At What Point?

all the atheist scholars......any serious comments to add?.....
People who study this sort of thing are in agreement that Paul didn't write a lot of the books attributed to him in the Bible. They also agree that Mark didn't write Mark, Matthew didn't write Matthew, etc. Several of the books that were excluded from the Bible were allegedly written by Peter, Mary, Jesus brother and a few other big names. I mean, nobody has a clue who wrote Genesis, right? Nobody knows if Noah or Moses even existed.
 
Last edited:
Nope. One must first have a religious faith/belief that ... John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and his brother James were real historical figures. It isn't wrong to do so, but it is a matter of faith, not any sort of objective truth. There is otherwise no independent historical accounts of either John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth/Galilee/Bethlehem, and his brother James from the time period of their supposed lifetimes. There are only a paltry few references to biblical characters well after (decades) those biblical characters were written, which was well after (decades) their supposed lifetimes.

Hence the faith requirement.
The problem with militant atheists and holy roller literalists is they are dogmatic and extremely prone to confirmation bias in everything they read pertaining to religion.

The New Testament is not a true historical narrative, but nor is it a complete fabrication of people and events.

Chronology of Written Sources: It's incorrect to confidently say nothing was written about NT characters until decades after they were gone.

Paul's authentic epistles, and the author of Mark were writing when the apostles Peter and James were still around.

Luke specifically writes that many people were recording the stories of Jesus and his disciples before him, but those written sources didn't survive. What we have now is what survived. But there were earlier written sources that have been lost to time.

By ancient standards, sources that post date the actual events by decades is about as good as it's going to get. Herodotus was writing about the Greco-Persian wars about six decades after they occured. And those are our best sources on the Greco-Persian war.

Non-Christian sources: The preeminent first century Jewish historian Josephus records the historicity of Pontius Pilate, Jesus, John the Baptist, Jesus' brother James the Just, and the high priest who oversaw Jesus' trial, Joseph, son of Caiaphas. Most scholars consider these historical references authentic, even if they have been reworked by Christian scribes.

Archeological Evidence: A tablet bearing the name of governor Pontius Pilate was discovered mid 20th century. The ossuary of the high priest Joseph, son of Caiaphas seems to have been identified. And while it is still open to debate the ossuary of James the Just, brother of Jesus, seems to have been found.


Now, start frantically Googling IBDumbass.
 
Last edited:
People who study this sort of thing ...
This includes all people who can read.

... are in agreement that Paul didn't write a lot of the books attributed to him in the Bible.
Incorrect. You still haven't learned that you don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

They also agree that Mark didn't write Mark, Matthew didn't write Matthew, etc.
Nope. They do not so agree.

Several of the books that were excluded from the Bible were allegedly written by Peter, Mary, Jesus brother and a few other big names. I mean, nobody has a clue who wrote Genesis, right? Nobody knows if Noah or Moses even existed.
You just pivoted. Now you have shifted away from "agreement" to declaring what clues others do or do not have.
 
The problem with militant atheists and holy roller literalists is they are dogmatic and extremely prone to confirmation bias in everything they read pertaining to religion.
Perhaps one of these days you will actually begin using words, the meanings of which you actually understand.

The New Testament is not a true historical narrative, but nor is it a complete fabrication of people and events.
The New Testament is not peanut butter, nor is it an unabridged catalog of the library of Congress. Is it your intention to compile a complete listing of the things the New Testament is not? Perhaps you can see why your commentary is not particularly value-added.

Do you have any idea what the New Testament actually is?

It's incorrect to confidently say nothing was written about NT characters until decades after they were gone.
Yes, it correct to say this.

Paul's authentic epistles, and the author of Mark were writing when the apostles Peter and James were still around.
These are not first-hand accounts captured in independent historical documents written by non-biblical characters during the presumed lifetimes of the biblical characters.

Luke specifically writes that many people were recording the stories of Jesus and his disciples before him,
This is Luke, the biblical character.

Non-Christian sources: The preeminent first century Jewish historian Josephus records the historicity of Pontius Pilate, Jesus, John the Baptist, Jesus' brother James the Just, and the high priest who oversaw Jesus' trial, Joseph, son of Caiaphas.
Nope. This is not a first-hand account, and was written long afterwards based off biblical text.

Most scholars consider these historical references authentic,
Nope. You do not speak for "most scholars." You don't even speak for any group of intelligent, learned people. You speak for yourself alone.

Now, start frantically Googling IBDumbass.
You do that enough for everybody.
 
^^^^
Doesn't have a grip on the difference between MAGA and MAGAt even when it's explained to him. It's truly sad and one reason why I support better mental health care in America.
MAGA isn't a person, Sybil. There is, unfortunately, no cure for your condition. It matters little how much health care there is. BTW, health care is NOT a function of government. The Constitution does not authorize communism.
 
People who study this sort of thing are in agreement that Paul didn't write a lot of the books attributed to him in the Bible. They also agree that Mark didn't write Mark, Matthew didn't write Matthew, etc. Several of the books that were excluded from the Bible were allegedly written by Peter, Mary, Jesus brother and a few other big names. I mean, nobody has a clue who wrote Genesis, right? Nobody knows if Noah or Moses even existed.
You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy.
 
People who study this sort of thing are in agreement that Paul didn't write a lot of the books attributed to him in the Bible. They also agree that Mark didn't write Mark, Matthew didn't write Matthew, etc. Several of the books that were excluded from the Bible were allegedly written by Peter, Mary, Jesus brother and a few other big names. I mean, nobody has a clue who wrote Genesis, right? Nobody knows if Noah or Moses even existed.
on the other hand most of the people who study this sort of thing have no problem attributing the epistles of Paul to the authorship of Paul.....I will agree there are lots of atheists who will swear on the Bible that Paul didn't write anything........most of us laugh at the fucking idiots who overlook the fact Christians attribute authorship to the actual authors since they were handed down from person to person from people who KNEW the authors, while the naysayers were a bunch of lib'rul college professors in Germany back in the 1930s........so fuck off and learn something from someone who ISN'T making it up because he gave up his faith because he never understood what "Christian" meant.....
 
"most scholars" when used by atheists (and gnostics) excludes all Christian scholars.........that means "most scholars" never includes most scholars........
 
I don't have to cite the exact passages. Anyone who took an introductory class on religion, or read an article or two about Saint Paul, knows that his close reading of Paul's epistles led him to believe in the doctrine of faith by justification alone.

It doesn't require internet research and citation because this doctrine it is so widely known and so well known to anyone even modestly knowledgeable about Christian history and theology, it can be discussed without Googling for citations.

That's just what Paul thought. It's not up to me to say whether or not Paul had access to truths the Roman Catholic church missed, or which one was perverted and which one was not. That's not the right question to me.
No he doesn't. Your opinion isn't evidence. Cite the passage. Just making a claim is useless.

It's a perversion. Cite the passage

Show me what Paul thought don't tell me.
 
Irrelevant. The church translated in local languages long before the looney little monk did it
can you provide some evidence of that?........I believe the first non-Latin version of the Bible was printed by Tindale after the Reformation.......it was condemned by the RCC......feel free to prove me wrong...
 
not the Popes who were keeping prostitutes?.......or the priests selling tickets to heaven?......
Yeah there were shitty pipes and priest just like there are shitty preachers doctors and plumbers. Humans are flawed. We are talking about dogma. The bible teaches neither of the solas which is the foundation of protestantism. A perversion
 
can you provide some evidence of that?........I believe the first non-Latin version of the Bible was printed by Tindale after the Reformation.......it was condemned by the RCC......feel free to prove me wrong...
Just like perverted protestant bibles today are condemned. Reading the KJV makes you stupid and a heretic
 
Yeah there were shitty pipes and priest just like there are shitty preachers doctors and plumbers. Humans are flawed. We are talking about dogma. The bible teaches neither of the solas which is the foundation of protestantism. A perversion
the dogma we are discussing WAS the dogma of the RCC at the time.....you are free to reject by grace alone (of course the RCC adopted that doctrine back in the 60s) so you may be alone.......you are also free to reject by scripture alone........tradition isn't a bad thing in itself......unless it contradicts scripture......and remember, at the time of the Reformation RCC "tradition" said if you paid a priest a large sum of gold you could get an indulgence that guaranteed St Peter would open the gates of heaven for you.....
 
Back
Top