• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paul..fake liar or apostle?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Otherright said:
I was under the impression that the first Christian writings are dated to 47AD with Thessalonians. What predates Thessalonians?
Click to expand...

You got it. Nothing does.

I've read my statement a couple of times, and I honestly don't see how I said that anything did pre-date it. :shrug:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
Why do you suppose the Logical and Meticulous Romans wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60 A.D. era Jews and "Christians"? I'd think it would be a bit unscholarly to assume they were too lazy to see any differences.
Click to expand...

Nope. Think about it carefully: is it logical to assume that a few Roman writers knew more about Judaism than the Jews themselves?

But every scholar and their puppy dog knows that the Romans couldn't tell the difference between Christians and Jews. That's not a matter of debate.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
angellous_evangellous said:
Nope. Think about it carefully: is it logical to assume that a few Roman writers knew more about Judaism than the Jews themselves?

But every scholar and their puppy dog knows that the Romans couldn't tell the difference between Christians and Jews. That's not a matter of debate.
Click to expand...

If the 60 A.D. Christians didn't observe the Torah, the Romans would have noticed the difference. The Temple Tax was a big thing.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
Got a link to a source that discusses the reason why that date is given exactly? And why Baur was wrong?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that scholars haven't improved on Baur?

No, I'm not doing your homework for you.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
angellous_evangellous said:
Do you honestly think that scholars haven't improved on Baur?

No, I'm not doing your homework for you.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a debate question, if you don't answer, you don't answer.

I don't see what the scholars have improved on exactly regarding his thesis, or what evidence disproves him. You can't just brush people off like that, you would think a PH.D. student would know...but then again....
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
Well, it's a debate question, if you don't answer, you don't answer.

I don't see what the scholars have improved on exactly regarding his thesis, or what evidence disproves him. You can't just brush people off like that, you would think a PH.D. student would know...but then again....
Click to expand...

Again, misinterpret your sources. I see you're just as reckless *repeatedly* with me as you are with everything other source that you abuse.

Just because I choose not to address an off-topic, useless, elementary question does not mean that I don't know the answer.

Considering your inability to read and interpret responsibly, I see no reason to go into more detail than needed because it will be subject to your heroic carelessness.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
angellous_evangellous said:
Again, misinterpret your sources. I see you're just as reckless *repeatedly* with me as you are with everything other source that you abuse.

Just because I choose not to address an off-topic, useless, elementary question does not mean that I don't know the answer.

Considering your inability to read and interpret responsibly, I see no reason to go into more detail than needed because it will be subject to your heroic carelessness.
Click to expand...

Again, you make accusations without getting into the details or specifics, if that's the impression you wish to leave with the reader, by all means.

You accuse me of "abusing sources", please explain how. In detail.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
Again, you make accusations without getting into the details or specifics, if that's the impression you wish to leave with the reader, by all means.
Click to expand...

It's not an accusation but a plain observation of the facts.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
That's your choice if you refuse to discuss the specifics and make accusations with no substance, the reader can decide whether you've backed your claims or not.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a little thing called a double standard?

You're pretending that I am subject to a higher standard of proof than you are -- when you made the original claim.

Newsflash: you have provided no evidence other than your own fantasies.

I am under no obligation to discuss anything that I find a waste of my time and yours.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
sojourner said:
Most scholarship I've seen points to a date post-70.
Click to expand...

Every time I see 55CE for Mark, I cringe a little. That date just seems impossibly early, and I don't know why they chose 55CE instead of 56 or 62 or whatever.

But in my mind, it's the most popular view. In fact, I don't think that I've ever seen a date after 70CE for Mark - unless I've forgotten...

I don't have the ABD or Udo Schnelle on hand - do you know what they say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top