Jewish communities? Do you think references to The Last Supper (1 Corinthians) are merely coincidences?
|
05-04-2009, 08:34 AM | #207 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
Quote:
Not secret at all. As a matter of fact, the evidence is plain as day. Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have for any type of Christianity, or Disciples for that matter, do you have showing any activities in 1st century Jewish communities? |
|
05-04-2009, 08:44 AM | #208 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
There are "other" christian churches, you know... the Coptics, Gnostics, Ebionites,The Yawhists... How did these non-roman, non-hellenistic churches get started if it was all a Roman Catholic Conspiracy? |
||
05-04-2009, 08:46 AM | #209 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-04-2009, 08:48 AM | #210 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|