Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How can we know that God is?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post

    Yes He did but it wasn't a contradiction. Because it wasn't a brother or sister He was speaking to, and He had good cause.

    But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
    You know I had to look it up! This, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/raca/.


    RACA

    ra'-ka, ra-ka'> (rhaka, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek with Codices Sinaiticus (corrected), Vaticanus, Codex E, etc.; rhacha, Tischendorf with Codices Sinaiticus (original hand) and Bezae; Aramaic reqa', from req, "empty"):

    Vain or worthless fellow; a term of contempt used by the Jews in the time of Christ. In the Bible, it occurs in Matthew 5:22 only, but John Lightfoot gives a number of instances of the use of the word by Jewish writers (Hot. Hebrew., edition by Gandell, Oxford, 1859, II, 108). Chrysostom (who was acquainted with Syriac as spoken in the neighborhood of Antioch) says it was equivalent to the Greek su, "thou," used contemptuously instead of a man's name. Jerome rendered it inanis aut vacuus absque cerebro. It is generally explained as expressing contempt for a man's intellectual capacity (= "you simpleton!"), while more (translated "thou fool"), in the same verse is taken to refer to a man's moral and religious character (= "you rascal!" "you impious fellow!"). Thus we have three stages of anger, with three corresponding grades of punishment:

    (1) the inner feeling of anger (orgizomenos), to be punished by the local or provincial court (te krisei, "the judgment");

    (2) anger breaking forth into an expression of scorn (Raca), to be punished by the Sanhedrin (to sunedrio, "the council");

    (3) anger culminating in abusive and defamatory language (More), to be punished by the fire of Gehenna.

    This view, of a double climax, which has been held by foremost English and Gor. commentators, seems to give the passage symmetry and gradation. But it is rejected among others by T. K. Cheyne, who, following J. P. Peters, rearranges the text by transferring the clause "and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council" to the end of the preceding verse (Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, cols. 4001 f). There certainly does not seem to be trustworthy external evidence to prove that the terms "the judgment," "the council," "the Gehenna of fire" stand to each other in a relation of gradation, as lower and higher legal courts, or would be so understood by Christ's hearers. What is beyond dispute is that Christ condemns the use of disparaging and insulting epithets as a supreme offense against the law of humanity, which belongs to the same category as murder itself. It should be added, however, that it is the underlying feeling and not the verbal expression as such that constitutes the sin. Hence, our Lord can, without any real inconsistency, address two of His followers as "foolish men" (Luke 24:25, anoetoi, practically equivalent to Raca, as is also James's expression, "O vain man," James 2:20).

    D. Miall Edwards


    What this guy is saying is that it's one thing to call someone an idiot (raca) and something else to impugn his "moral and religious character". This suggests that "raca" is nearer to "fool" than the word that is translated "fool" in the last part of the quotation. That way, it makes sense for the last part to be separate from the first, and also to be a general prohibition. The word "but" preceding it also suggests that it should be contrasted with the first part.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Correction. That is the near unanimous scholarly consensus.
      That is a meaningless statement without the provision of endorsements from dozens and dozens of academics.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Paul appears to be citing the interpretation that was common among Christians -- one that Jesus Himself promoted

      Scripture Verse: Luke 22:37

      For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

      © Copyright Original Source



      Isaiah 53 is either quoted or alluded to 85 separate times in various New Testament writings -- including those not influenced by Paul such as John's Gospel.
      You forget. The gospels were written after Paul's epistles. We do not know what was "common among Christians" in the late 30s and early 40s CE. No one left us an attested historical record.

      The closest in thinking might have been the Ebionites but they were declared heretic by early Christians.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Your declaring it so clearly does not make it so. In fact, you appear to represent a minority of one on this.
      I have merely noted that without any attested historical evidence of this creed, all such comments are speculative.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      And this is utter poppycock for which there is not a scintilla of supporting evidence.
      That is where some academic thinking disagrees with you.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Paul was not "in the process of establishing his own new cult" as you so often fantasize. Paul wasn't founding anything. There is, after all, a reason it is called Christianity and not Paulianity.
      Then to what was Paul converting?

      Jesus lived and died an observant Jew . He founded no new religion.
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      The Jews in the congregation there (I Corinthians 7:18-19) could have clued in anyone else who was interested.
      It does not automatically follow that there were Jews in the audience. In that text Paul referring to circumcision in general. Circumcision at this period was not solely the preserve of Jews and Samaritans. The first century surgeon Aurelius Cornelius Celsus was offering de-circumcision surgery which leads one to wonder if he was offering a service solely to Jews and Samaritans..

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      In fact, it was at Corinth that Paul met Priscilla and Aquila, the Jewish couple that had been expelled from Rome.
      Do they prove an overwhelmingly Jewish presence among his proselytes?

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      I'll do you a favor and skip over this nonsense rather than use it to spotlight your abysmal level of ignorance that you arrogantly mistaken for being clever.
      I ask again to what religion was Paul being converted?

      Or are you alleging Jesus was a Christian?

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

      Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:16-20

      Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

      © Copyright Original Source



      And it isn't just Matthew. Luke also has Jesus sending the disciples forth to teach and convert (9:2; chpt. 10), and while the first one they were told to preach in Galilee, avoiding Gentile areas and Samaria, but the second one has no such restrictions, opening the way to "make disciples of all nations."
      These texts are composed after Paul's writings. As for the additional instruction regarding all nations, that cannot be ruled out as a later interpolation.

      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alien View Post

        It would depend on what you mean by prophesy, I guess. Prediction based on current knowledge and probability is obviously possible and there is no need to debate that. What I have always considered to the "prophesy" in the Biblical sense, and yes I know that lots of so called prophesies were intended to be warnings of the type "if you carry on like this, something bad will happen", is where something is predicted in detail and comes true in detail where the likelihood of other explanations is very low.

        My problem with that kind of prophesy, though I suppose one can always claim that God can do anything, is logical. One problem is that the prophesy becomes part of how the future plays out. If you make a prediction and put it in a sealed envelope, leaving it with someone who will verify that you didn't tamper with it later, and then when the event happens open the envelope, that would be good evidence for successful prediction. However, if you announce your prophesy to all in advance, it's a different matter.
        Another logical problem is that it implies a fixed future (which has been discussed her ad nauseam).
        Prophecies concerning the future are by no means the most likely to be made known, though they do tend to be the most memorable and remarkable. Scant few (if any at all) prophecies for the future are locked: they are conditional - in much the same way that the example you gave, though often more nuanced. Nor could a prophecy for the future rightly be termed a forecast if God makes known his own intention to act in a given way. That is just a matter of passing on information about God's decision.

        Prophecy SEEMS to be MOST COMMONLY a matter of being informed of what is happening in the hidden corners kind of deal.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          You are wrong about Luther (no surprise)
          Quoting somebody's opinion about Luther doesn't prove me wrong.

          Here's one different opinion

          "... Luther’s understanding of biblical inerrancy, like his predecessors ... grew from his belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture."
          https://fromthestudy.com/2014/10/27/...in-and-luther/

          Seer, you're grasping at straws. There's no doubt that Luther was the catalyst to undermine the pope's authority and the lynchpin of the Protestant Reformation, and also was responsible for opening the floodgate of creating more and more Christian denominations, which now numbers around 45,000.




          Comment


          • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post

            LOL, you just contradicted yourself. In post 237, you wrote "You are not my brother", implying that brother was understood in the biblical reference I used -the part that doesn't mentioned the word "brother".
            You really are dense - the context is referring to brothers... You don't get to lop off the last part from the context...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post

              Quoting somebody's opinion about Luther doesn't prove me wrong.
              Is this true or not: The Canon of Luther's Bible excludes Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation

              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alien View Post


                What this guy is saying is that it's one thing to call someone an idiot (raca) and something else to impugn his "moral and religious character". This suggests that "raca" is nearer to "fool" than the word that is translated "fool" in the last part of the quotation. That way, it makes sense for the last part to be separate from the first, and also to be a general prohibition. The word "but" preceding it also suggests that it should be contrasted with the first part.
                Nope, there is no justification to divorce the fact that Christ is referring to brothers and two, having a cause.

                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • It would seem that even atheistic commentators accept the early existence of the creed(s) identifited in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (or a section thereof)
                  https://beliefmap.org/bible/1-corinthians/15-creed/date

                  The strong majority of historians acknowledge that the creed dates back to AD 30-35.1 A very small minority go to AD 41.2
                  • The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]
                  • Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
                  • Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]
                  • James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]
                  • Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]
                  • A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]
                  • N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it. (So Hays 1997, 255.)” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]
                  Many also speak of how early, in general, the creed must have been.3
                  • Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].).
                    Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33).4 Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online a bethinking.org]
                  • Technically, there will also always be odd three to five mythicist scholars as well who are forced to dismiss the passage as something a later scribe added to Paul's letter. Robert Price is the main mythicist who has argued for this.
                  • For example,...
                    Ulrich Wilckens: “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” [Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (St. Andrew Press, 1977), 2.]


                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                    You know I had to look it up! This, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/raca/.


                    RACA

                    ra'-ka, ra-ka'> (rhaka, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek with Codices Sinaiticus (corrected), Vaticanus, Codex E, etc.; rhacha, Tischendorf with Codices Sinaiticus (original hand) and Bezae; Aramaic reqa', from req, "empty"):

                    Vain or worthless fellow; a term of contempt used by the Jews in the time of Christ. In the Bible, it occurs in Matthew 5:22 only, but John Lightfoot gives a number of instances of the use of the word by Jewish writers (Hot. Hebrew., edition by Gandell, Oxford, 1859, II, 108). Chrysostom (who was acquainted with Syriac as spoken in the neighborhood of Antioch) says it was equivalent to the Greek su, "thou," used contemptuously instead of a man's name. Jerome rendered it inanis aut vacuus absque cerebro. It is generally explained as expressing contempt for a man's intellectual capacity (= "you simpleton!"), while more (translated "thou fool"), in the same verse is taken to refer to a man's moral and religious character (= "you rascal!" "you impious fellow!"). Thus we have three stages of anger, with three corresponding grades of punishment:

                    (1) the inner feeling of anger (orgizomenos), to be punished by the local or provincial court (te krisei, "the judgment");

                    (2) anger breaking forth into an expression of scorn (Raca), to be punished by the Sanhedrin (to sunedrio, "the council");

                    (3) anger culminating in abusive and defamatory language (More), to be punished by the fire of Gehenna.

                    This view, of a double climax, which has been held by foremost English and Gor. commentators, seems to give the passage symmetry and gradation. But it is rejected among others by T. K. Cheyne, who, following J. P. Peters, rearranges the text by transferring the clause "and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council" to the end of the preceding verse (Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, cols. 4001 f). There certainly does not seem to be trustworthy external evidence to prove that the terms "the judgment," "the council," "the Gehenna of fire" stand to each other in a relation of gradation, as lower and higher legal courts, or would be so understood by Christ's hearers. What is beyond dispute is that Christ condemns the use of disparaging and insulting epithets as a supreme offense against the law of humanity, which belongs to the same category as murder itself. It should be added, however, that it is the underlying feeling and not the verbal expression as such that constitutes the sin. Hence, our Lord can, without any real inconsistency, address two of His followers as "foolish men" (Luke 24:25, anoetoi, practically equivalent to Raca, as is also James's expression, "O vain man," James 2:20).

                    D. Miall Edwards


                    What this guy is saying is that it's one thing to call someone an idiot (raca) and something else to impugn his "moral and religious character". This suggests that "raca" is nearer to "fool" than the word that is translated "fool" in the last part of the quotation. That way, it makes sense for the last part to be separate from the first, and also to be a general prohibition. The word "but" preceding it also suggests that it should be contrasted with the first part.
                    There is a twist of irony that the Christian texts were written in Greek about a guy, Jesus, who spoke Aramaic. And someone down the line ( Luther some 1,500 years later) took those words as the words of God.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post

                      Is this true or not: The Canon of Luther's Bible excludes Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation
                      In the end, untrue. Early in his career, probably true - at least as far as James and Revelation are concerned, only slightly less likely for Hebrews and Jude.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post

                        Is this true or not: The Canon of Luther's Bible excludes Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation
                        Irrelevant to my point: There's no doubt that Luther was the catalyst to undermine the pope's authority and the lynchpin of the Protestant Reformation, and also was responsible for opening the floodgate of creating more and more Christian denominations, which now numbers around 45,000.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          It would seem that even atheistic commentators accept the early existence of the creed(s) identifited in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (or a section thereof)
                          https://beliefmap.org/bible/1-corinthians/15-creed/date

                          The strong majority of historians acknowledge that the creed dates back to AD 30-35.1 A very small minority go to AD 41.2
                          • The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]
                          • Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
                          • Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]
                          • James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]
                          • Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]
                          • A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]
                          • N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it. (So Hays 1997, 255.)” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]
                          Many also speak of how early, in general, the creed must have been.3
                          • Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].).
                            Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33).4 Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online a bethinking.org]
                          • Technically, there will also always be odd three to five mythicist scholars as well who are forced to dismiss the passage as something a later scribe added to Paul's letter. Robert Price is the main mythicist who has argued for this.
                          • For example,...
                            Ulrich Wilckens: “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” [Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (St. Andrew Press, 1977), 2.]


                          Several scholars, such as O’Collins, have looked over the literature exactly as H_A wants and have concluded that the creedal statement is real and it is very early.

                          But it will never be enough for folks like her. They hang their hat on there being nothing about Jesus until decades later, as if that was in any way unusual for virtually everyone from Classical times, and when they realize that this is not the case... Well, H_A's response so far is textbook.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            You really are dense - the context is referring to brothers... You don't get to lop off the last part from the context...
                            So tell me, does the last part: "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." refer to brother or not?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              In the end, untrue. Early in his career, probably true - at least as far as James and Revelation are concerned, only slightly less likely for Hebrews and Jude.
                              Luther really was no fan of James, which he called a "right strawy epistle" (usually read as an "epistle of straw"), and called for its removal from being taught in Wittenberg's school:

                              “We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.’ O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.”


                              But he never formally called for its removal from Canon.

                              Nor did he place it or Hebrews, Jude and Revelation in with the deuterocanonical works (which he placed at the end of the OT), but at the end of the NT because of how he weighed their doctrinal value, not canonical validity.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Several scholars, such as O’Collins, have looked over the literature exactly as H_A wants and have concluded that the creedal statement is real and it is very early.

                                But it will never be enough for folks like her. They hang their hat on there being nothing about Jesus until decades later, as if that was in any way unusual for virtually everyone from Classical times, and when they realize that this is not the case... Well, H_A's response so far is textbook.
                                They come a cropper the moment that Hebrews is opened. Clement and Origen concluded that Hebrews was largely based on Paul's teachings, but not written by Paul himself. There is speculation that the discussions Paul had with Felix form the core of the book. The author knows both Paul and the gospel of John, if no other gospel author (or teachings detailed by John at least): so the last written gospel was known to an author who was writing before 70CE.

                                It comes as no surprise that Hebrews is not referenced by people wanting to set a late date for the writing of the gospels.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X