Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 03-02-2003, 03:04 PM

In his NT Brown has said that in "NT research some who first proposed that letters attributed to Paul were reqlly pseudonymous hinted that the purpose might be fraudulent, but that connotation has largely dissapeared from the discussion."

Yes, of course, but disappearing from the discussion simply means that people, because these are religious documents, do not like discussing in blunt terms what is being dealt with. The fact is that a later writer forged these epistles in Paul's name as a strategy to deal with the problems of his or her time.

malookiemaloo · 03-03-2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren
Okay, whenever I get into a discussion about Christianity with my roommate, the discussion ALWAYS ends up with him asking me, "What about the evidence in the Bible?"

He always talks about how it is one of the most reliable historical documents around, and so on, and we always get into long-winded discussions where neither of us end up knowing what we're talking about any more, and we don't get anywhere.

Is there anything I can say to his claim that the bible is evidence of the resurrection, something that can be summed up in several sentences that at the very least shows that the Bible is not good evidence for a resurrection.

What I'm basically asking for is a sound bite. Obviously there's no quick way to prove that the Bible is full of crap in 45 seconds, I'm just looking for something that will defend my position that I'm not stupid for thinking the bible isn't compelling evidence, without having to go back into another long-winded, pointless discussion.

Hello Xeren,

I see your question has resulted in a discussion on the reserrection.

Perhaps you may think it strange but as a Christian could I suggest you read a thesis by an agnostic called Jeffrey Jay Lowder? It is called the Historicity of Jesus's Resurrection. You will find it easily using a search engine.

The thesis is agnostic re the resurrection. Pro and anti resurrection arguments are analysed with extreme care. You are left to make up your own mind.

We would all love soundbites. I would like a few to demolish atheism. They don't exist I'm afraid!!

malookiemaloo
-xeren

Geoff Hudson · 03-03-2003, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
In his NT Brown has said that in "NT research some who first proposed that letters attributed to Paul were really pseudonymous hinted that the purpose might be fraudulent, but that connotation has largely dissapeared from the discussion."

Which connotation has disappeared, that they were fraudulent, or that they were pseudonymous, or both? Yet another Catholic waffler!

Geoff

CX · 03-03-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren
Is there anything I can say to his claim that the bible is evidence of the resurrection, something that can be summed up in several sentences that at the very least shows that the Bible is not good evidence for a resurrection.

There is probably nothing you can say. The biggest is that we cannot know what the texts of the NT even said prior to the 4th century when the orthodox church had established its hegemony. Consequently how can we rely on it for events purported to have taken place some 300 years earlier?

CX · 03-03-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff Hudson
Would anyone like to give some reasons for the above [i.e. that 2 Thess is pseudepigraphal]?

Geoff

Read, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings pp. 316-317 for the standard arguments.

Briefly:

1)Literary dependence on 1 Thess
2)Differing eschatology
3)Hapax Legomena

etc.

malookiemaloo · 03-03-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
There is probably nothing you can say. The biggest is that we cannot know what the texts of the NT even said prior to the 4th century when the orthodox church had established its hegemony. Consequently how can we rely on it for events purported to have taken place some 300 years earlier?

But if Jesus had not risen, would there be an orthodox or any other kind of church?

malookiemaloo

CX · 03-03-2003, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by malookiemaloo
But if Jesus had not risen, would there be an orthodox or any other kind of church?

malookiemaloo

If Mohammed was not truly Allah's prophet would there have been Islam? If Guatauma had not truly attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree would there be buddism? If Joseph Smith had not truly been dictated to by the angel Moroni would there be Jehovah's Witnesses?

Gooch's dad · 03-03-2003, 11:06 AM

Mormon's, CX. Joseph Smith's religion is the Mormons. But you know that

-Kelly

Greg2003 · 03-03-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
If Mohammed was not truly Allah's prophet would there have been Islam? If Guatauma had not truly attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree would there be buddism? If Joseph Smith had not truly been dictated to by the angel Moroni would there be Jehovah's Witnesses?

That's Mormons! MORMONS!

Please try to keep the crazy religious men straight!

CX · 03-03-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003
That's Mormons! MORMONS!

Please try to keep the crazy religious men straight!

I always get those two confused. Both flavors knock on my door periodically.

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

03-02-2003, 03:04 PM	#21
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	In his NT Brown has said that in "NT research some who first proposed that letters attributed to Paul were reqlly pseudonymous hinted that the purpose might be fraudulent, but that connotation has largely dissapeared from the discussion." Yes, of course, but disappearing from the discussion simply means that people, because these are religious documents, do not like discussing in blunt terms what is being dealt with. The fact is that a later writer forged these epistles in Paul's name as a strategy to deal with the problems of his or her time.

03-03-2003, 11:06 AM	#28
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	Mormon's, CX. Joseph Smith's religion is the Mormons. But you know that -Kelly

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.