Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[Tassman]

There is zero actual evidence that the letters of Peter, especially First Peter, is a "fake."

Actually, there is ample scholarly evidence that the Petrine epistles are pseudepigraphical - i.e. inauthentic. The majority of scholars consider that St. Peter was not the author of the two epistles attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors and dated late.

And no the letters of John and Gospel are not too old for some one who lived to his 90s.

The extreme old age of the author is a factor mitigating against John’s authorship – especially if dated in the latter range of probable composition, namely c.110 CE. But most scholars, including the great authority on Johannine literature Raymond E Brown, are of the view that it was a collaborative effort of the Johannine community to piece together various recollections and traditions of the Jesus story. Not the work of one author.

But my point all along was that there were claims to eyewitness testimony in certain books, that is true.

“Claims to eyewitness testimony” does not necessarily mean that there actually was eyewitness testimony – at least not as we understand what this means.

[seer]

As spun by Trump’s mouthpiece, Fox. The reality is different as indicated in this BBC Coronavirus fact-check:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51818627

That does not change anything Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said about Trump, and quoting the leftist BBC won't change that.

[seer]

Actually, there is ample scholarly evidence that the Petrine epistles are pseudepigraphical - i.e. inauthentic. The majority of scholars consider that St. Peter was not the author of the two epistles attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors and dated late.

Please list a couple and I will show that they are pure assumptions not based on known facts. And I don't care what the "majority" of scholars believe, they are constantly changing - from higher criticism to source criticism, to form criticism, to redaction criticism, to tradition criticism, to canonical criticism, etc... And by the way did you poll all Biblical Scholars so you know what the majority thinks?

The extreme old age of the author is a factor mitigating against John’s authorship – especially if dated in the latter range of probable composition, namely c.110 CE. But most scholars, including the great authority on Johannine literature Raymond E Brown, are of the view that it was a collaborative effort of the Johannine community to piece together various recollections and traditions of the Jesus story. Not the work of one author.

Yep, that is ONE opinion.

“Claims to eyewitness testimony” does not necessarily mean that there actually was eyewitness testimony – at least not as we understand what this means.

Who says? You?

[JimL]

That does not change anything Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said about Trump, and quoting the leftist BBC won't change that.

Tedos's praise was out of respect. If you actually read the article you'd see the contradiction. Trump has done the opposite of those things Tedros said needs to be done in order to beat this virus.

[carpedm9587]

Please list a couple and I will show that they are pure assumptions not based on known facts. And I don't care what the "majority" of scholars believe, they are constantly changing - from higher criticism to source criticism, to form criticism, to redaction criticism, to tradition criticism, to canonical criticism, etc... And by the way did you poll all Biblical Scholars so you know what the majority thinks?

Yep, that is ONE opinion.

Who says? You?

And therein lies the core of the problem. What you have is a collection of "opinions" about the likelihood of X or Y being true about these various books. There is no consistent science being used here. There is no way to determine who is right and who is wrong. There's not even a way to determine the probability of who is right or who is wrong. And on this tottering edifice of historical speculation, many Christians build a level of certainty that simply cannot be justified. There is no way to say "X is true" or even "X is most likely true" or even "X is false" or "X is most likely false." Christians go WAY past what the basic documents are capable of telling us, and that is what the community of believers that wrote it believed. It says little or nothing about the truth of those beliefs.

[Jim B.]

No Tass, it was China who put the world at risk!

World Health Organization director praises Trump's leadership in response to coronavirus pandemic

The head of the World Health Organization on Wednesday praised President Trump for his leadership in handling the novel coronavirus outbreak and said the president is "taking responsibility" for leading the United States' response to the global pandemic.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the United Nations health agency has repeatedly called for the heads of state to lead a "whole of government" response to COVID-19 and said Trump was leading by example.

"That's exactly what he's doing, which we appreciate because fighting this pandemic needs political commitment," Tedros said during an afternoon press briefing in Geneva.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-...sSycsVFDAItbQA

No evidence that this is anything more than a pro forma statement. Everyone knows they have to pay fealty to the Little Emperor or there will be hell to pay.

Trump is putting the world at risk through his continually false and misleading statements. Having a serial liar and malignant narcissist as President is bad enough but during a pandemic it's potentially disastrous!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/22/polit...rch/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...virus-n1174356

[seer]

No evidence that this is anything more than a pro forma statement. Everyone knows they have to pay fealty to the Little Emperor or there will be hell to pay.

Trump is putting the world at risk through his continually false and misleading statements. Having a serial liar and malignant narcissist as President is bad enough but during a pandemic it's potentially disastrous!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/22/polit...rch/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...virus-n1174356

Of course Jim...

[Tassman]

Please list a couple and I will show that they are pure assumptions not based on known facts.

It's the commonly accepted view of biblical scholars as you would know if you checked around. “Letters of Peter, two New Testament writings attributed to the foremost of Jesus’ 12 Apostles but perhaps written during the early 2nd century”.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/letters-of-Peter

And I don't care what the "majority" of scholars believe, they are constantly changing - from higher criticism to source criticism, to form criticism, to redaction criticism, to tradition criticism, to canonical criticism, etc...

Incorrect, e.g. in this instance: “Though the author explicitly identifies himself as Peter, numerous textual difficulties created doubts as early as the 3rd century about the actual authorship, which have been reinforced by subsequent scholarship”.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/letters-of-Peter

Yep, that is ONE opinion.

It is the opinion of one of the recognized leading biblical scholars on the Johannine writings, Raymond E Brown. It is also accepted by most biblical scholars: “the Johannine community…was a network of churches located in Asia Minor responsible for the production of four New Testament writings: The Gospel of John and the three letters known as 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John”.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/peop...nine-community

Who says? You?[

Mainstream biblical scholars. See above re 2 Peter.

[seer]

Incorrect, e.g. in this instance: “Though the author explicitly identifies himself as Peter, numerous textual difficulties created doubts as early as the 3rd century about the actual authorship, which have been reinforced by subsequent scholarship”.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/letters-of-Peter

And we can show why those objections are not in any way definitive:

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-1-peter

It is the opinion of one of the recognized leading biblical scholars on the Johannine writings, Raymond E Brown. It is also accepted by most biblical scholars: “the Johannine community…was a network of churches located in Asia Minor responsible for the production of four New Testament writings: The Gospel of John and the three letters known as 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John”.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/peop...nine-community

Same with John:

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/w...gospel-of-john

[seer]

It is the opinion of one of the recognized leading biblical scholars on the Johannine writings, Raymond E Brown. It is also accepted by most biblical scholars: “the Johannine community…was a network of churches located in Asia Minor responsible for the production of four New Testament writings: The Gospel of John and the three letters known as 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John”.

Yet Brown believed that the evidence for the physical resurrection was strong. And that the virgin birth was a historical fact. Do you agree with him there?

[JimL]

Yet Brown believed that the evidence for the physical resurrection was strong. And that the virgin birth was a historical fact. Do you agree with him there?

Of course not, and neither would any intelligent human being believe it if as a belief system it wasn't driven, impressed upon, the brains of humans for thousands of years. Memes are not easy to erase, particularly when one wants to believe them so badly.

[carpedm9587]

Yet Brown believed that the evidence for the physical resurrection was strong. And that the virgin birth was a historical fact. Do you agree with him there?

Right. This is the clincher. A group of people who lived 30-70 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth have ironclad proof that Joseph and Mary did not have sex in the conception of an obscure carpenter born 60-100 years earlier. It is this kind of unbelievable assertion that renders pretty much the rest of your claims about certainty concerning Jesus of Nazareth essentially moot. That you cannot see it is a testament to your religion-infused blindness. Which makes pretty much any discussion with you on this topic largely useless. If you can hold this belief and claim reasonable assurance - you can basically hold any belief with little/no evidence.

[seer]

Right. This is the clincher. A group of people who lived 30-70 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth have ironclad proof that Joseph and Mary did not have sex in the conception of an obscure carpenter born 60-100 years earlier. It is this kind of unbelievable assertion that renders pretty much the rest of your claims about certainty concerning Jesus of Nazareth essentially moot. That you cannot see it is a testament to your religion-infused blindness. Which makes pretty much any discussion with you on this topic largely useless. If you can hold this belief and claim reasonable assurance - you can basically hold any belief with little/no evidence.

Hey Carp, it was Tass who brought up Raymond Brown as a scholar we should reference. And yes you are perfectly free to remain in your atheistic cult of death.

[carpedm9587]

Hey Carp, it was Tass who brought up Raymond Brown as a scholar we should reference. And yes you are perfectly free to remain in your atheistic cult of death.

And that responds to the observations I made how?

[seer]

And that responds to the observations I made how?

Just treating your verbal diarrhea with the seriousness it deserves...