Jeffrey Gibson

Such as? Names, please.

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

Sorry Jeffrey. Perhaps you have not heard.
I never employ 'arguments from authority', appeals to 'authority figures' or their writings, nor drop 'Names' of 'authority figures'.
Doing so is a violation of my ethos.

And on the other side, any 'authority figure' 'Names' you may drop, or 'authority figure' you may quote, is not going to impress me. Even if its the Pope himself.


Sheshbazzar

spin

You're still a confused puppy, aren't you? When you make an assertion, such as the number of people who think something, you need to support it, not run around in circles as you are doing here (you can't justify your assertion because it would mean appealing to authority, as you are trying to tart up the need for quantifying your "quite a few" somehow) or trying to shift the burden as with the recently shut down thread.

The choice seems to either to support your assertion--as in some names that can be checked or a few citations indicating there are "quite a few persons"--or admit that you are talking horseshit. You seem to be showing a pattern of making these general empty assertions.

Sheshbazzar

You think that there are not 'quite a few persons that either don't need new glasses, ...or that are able to see just fine without wearing 'glasses' ?

Or that there are not quite a few persons that hold that 'Paul' wrote his epistles after the Gospels ?

I have reason to think that the number of people that think 'Paul' wrote after the Gospel's runs into the hundreds of millions, and that countless scholars who have devoted their lives to the study and the teaching of the NT have held that view.

If you want exact names and numbers, take a survey of how many people don't need or wear glasses, and a survey on the positions of Theology professors, and read all the articles and books that have ever been published, then come back with your names and numbers that prove there have not been "quite a few" of both.

Stating as a generality that there are "quite a few" is justified.


I am not the one that is talking horse shit now.

Toto

What is that reason? I have already cited you the consensus view that Paul wrote before 60 CE and the gospels were composed after that.

The scholars who go for a late date for Paul's epistles also seem to favor a late date for the gospels.

Where are those countless scholars?

spin

Everyone thinks they are right. Trying to shift the subject away from you is natural, but misguided, given that you refuse to support your assertion and throw up a smokescreen hoping to hide your deficiency. You are breaking the forum guidelines and adding more logical fallacies to your plate won't change that.

Jeffrey Gibson

What Spin or I think is irrelevant. The issue is the truth of your claim that there are.

Please remember this:

If not supporting you claims is your ethos, then you should not make claims such as [there is] "the very distinct possibility the the 'Pauline' writers did employ material drawn from Josephus' writings in their composition of the 'Pauline epistles'" or that "countless scholars who have devoted their lives to the study and the teaching of the NT have held [the] view [that] 'Paul' wrote after the Gospel's".

No, it's not -- not without providing evidence that your claim is true.

Um ... yes, you are.

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

You can say that again.
Exactly. And if it true, its just as true whether I post a list with a thousand 'Names' and a thousand sources, or not.
Doing so is NOT going to change the actual facts one way or the other.

Doing so does however, suffer from the defect of allowing men to make and 'support' arguments that are false, and all to often, willfully deceptive.

Presentation of an 'argument from authority' will not in the least alter the facts of a matter.
And any such argument presented will be biased to support the views of the one presenting it.
This is why I ethically refuse to cite authoritative 'names' or 'sources'.
Every person that does so presents 'authority' that furthers his own views.
I will NOT engage in this useless and inherently dishonest practice.
Yes, it is ....as the claim, if true, is true, remains true, whether evidence is provided or not. And the fact is self-evident to anyone who cares to investigate.

um ...no , I'm not.

Truth does not come into existence only when some 'authority figure' decides to write something supporting it.

And the number or prominence of the 'authority figures' writing or being 'Named' or being quoted in respect to the religion of Christianity prior to 100 CE, has absolutely NO relationship to whether what they are claiming is in fact, true.
Everything that they hold regarding 1st century Christianity is built upon speculations and the particular assumptions that they favor.

Anybody with a functioning brain can determine that 'quite a few' people believe quite a few different things.

Sheshbazzar

spin

All you are doing is fucking up all over the forum because you were caught with your pants down not adhering to the guidelines when you made your assertions and will not bite the bullet and admit that you were deliberately violating the rules. Instead of fixing your blunder you persist. As you will not stop the shameful performance, what else is there to do but call you for the performer you are?

You were incapable of supporting your claim about dating the Pauline texts. You didn't support your assertion regarding the "lie" that "was asserted that 'Paul' had received direct communications" (post #3). In the same post you asserted "The congregations in Judea already had, and had long been preaching 'the Gospel of 'Jesus', and upsetting the Jewish establishment", but still haven't supplied any evidence. You just keep going on and on spewing these assertions and when someone calls you on one you display your ballet skills ("primo uomo").

When you made assertions about numbers and was challenged to demonstrate your claim by giving examples, you refused to give any evidence to support your claim. This is a well-known phenomenon at this stage: Shesh talks bullshit and cannot support it but instead displays his ballet skills: "I'm not going to justify myself: what I say is obvious!" moving on to another logical fallacy. A functioning brain wouldn't succumb to such a public exhibition.

aa5874

There is NO real consensus that all the Pauline letters were composed before c 60 CE and you cannot provide a shred of evidence of antiquity that any Pauline letters were composed before c 60 CE.

A consensus cannot be a product of presumptions and guessing.

You very well know that the only source in the Canon to mention the activities of Paul did not claim anywhere that Paul wrote the Pastorals and Seven letters to Churches up c 58-62 CE or to the time Paul went to Rome in the time of Festus, procurator of Judea.

Now, Toto you have already admitted that early Pauline letters are based on Presumptions and Guessing due to lack of evidence.

Your posts are recorded. You yourself do not even agree with the early dating of the Pauline letters so I really do not know why you are arguing against those who also agree that the Pauline writings are late.