Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 09-11-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
[QB]

Paul even solicits donations for people in Jerusalem, and informs us that the Christian leaders compromised their beliefs 'to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ'.

The reason Paul was soliciting contributions for the church in Jerusalem is because it was so pathetically poor.

And the fact that "some" leaders (what cite?) compromised their beliefs is validation of the fact that there was significant persecution.

Quote:

So early Christians avoided persecution and got money.

Are you really this simplistic? Or do you just reserve it for this topic?

Some early Christians were persecuted and did not change their beliefs. Some were persecuted and modified their belief (some becoming more Jewish, or abandoning fellowship with Gentile believers). Some were persecuted and abandonded their faith.

And most Christians in the first church were apparently rather poor. And those who did have money were known for generously sharing it with the rest of the church. Paul's collection for "the poor" in Jerusalem shows the generousity of most Christians (rather than their greed) and also the desperate need of the first church.

MortalWombat · 09-11-2002, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Have you noticed perhaps the links I've provided to my former direct attack on Doherty's dating of Acts?

....

Quote:

Well, although you tried not to, you have answered my question. The answer is NO, you did not read my discussion of Doherty's dating of Acts, because I'm perfectly aware that it's based almost entirely on John Knox's theory. Indeed, most of my posts were directly attacking the "Knox Theory."

And you might also have noticed (but apparently did not) that I've cited J.C. O'Neill as well. Although O'Neil dates act to the early second-century, he attacks Knox's dating of Acts to the early second-century and his reconstruction of the Marcionite controversey.

I didn't read the links on your "former direct attack on Doherty's dating of Acts" because I was not aware of where they are located, because:

1) I can't read your mind as to which exact link you are referring to, and

2) I don't read every single post you write and keep track of their contents (sorry to burst your bubble).

Had you been more specific, I would have read them. However, I was addressing the tone of your post which, to the average reader, would appear that Doherty was somehow alone in his late dating of Acts, which isn't the case.

Radorth · 09-11-2002, 07:20 AM

Quote:

I should add that the apostles were so greedy in Acts 5 for example that Peter could not even allow Ananias to keep a part of the money he got after selling his own piece of land. The apostles wanted EVERYTHING. They ruthlessly milked people CLEAN and DRY.

LOL!!! I see. So this incredible story is now taken as fact even though Acts was written in 150 CE. And when Peter said "it was yours do do with as you would," it was just another lie to cover up the Greatest Conspiracy in History. The Peter did what? Knife him?

Criminy

Radorth

Radorth · 09-11-2002, 07:40 AM

I trust the Jesus-mythers realize that Doherty has now precluded any use of non-Pauline internal NT evidence to make their case? He has effectively rebuffed, if not vaporized, 90% of their previous arguments.

Radorth

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth · 09-11-2002, 08:02 AM

Steven

Quote:

Paul complains about people peddling the word of God for money. So there was money in it. We know that.

And these early peddlers came to nothing as far as we know. Too bad Paul didn't mention Peter or another apostle/disciple gone south. Do you have any evidence beyond innuendo or by extension backwards from later charlatans?

Radorth

MortalWombat · 09-11-2002, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
I trust the Jesus-mythers realize that Doherty has now precluded any use of non-Pauline internal NT evidence to make their case? He has effectively rebuffed, if not vaporized, 90% of their previous arguments.

Huh? What the hell does that first sentence even mean?

Radorth · 09-11-2002, 09:21 AM

Huh? yourself, Mortal.

How can you or your fellow believers now take as a true premise any verse in Acts, the Gospels, Peter II etc, if ED has "proved' them mere inventions?

You are now logically forced to refer only to the Pauline epistles, no?

Christians will thank Earl one day.

Radorth

Layman · 09-11-2002, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat:


I didn't read the links on your "former direct attack on Doherty's dating of Acts" because I was not aware of where they are located, because:

1) I can't read your mind as to which exact link you are referring to, and

2) I don't read every single post you write and keep track of their contents (sorry to burst your bubble).

Had you been more specific, I would have read them. However, I was addressing the tone of your post which, to the average reader, would appear that Doherty was somehow alone in his late dating of Acts, which isn't the case.

Ah. You can't read my mind but you do know from my "tone" exactly what I'm thinking -- even though I wrote no such thing. I NEVER said Doherty was the only one claiming that Acts was a second-century date. If you tried debating what I actually post instead of what you think my tone indicates, you might have more success.

I've posted the links to the Acts arguments on various threads and am tired of doing so.

MortalWombat · 09-11-2002, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


I've posted the links to the Acts arguments on various threads and am tired of doing so.

OK, fine. But then don't complain when people don't feel like doing your homework for you when you say you posted something earlier.

Ted Hoffman · 09-11-2002, 10:08 AM

Layman,
I have noticed you have become very obnoxious and insulting of late:

...you are simply to ignorant to hold an opinion on the matter of its validity

his response to Toto recently:

And for you to accuse others of not making an argument is another example of Toto silliness. Most of your posts are nothing more than references to books on amazon.com

What is this?

Listen Layman, if you find your only appropriate response to me will be insults, its okay. I will stop responding directly to you in future.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

09-11-2002, 07:40 AM	#84
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	I trust the Jesus-mythers realize that Doherty has now precluded any use of non-Pauline internal NT evidence to make their case? He has effectively rebuffed, if not vaporized, 90% of their previous arguments. Radorth [ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

09-11-2002, 10:08 AM	#90
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Layman, I have noticed you have become very obnoxious and insulting of late: ...you are simply to ignorant to hold an opinion on the matter of its validity his response to Toto recently: And for you to accuse others of not making an argument is another example of Toto silliness. Most of your posts are nothing more than references to books on amazon.com What is this? Listen Layman, if you find your only appropriate response to me will be insults, its okay. I will stop responding directly to you in future. [ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

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

09-11-2002, 09:21 AM	#87
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Huh? yourself, Mortal. How can you or your fellow believers now take as a true premise any verse in Acts, the Gospels, Peter II etc, if ED has "proved' them mere inventions? You are now logically forced to refer only to the Pauline epistles, no? Christians will thank Earl one day. Radorth

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.