Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

This is unreasonable claptrap. Please stop. This is mere assertion. Please stop. My interest in the o.p., as I have already indicated--in my very first reply, in fact--, concerns your posting of the topic, which is clearly expressed and which you have been dancing around. As I read you, you are sug...

Arguments for or against? I will match up Matthew 16:27-28 (and parallel) with the Olivet Discourse. Matthew 16 [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. [28] Verily I say unto you, There be some standing...

If you can't answer a simple question, I guess you 're just not that interested. You aren't answering my simple question. I can't reply to you, if I don't know what your position is or what you are trying to say. So again: I don't know what your position even is. Do you find the OP issue to be of i...

I showed interest in the o.p. when I first responded to it. But the only thing I've learned from you is that you may not have presented the o.p. in a clear manner. If you're interested in the OP issue, then I don't have a clue why you are saying: "I don't know why you feel you can assume it is...

Can anyone quote/reference definitions of the Christian religion coming from Christians?

I showed interest in the o.p. when I first responded to it. But the only thing I've learned from you is that you may not have presented the o.p. in a clear manner. If you're interested in the OP issue, then I don't have a clue why you are saying: "I don't know why you feel you can assume it is...

You've already told me three times it does not. And of course you should know. I was just going off your own words. Have I misunderstood you? I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here. Y...

spin wrote: You're the one asserting that it doesn't interest me

Oh, so the subject does interest you then?

spin wrote: I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here.

Blood wrote:Robert M. Price. In his Pre-Nicene New Testament, he dates all of the gospels in the second century, and John (IIRC) in the second half of the second century.

Thanks.

It's a bit hard, you know. One has to read it to find out where you were going. When you have read enough to know you aren't interested, then you can ignore it. It's really not that difficult... You published the stuff here. Live with the consequences. Right, you come into threads to say that the t...