Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

outhouse wrote:The koran Just about the most worthless piece of Plagiarized garbage there is, historically speaking.

And your arguments or evidence that the NT Bible is, also, not "just about the most worthless piece of Plagiarized garbage there is, historically speaking " are ....... ?

It was started being written within a few decades of events.

Hi outhouse,

What if the church organisation simply lied about that ? What if it was actually written a century or more after the supposed events?

Be well,


LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:
What if the church organisation simply lied about that ? What if it was actually written a century or more after the supposed events?

Be well,


LC

It would be evident.

There would also need to be a reason.


Fact is, Hellenist had long wanted a divorce from cultural Judaism, and with the fall of the temple, no one wanted to be identified with Jews.

But many wanted to worship the one all powerful god, not a corrupt politician as "son of god"

Sorry you have no case at all.

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote: What if the church organisation simply lied about that ? What if it was actually written a century or more after the supposed events?

It would be evident.

Not necessarily. We don't know much about mid-late 1st c writings, other than Jospehus & one or two others.

outhouse wrote:There would also need to be a reason. ...

.. But many wanted to worship the one all powerful god, not a corrupt politician as "son of god"

Yes, "many wanted to worship the one all powerful god", so they were quick to embrace an invented one.

MrMacSon wrote:so they were quick to embrace an invented one

.

This is true and cannot be argued.


But it does not negate in any way a possible historical core.

Not necessarily. We don't know much about mid-late c writings, other than Jospehus & one or two others.

Based on Pauls writings, we know he is writing in the first century.

Movements all have beginnings. They start small and grow if popular enough. There is nothing that indicates there was not a movement during the first century. I think it is factual there was a movement. So it is very evident to the point it is not argued with any credibility.

outhouse wrote: Based on Pauls writings, we know he is writing in the first century.

No; we don't know when the Pauline texts were written; or by who.

They could have been written mid-late 2nd C, and could be based on more than one person.

MrMacSon wrote: and could be based on more than one person.

It is not "could" they are based on more then one person.

We know they are based on a communities effort, and more often then not, not Paul's work alone.

Day one in class they teach you about how many people were involved in each epistle based on the epistle header.

Each epistle tells you who was involved in each epistle.

we don't know when the Pauline texts were written

There is almost universal acceptance with a wide range of dates that for the most part are all in the first century.

So yes, we do know when.

or by who.

Claiming a mythical Paul is getting into the absurd.

outhouse wrote:

MrMacSon wrote: and could be based on more than one person.

It is not "could" they are based on more then one person.

This refers to based on more than one Jesus-like preacher-dude; not a reference to the number of authors or redactors or compilers of the gospel narratives

or by who.

Claiming a mythical Paul is getting into the absurd.

It is well documented there is consensus that [at least] half the Pauline texts were written by others.

MrMacSon wrote:This refers to based on more than one Jesus-like preacher-dude;

.

Good luck with that. it is factually unsubstantiated at this time.

It is well documented there is consensus that [at least] half the Pauline texts were written by others.

Yes we know all about pseudepigrapha and why certain traditions were kept alive.

We also know how customary it was to rhetorically attribute names when people wanted to further a tradition.

None of which attacks Pauls historicity in any way.

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
What if the church organisation simply lied about that ? What if it was actually written a century or more after the supposed events?

Be well,


LC

It would be evident.

What if there was a cover-up job?

There would also need to be a reason.

Power, gold, influence, gold, monopoly, gold, "the god given right to conquer and convert the world", gold ...

No wonder Jesus died in outer space.

Earth sucks.




LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:

outhouse wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
What if the church organisation simply lied about that ? What if it was actually written a century or more after the supposed events?

Be well,


LC

It would be evident.

What if there was a cover-up job?

There would also need to be a reason.

Power, influence, monopoly, gold ...

No wonder Jesus died in outer space.

Earth sucks.




LC

As it stands those are all poor guesses considering we have Pauls accounts and the gospel accounts we can use to figure out much of what was happening in the first century.


If one takes a cover up or conspiracy mentality, one can stop doing this as a hobby as no historical methodology with credibility would ever be used to try and recreate the past.

We need more then imaginative guesses.