stephan huller

That's how aa works. Little ability to synthesize information, poor reading comprehension, no imagination but absolute conviction in his conclusions. Since they treasure free speech at the forum if you want to stay you will have to:

1. put him on ignore
2. learn to filter out what he says and leave him off your ignore list
3. attempt neither (1) nor (2) but develop a fatalistic attitude when corresponding with him.

Attempting to communicate with him is like sending out the Voyager spacecraft. Maybe you might might contact. But it's very unlikely.

aa5874

You have no idea what you are talking about. I will not engage your idle speculation.

It is a fact, not an hypothesis, that the author of Acts wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus, and NOTHING of the Revealed Pauline Gospel.

Please read Acts First.

I have no time to deal with your "100 TALENTS" story.

My posts and position are based on ACTUAL statements from antiquity not speculation and possible explanations.

Even the name Paul is a late addition in Acts.

By the way, it completely fallacious TO STATE THAT I am saying there is no other possibility. I never said such a thing.

It is possible that the author of Acts did not write anything at all about Paul but wrote only of Saul. In effect, Acts of the Apostles may have been manipulated.

aa5874

You have already admitted that the New Testament is a forgery to prove primacy.

Examine an excerpt from one of your own post.

August 28, 2013,The New Testament is a compilation of massive forgeries and falsely attributed writings to prove primacy.

It is extremely easy to understand-- The massive forgery is the New Testament.

The body of the Church NEVER saw any of the sacred documents

Peter Kirby

Cool story, bro.

aa5874

I find your earlier post extremely disturbing. You give the impression that you do not tolerate any discussion or position that shows the Pauline Corpus are LATE forgeries.

The Pauline Corpus is completely uncorroborated by non-apologetic sources and is itself found to be corrupted and composed by multiple authors.

The origin of the Pauline Corpus is unattested in the very NT Canon.

The very writers of the Jesus cult did NOT know when Paul lived because they claimed he died under Nero but still was alive AFTER gLuke was already composed.

gLuke was composed AFTER Nero HIMSELF was dead.

Examine http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

It is stated gLuke was composed c 80-130 CE.

Examine Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1

Paul could have lived in the 2nd century.

It is utter nonsense--idle speculation--lack of knowledge of writings of antiquity-- to suppose that the Pauline Corpus must have been composed in the 1st century and before c 59-62.

Peter Kirby

I thought you had no time for it.

Jaybees

Comparing current court proceedings with the interpretation of millennia old fragments of events that may or may not have happened is, to put it very mildly, ludicrous.

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. The Courts actually deal with documents of any age once it is brought forward and applicable in the proceedings.

You appear to be completely unaware of the fact that the Courts are engaged in matters relating to forgery and fraud with respect to documents of any age.

You seem to have no idea that the Courts may provide you with compensation if you have been a victim of forgers.

Forgery of any document of any age is a crime and is punishable after Court proceedings.

Roger Pearse

I'm currently reading his "Forgery and counterforgery". It's a frustrating book because he will not give the evidence, the raw data, for whatever he is discussing. Instead he refers out to other authors, who perhaps (?) do; so all you get is his opinion on the topic. Basically it's impossible to read.

I'm reading a section at the moment on the question of whether the disciples of Greek philosophers did, or did not, ascribe their works to the master of their school. Ehrman simply won't give more than dribs or drabs of data. It's an interesting question; but I wouldn't recommend anyone to look in Ehrman for any kind of answer.

metacristi

It's a very good source in my view. Including on mythicism to a good extent (in fact the so called 'egregious mistakes' 'spotted' by some* are rather minor, very often inexistent; anyways they do not invalidate in any way the conclusion that the existence of a HJ, crucified by Pilate, is the best explanation we have at the moment).

Relevant to the problem of HJ, there is no mistake to talk of: baseless paralellomania, no good reasons at the moment to believe that the idea of a dying messiah existed among Jews in Palestine before the apparition of Christianity, 'people who claim that Paul talk of a celestial Jesus probably did not read his epistles' or that we can even doubt the existence of a general category of dying and rising gods.

He can be criticized no doubt for forgetting to mention that there is some controversy about the inferred sources Q,L,M..., that there are problems with the criterions of authenticity etc but the only major thing where I would not agree with him is that we have sufficient reasons to assume that 'Jesus almost certainly existed'.

Overall I find his approach persuasive, we can safely go beyond even the idea of a minimalist historicism of Jesus, openly accepted as being merely fallible knowledge (a second order attribute, assigned to the HJ, such as 'apocalyptic prophet' is fully rational, there may be others).


*by the way I found a close enough analogy to this situation in the case of Toby E Huff's book 'Intellectual curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective' where a certain reviewer (specialized in the history of mathematics) claim that Huff is 'incompetent' based on some minor technical mistakes which in no way invalidate his main argument that culture (religious worldviews included) played a major role in the apparition of Modernity. These (way too) vociferous guys just cannot see the forest for the trees, the critical approach is no mistake but it should have been definitely much more nuanced...