Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Of course a case needs to be made. You can't work from 'belief' backwards. If the gospel was most people's introduction to know Jesus and the Son of God was Jesus's identity surely you have to give some background information about who or what a Son of God was. If Paul came first then the written g...

No case needs to be made for Jesus being the son of a previously unkown god....how would you even make it? There's no prior revelation to base it on, so you just assert it, or prove it by doing miracles (i.e. it can only be proven in person not in writing, why Paul talks about the kingdom of God not...

David wrote: Its obvious that since Saducees didn't believe in the resurrection they didn't accept Daniel as scripture. Maybe they interpreted Daniel differently. As Nehemia Gordon puts it: We often hear in ancient literature that the Sadducees denied the doctrines of the immortality of the soul an...

So you think the Sadducees were like modern groups brainwashed into 1500 years of Catholic history, and they accepted scriptures that taught things they were totally against? No, but how does their non-belief in resurrection affect their acceptance of Daniel as scripture?) How does it not? The idea...

So we know that Marcionism developed out of the same sect either that Josephus was a member of or that the Qumran sect was of. How do we/you know that? That was sarcasm. Its obvious that since Saducees didn't believe in the resurrection they didn't accept Daniel as scripture. [edited] Did the Saduc...

154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving. [13] 13.(vv. 153-154) According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's &quo...

The argument in Paul and in Mcn is that it is foolish to meditate about the nature (or the marriage affairs) of the risen bodies, since the our future bodies will be not more the our physical bodies , but entirely spiritual, ''like the angels in heaven''. It seems an argument pro Mcn priority. I ho...

David wrote: I don't believe Daniel was even canonical yet... Josephus includes Daniel among "the sacred writings" in Ant. 10.210 (http://lexundria.com/j_aj/10.210/wst), and as MacDonald notes: At Qumran, Daniel is clearly acknowledged as a prophet ... Anderson and Barton have shown that ...

Due to the nature of his [Marcion's] theology it can't be without reference to Jewish scripture, only without positive reference So now you've changed your tune. Now you are saying it is at least possible - theoretically - that bits of Daniel could have been in the gospel. Absolutely not. The rest ...

You've still avoided saying that there is evidence that Marcion's canon was without reference to the Jewish scriptures which is key. You won't say it because you know it isn't true YET you keep asserting - against the surviving evidence - that it must have been true because it makes you happy to be...