richardMdBorn wrote:You wrote NOTHING. None of your sources refute the assertion that SOME of Paul's epistles were written prior to thirty years after Jesus' death. If I missed an argument to this effect, please show it to me again. Arguments about the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are irrelevant here.JAK wrote:richardMdBorn wrote:You're wrong here. Paul's epistles discuss Jesus and were written prior to 30 years after his death.JAK wrote:And the fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was an historical Jesus.JAK
Incorrect analysis, RMB.
See this
Add This
Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself. As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.
Authorship and date disputed
Pauline authorship of Colossians has found some critics. It was originally doubted by F. C. Baur, though others working from his general thesis, such as H. J. Holtzmann, argued that an original brief Pauline text experienced many interpolations by a later editor. The basis for this early objection was that the letter aimed at refuting Gnosticism, a heresy not serious until the early second century.
JAK
On the contrary, I offered both websites and analysis on the issue which you raise. I’ll add to that. What sources have you offered for your contention? None.
While the Bible clearly claims direct quotation from a person Jesus, the fact is that no one was taking notes, and there is no actual evidence even for the historical Jesus as depicted in the Bible. The manipulation of scripts and script writing came after the facts which they were alleged to convey.
It was a combination of political power and the joining of that with religious doctrine which produced the scripts which appeared long after the facts which they were alleged to represent.
As a result we have a collection of books (66) in the Bible which are replete with contradiction and inconsistencies.
New Testament Contradictions are numerous.
Biblical contradictions are numerous.
194 New Testament Contradictions are detailed at this website.
Another list of contradictions can be found at this website.
I don’t think you read with objectivity my previous list which call into question. Some of Paul’s writings, as one website identifies, were called into question as late as the 19th Century.
“Except for Hebrews (see Antilegomena), the Pauline authorship of these letters was not academically questioned until the nineteenth century.”
“Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are widely regarded as pseudographs, though certain scholars do consider them genuine. There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary scholars reject Pauline authorship." (Bold and underlined are mine for focus)
The above calls into question authorship and hence validity of writings ascribed to Paul.
Paul’s life (birth and death) lack certainty. Many superstitious claims surround Paul’s life as this website demonstrates.
There is overwhelming evidence that even today, people cannot hear something today and accurately quote it tomorrow. There is no evidence that Paul was a note-taker at the time Jesus was alleged to have spoken specific words. Yet the Bible claims specific words as if there were a recording with perfect fidelity to the words.
Of course, there is no such thing. One must belive in magic and employ suspension of disbelief. One must suspend rational thought and analysis. In Millet's case, he appears to make it up in the NPR interview as he many times says: We believe that... or I believe that.... He presents no transparent evidence, only assertion.
The fact that biblical stories don’t agree with one another and the fact that all are open to multiple writings and translations is strong evidence that the stories are unreliable.
Thus far, you have offered no evidence which supports credibility of biblical accounts. On the other hand, I have provided various websites (I cannot here offer books) which demonstrate that we have no first-hand observers who wrote on the day of their observation what they saw or what they heard from the alleged Jesus.
Given thousands of years of manuscripts (hand written scripts by man) and the political and social imprint on the evolution of Christianity, we have ample evidence that the stories should be viewed with great skepticism or outright rejection given their extraordinary claims absent extraordinary evidence.
The various claims made by Millet in the broadcast do not reflect other claims which other Christians make regarding specific religious doctrine and dogma.
In addition, you have offered no websites and [/b]no evidence[/b] that the various accounts in the Bible (either testament) demonstrate consistency or clarity.
JAK