MrMacSon

You merely appeal to tradition, and tradition of authorities that have confirmation bias toward dogmatic teaching of a doctrine - these authorities are, and have been, mostly Christian apologists.

Of course this tradition is being challenged, with more nuanced evaluation and discussion than acceptance of doctrine.

Pls stop posting your dogma.

MrMacSon

Most of the links you post are apologetically inclined doctrine & dogma.

They are beyond second- & third- hand sources: they are nth hand sources. Let me explain:

A primary source is a source written or made during the time under study - in this case the early 1st century. There are none!!

A secondary source is based on a primary source; so, without a proper primary source there, by definition, are no secondary sources.

What we have for Christianity is simply narratives about narratives.


There is No 'historicity of biblical figures' - only perceptions of historicity through a constant tradition of persistent misrepresentation that the biblical figures are.

Yes, the positions challenging these misrepresentative traditions are currently fringe, but I'll bet my house they become more 'mainstream' as more academic historians apply the proper principles of the Historical Method, and proper 'source-attribution' (according to that Historical Method), to the early Christian information and texts.

Toto

Then why are you basing your argument on quotes from wikipedia?

outhouse

Because it is easy picking when in arguments. And it really does reflect the reality of the current state of scholarly consensus, in many areas.


Going through articles I have read trying to find key sentences is a pain just to have certain people throw it out anyway.

mountainman

Well stated Mac.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Clivedurdle

Why isn't authenticity of the entire New Testament an open question?

MrMacSon

I thought this was interesting too -
... itss interesting in light of the following proposition, in the conclusion cited above, that
It is possible the Pauline epistles are themselves a compilation of different theologies; different to the 3 synoptic gospels; and those two groups or texts - the Pauline collection and the 3 Synoptics - had origins different to the Gospel according to John.

The Gnosics/Apocryphal texts represent variations, or intermediate or merged beliefs, or even as fore-runners, that fell by the way-side.

They all have reflections of the Old Testament; the Septuagint or the Tanakh or both.

Adam

You radically oversimplify. I realize that you do not agree with me that the four gospels and Acts were written within 40 years of the Crucifixion, but scholars tend to agree (see Kirby,
Early Christian Writings ) that they contain sources within themselves that are first-generation, most notably the Passion Narrative and Q, and Kirby shows the Signs Gospel as possible as well, readily accepted by scholars as based on traditions that preceded the writing-down. To the extent that these books are compatible with these first two or three, they are primary as well. (By my count there are seven such early eyewitness primary sources, but I realize that no one here agrees with my count.)

outhouse

Unsubstatiated

And ridiculous. When I start posting Ben Witherington, you can make that claim.


Which doesnt change Pauls historicty at all

mountainman

Faith is a rock but it has nothing to do with the business of doing history.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia