Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I call it a statement of fact, without any imputing whatsoever that SA thought otherwise. This is what I wrote: Celsus is fun because, as the only second century pagan to take such a great interest in arguing against Christians, you can actually convert statements in the second century implying tha...

You, PK, can call it a strawman if you wish. It is not just called a strawman. It is a strawman. I don't wish it to be so. I wish you'd stop being so lazy and stop relying on them so often. I dislike it being the case, I dislike pointing this out to you, and I also dislike responding to your additi...

This valuable book is finally arrived! :cheers: In addition, according to the testimony of Tertullian, Marcion claimed to have "found" the Letter to the Galatians ( Sed enim Marcion nactus epistulam Pauli ad Galatas ; Marc. 4.3.1). According to modern epistolary theorists, the suggestion ...

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 8:22 am That certainly does not make him the first critic of Christianity.

Another strawman (misstatement of another's expressed position, devolving into a claim not made that is easier to argue against).

Chadwick knows what he's talking about. Thanks for the citations.

Makes sense but it could make even more sense if its "gospel" usage does not refer to a text and Galatians is involved in controversy with contemporaries of the implied author, with the implications regarding that controversy being either correct or at least useful to the actual author as ...

Celsus is fun because, as the only second century pagan to take such a great interest in arguing against Christians, you can actually convert statements in the second century implying that at least one pagan made some in-the-weeds criticism into statements derivative of Celsus, using the evidence of...

Self-serving and pretentious laziness.

Justin's text no longer had any relevance in 175 CE? Why not?

That was a long post, but I hope it was an informative one. Indeed I have to continue it. Okay so let's approach this statement again, in specific and contextual terms, essentially disregarding its apparent form as a philosophical objection to Bayesian epistemology, yet considering what there is to ...