Originally posted by LoonyGoofyMan

I’m asking the one who used the word “certified”. I see as usual you can’t defend your own words.

Wow. LonelyGuyMan doesn't know what common words like "certified" mean. Next week: He asks for definitions of words like "food" and "water".

So please, by all means, start the clumsy dancing…I enjoy it…how about singing me that Village People song again while you do it?

Nah, I'll have it recorded. We hired James White and the Singing Dwarfs to do that one in studio and play it on 400 foot speakers outside your house 24 hours a day, sort of like that time with Manuel Noeriega.

Let’s see my unnamed sources teach at Yale, Columbia and Johns Hopkins…so what?...are we having fun yet?

Yes, it is quite the ball to see you running and hiding like this, refusing to engage specifics because you can't.

So what? Is there something new going on now in Christian thought?

Sad to say, few people realize just how funny this comment is -- particularly, Jaltus and GrayPilgrim. That speaks for itself.

I readily admit that my species is full of allegedly educated men who are still ignorant, superstitious and will cling to cherished sacred beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes those beliefs.

Can you also admit that your species is full of rampants cowards who mouth off constantly and refuse to defend their beliefs from detailed scrutiny, precisely because they have no such "evidence" to present, being that they can barely understand what is presented?

MDs and Scientists with docorates in the various life sciences, not ancient literature studies or "philosophy"…

Oh I see. MDs and Scientists with no training in formal logic, just a materialist worldview based on them not knowing what to look for. I see.

As usual, instead of making a case with your own words and evidence, you needed to cut and paste Miller’s tripe referencing the work of still other ancient philosophers…

So what? You'd run and hide just as fast if I used my own words. You're exposed, little girl.

Post your “certified” evidence that clearly shows the biography, sources, date, and location for whoever wrote the gospel of “mark”.

See below. Then I expect you to do the same for the Annals of Tacitus, little one. Then explain why we should accept authorship of the former and reject the latter. The Annals have no "biography" of Tacitus or date or location on them, by the way. But maybe you are far more brialliant than Greco-Roman historians who say we have enough information.

So what? 3 scholars agree a man named Jesus existed. Is that the concession you’re after?

It was what you were challenged on, little one. Having problems with your literacy again? Is that why you need to gut the red herrings so publicly?

Seems apostle Paul was the odd man out who was forced to start his own cult because his nonsense didn’t stand the peer review of his Pharisee contemporaries…

So you admit Price is a wayward nobody in context, then? Or does Price hear voices?

Sorry, but Price’s analysis is a little more rational than that…I guess he’s not allowed to start a journal, but you can start your own internet wasteland? Nice try…

He can start all the journals he wants; but the day he represents himself as a lone and sane voice in the wilderness, while everyone else (including the other three you named) are said to be biased, delusional, or subject to wishful thinking, he steps beyond what can be claimed as "rational" and becomes a glory hog of the LGM School of Thought. Luckily he has gullible guys like you to keep him cheered.

Holding…so please, don’t treat me like some garden variety dolt, I know your tactics, you’re exposed.

I'll readily admit that you're definitely a special kind of dolt rather than a garden variety one. How else to explain all the plaques on your wall?

You seem to think that ancient history, or the veracity of the countless miraculous claims in the gospels, is something that can be verified with the certainty of radiometric dating….sorry librarian…you and your fundy scholars are just playing with yourself and quoting each other all the way back to Eusebius…

And you, as usual, are merely vomiting forth with the usual non-answers -- because you have none, and never will have any, and will remaining hiding in your little dark corner, eating your curds and whey.

No, I’m just interested in exposing your “certified” soundbites, and vague appeals to authority, for the lame tripe that they always are.

Definitely not by direct engagement with them, heavens no. That would involve thinking, and such is forbidden by law in your household.

And no, I certainly am not inflicted with any JPHOCD,

Of course you are. It's clear now how you discovered the disease: Home testing.

I'm not interested in wasting my time with you...

For a guy not interested in wasting time, he sure keeps doing it a lot. Here's what I can fit on Mark. Run the other way, quick!

******
The "anonymity" of the Gospels authors is something that many skeptics hang their hat upon. Yet I have noted that in making this argument, critics never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that the Gospels are. If it is objected that the Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts -- and this is a very common point to be made, even among traditionalists -- then this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels. Critics may claim that these were added later to the Gospels, but they need to provide textual evidence of this (i.e., an obvious copy of Matthew with no title attribution to Matthew, and dated earlier or early enough to suggest that it was not simply a late, accidental ommission), and at any rate, why is it not supposed that the titles were added later to the secular works as well?

In order for readers to appreciate the magnitude of this situation, I would like to present here a listing of external evidences for the authorship of the works of Tacitus. I wish to thank Roger Pearse for helpfully sending me copies of relevant pages from the works of the Tacitean scholar Mendell, from Tacitus: The Man and His Work. Mendell surveys evidence for knowledge of Tacitus throughout history; we will only look at evidence up to the sixth century (for reasons noted in Mendell below). In doing this we would challenge potential respondents to compare this record to that of the Gospels. We will present Mendell's comments and intersperse our own.

THE Annals were probably "published" in 116, the last of the works of Tacitus to appear. Only Pliny of Tacitus' contemporaries mentions him, and his writings and the evidence of subsequent use up to the time of Boccaccio is slight. It is not true, however, that Tacitus and his writings were practically unknown. They were neglected----possibly, in part at least, because of his strong republican bias on the one hand and because, on the other, the church fathers felt him to be unfair to Christianity. Vopiscus in his life of the emperor Tacitus (chapter 10) indicates the state of affairs in the third century: "Cornelium Tacitum, scriptorem historiae Augustae, quod parentem suum eundem diceret, in omnibus bibliothecis conlocari iussit neve lectorum incuria deperiret, librum per an-nos singulos decies scribi publicitus evicos archiis iussit et in bibliothecis poni" (the text is obviously corrupt in the reading evicos archiis).

Nevertheless, Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in each century down to and including the sixth. In fact, the seventh and eighth are the only centuries that have as yet furnished no evidence of knowing him. The following are the known references to Tacitus or use of Tacitean material after the day of Tacitus and Pliny until the time of Boccaccio. The material was well collected in 1888 and published at Wetzler by Emmerich Cornelius, but a considerable amount of new material has turned up from time to time since.

About the middle of the second century Ptolemy published his Gewgrafikh& 'Ufh&ghsij. In 2. 11. 12 (ed. C. Muller, Paris, 1883) he lists in succession along the northern shore of Germany the towns of Flhou&m, and Siatouta&nda. The latter name occurs nowhere else and has a dubious sound. The explanation is to be found in Tacitus, Ann. 4. 72, 73: "Rapti qui tributo aderant milites et patibulo adfixi; Olennius infensos fuga prae-venit, receptus castello, cui nomen Flevum; et haud spernenda illic civium sociorumque manus litora Oceani praesidebat." The governor of lower Germany takes prompt action, the account of which winds up: "utrumque exercitum Rheno devectum Frisiis intulit, soluto iam castelli obsidio et ad sua tutanda degressis rebellibus." The source of Ptolemy's mistake is obvious.

Note here that Ptolemy's obvious use of Tacitus is taken as a signal of the Annals existing. This is in stark contrast to how quotes in patristic writers from the Gospels are excused asway as "floating, independent tradition" rather than evidence of the Gospels. Note as well that Ptolemy does not name Tacitus. We still do not have an attribution of authorship to work with some 40-50 years after the writing.

It is hard to believe that Cassius Dio (who published shortly after A.D. 200) did not know at least the Agricola. In 38. 50 and 66. 20 he mentions Gnaeus Julius Agricola as having proved Britain to be an island and in the later instance tells the story of the fugitive Usipi. If we make allowance for the method of Tacitus, which leaves his account far from clear, and for the use of a different language by Dio, there can be little if any doubt that Tacitus is the source for Dio. We know also of no other possible source today. The last part of the section, dealing with Agricola's return and death, confirms the conclusion that Dio drew from Tacitus, and it sounds as though Tacitus had left the impression he desired.

Notice we still do not have an attribution, and we are now 80 and more years past the publication of these works by Tacitus. We are already at or past the number of years Papias was from the Gospels.

In the third century Tertullian cites Tacitus with a hostile tone. He had spoken without respect of the Jews and had implied that the Christians were an undesirable sect of the Jews. It is not a surprise, therefore, to have Tertullian (early third century) refer to him as ille mendaciorum loquacissimus. The Apologist is defending the Christians against the charge that they worshiped an ass. The origin of this scandal he ascribes to Tacitus, Hist. 5. 3, 9. Apologeticus 16...

This is the first direct attribution of something to Tacitus -- apparently over 100 years later! Tertullian also cited Tacitus in two other places.

Lactantius, in the time of Diocletian, is at least once (Div. inst. 1. 18. 8) somewhat reminiscent of Tacitean style but that is as far as it is safe to go in claiming him as a reader of Tacitus, in spite of something of a resemblance between Lactantius 1. 11, 12 and Germ. 40.

At about the same date, Eumenius of Autun, in his Panegyricus ad Constantinum 9, quite clearly has Agric. 12 before him. He follows Tacitus in the error of thinking that the nights are always short, and he assigns as reasons the same that the Roman had...Not only the actual quotation from Tacitus is of interest but the careful substitution of synonyms.

Vopiscus, still in the fourth century, cites Tacitus with Livy, Sallust, and Trogus as the greatest of Roman historians...Ammianus Marcellinus, about 400, published his history, which began where Tacitus left off, indicating a knowledge at least of what Tacitus had written. At about the same time Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine wrote his Chronicorum libri and, in 2. 28. 2 and 2. 29. 2, used Tacitus, Ann. 15. 37 and 44 as his source. On the detailed matter of Nero's marriage with Pythagoras and the punishment of the Christians the verbal resemblances make it impossible to think that he was drawing on any other source....Jerome in his commentary on Zacchariah 14. 1, 2 (3, p. 914) cites Tacitus: "Cornelius quoque [i.e. as well as Josephus] Tacitus, qui post Augustum usque ad mortem Domitiani vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit." He gives no proof of having read Tacitus----he may not even have seen his works at all----but he did know of a tradition in which the thirty books were numbered consecutively. Claudian cannot be safely claimed as a reader of Tacitus in spite of his suggestive references to Tiberius and Nero. 8, Fourth Consulship of Honorius...Servius, on the other hand, at the end of the fourth century, while his reference is to a lost part of Tacitus, evidently had read the text. Hegesippus made a free Latin version of Josephus' Jewish War with independent additions, many of which seem to come from Tacitus' Histories. An example is 4. 8: "denique neque pisces neque adsuetas aquis et laetas mergendi usu aves." Compare Hist. 5.6: "neque vento impellitur neque pisces aut suetas aquis volucres patitur." There is a certain studied attempt at variation of wording without concealment of the source. Of the fifth-century writers, two, Sidonius Apollinaris and Orosius, have left evidence of considerable familiarity with Tacitus as well as respect for him as a writer. In Ep. 4. 22. 2 Sidonius makes a pun on the name Tacitus. After comparing himself and Leo to Pliny and Tacitus he says that should the latter return to life and see how eloquent Leo was in the field of narrative, he would become wholly Tacitus. The name as he gives it is Gaius Cornelius Tacitus. Again in Ep. 4. 14. 1 he quotes Gaius Tacitus as an ancestor of his friend Polemius. He was, says Sidonius, a consular in the time of the Ulpians: "Sub verbis cuiuspiam Germanici ducis in historia sua rettulit dicens : cum Vespasiano mihi vetus amicitia" etc...The citations in Orosius are naturally quite different from these casual references and general estimates. Orosius is always after material for argument, and it is the content rather than the style that interests him. He refers to Tacitus explicitly and at length. He compares critically the statements of Cornelius Tacitus and Pompeius Trogus and again of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. The quotations and citations from Tacitus are all in the Adversus paganos and all from the Histories. In 1. 5. 1 Orosius says: "Ante annos urbis conditae MCLX confinem Arabiae regionem quae tune Pentapolis vocabatur arsisse penitus igne caeleste inter alios etiam Cornelius Tacitus refert, qui sic ait: Haud procul inde campi . . . vim frugiferam perdidisse. Et cum hoc loco nihil de incensis propter peccata hominum civitatibus quasi ignarus expresserit, paulo post velut oblitus consilii subicit et dicit: Ego sicut inclitas . . . cor-rumpi reor." The quotation is from Hist. 5.7 and, in spite of some interesting variants, it is reasonably exact. The same is true of his quotation of Hist. 5. 3 in Adv. pag. 1. 10. 1...

Cassiodorus is a sixth-century writer who seems to have used Tacitus as source material. He does not, however, seem to know much about his source, for he speaks of "a certain Cornelius"; but he draws on Germania 45...Perhaps a hundred years or less after Cassiodorus, Jordanes wrote his De origine actibusque getarum which he took largely from Cassiodorus' history of the Goths. That one or the other of these two must have known Agric. 10 is shown by the following passage in Jordanes (2. 12, 13): "Mari tardo circumfluam quod nec remis facile impellentibus cedat, nec ventorum flatibus intumescat, credo quia remotae longius terrae causas motibus negant. Quippe illic latius quam usquam aequor extenditur . . . Noctem quoque clariorem in extrema eius parte menima quam Cornelius etiam annalium scriptor enarrat. . . Labi vero per earn multa quam maxima relabique flumina gemmas margaritasque volventia." The textual confusion memma quam is usually taken to come from minimamque but we should expect brevemque. The very last item is probably from Mela. The Scholiast to Juvenal 2. 99 and 14. 102 refers to the Histories, ascribing them in the one case to Cornelius, in the other to Cornelius Tacitus. The first note is as follows: "Hunc incomparabilis vitae bello civili Vitellius vicit apud Bebriacum campum. Horum bellum scripsit Cornelius, scripsit et Pompeius Planta, qui sit Bebriacum vicum a Cremona vicesimo lapide." The second is a twofold description of Moses: (a) "sacerdos vel rex eius gentis"; (b) "aut ipsius quidem religionis inventor, cuius Cornelius etiam Tacitus meminit" (cf. Hist. 5. 3).

Comparably speaking, this evidence is vanishingly small compared to the incredible number of attestations and attributions by patristic writers, some few earlier than (but many as late as) those listed for Tacitus above. How can someone dealing with the evidence fairly claim to be sure of Tacitus' authorship of his various works (where such external evidence is concerned) and dismiss the Gospels, which have far better external evidence? I have recently checked a book titled Texts and Tranmission (Clarendon Press, 1993) which records similar data for other ancient works. Throughout the book classic works from around the time of the NT whose authorship and date no one questions (though some have textual issues, just like the NT) are recorded as having the earliest copy between 5th and 9th century, earliest attributions at the same period (for example, Celsus' De medicina is attested no earlier than 990 AD, and then not again until 1300!), and having so little textual support that if they were treated as the NT is, all of antiquity would be reduced to a blank wall of paranoid unknowingness. If the Gospels are treated consistenly, there will be no question at all about their provenance, but that is clearly the last thing critics want to do.

***

In favor of Markan authorship of the Gospel of Mark are the following considerations:

Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:

Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.

Critics tend to reject this testimony out of hand. Kümmel, in particular, simply says that Papias "had no reliable knowledge of the connection of Mark with Peter" [Kumm.Int, 95], but fails to provide any significant basis for this assertion. Contrarily, Boyd notes that there "is as yet no convincing reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this statement." That it "predates any concern to artificially give Mark's Gospel apostolic clout," and the "incidental and unpretentious nature" of the statement itself, is testimony to its veracity. Further testimony may be found in that there was certainly no apologetic value to attaching Mark's name to a Gospel, not just because he was a rotten kid, but also because he was a relative unknown, and not an apostle, and there were much better candidates to choose from (even if one proposes, in a desperate moment of conspiracy-mongering, that Mark was chosen precisely because he was low on the totem pole!), like those selected for the late apocryphal Gospels. (Even Kümmel agrees the attribution to a non-apostle adds weight to the argument that Mark was the author. - [ibid., 97]) Reicke also adds [Reic.Root, 165] that Papias' inquiry was undertaken in a time when apostolic dignity was highly esteemed, thus making the ascription to Mark even more unlikely to be fake.

We have noted that such "external evidence" as this is key for secular historians in determining authorship, and it is interesting to note the comments of one such secular scholar, George Kennedy [Walk.RAG, 148ff]. To begin, Kennedy observes that contrary to what many in NT scholarship claim, and in line with typical procedures of composition in ancient times, Papias' remark that Mark wrote "not in order" is not a criticism of Mark's gospel, but a reference to hypomnema, or what we might refer to as notes, on Peter's preaching. Papias is therefore actually stressing Mark's great care in composition: He did not simply belch out a narrative, but carefully wrote up notes based on Peter's preaching as he recalled it, and in the same order as Peter preached (which, being "individual sermons," would not reflect historical order, but the need of each audience and/or the occassion). Eusebius went on to note that Peter neither approved nor disapproved of these notes; this may be simply have been the expected reaction of someone like Peter for whom literacy was not a central issue -- or else, the resigned reaction of one who recognized these notes as fostering his inevitable "replacement".

Backing up Papias' statement are the following considerations:

Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke. He is also the most "true to life" character in the Gospel other than Jesus: Kelber [Kelb.OWG, 68] observes that in Mark, "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus. There are also many personal touches reflecting Peter, including the frequent and incidental mention of his house (5 times in Mark); phrases such as "Simon and his companions" (1:36) and Andrew being identified as Simon's brother (1:16); and the direct address to Simon by Jesus (14:37). Many third-person verses, if shifted to first- or second-person, would fit right in the mouth of Peter. (1:29, 5:1, 5:38, 6:53-4, 8:22, 10:32, 11:1, 14:18, etc. - [Mart.NTF, 212])

Mark's Gospel has the character of an eyewitness account. As would be expected if the material found its source in an eyewitness, the use of incidental details and characters matches the way an eyewitness account would be composed. Beck notes of the character of Mark's Gospel [Beck.TGJ, 84]:

His vivid language arrests the reader. The Spirit drives Jesus, his followers hunt him out, he sighs deeply. The demoniac hacks himself, the blind man leaps up, the great crowd jostles Jesus or sits like garden plots on the green grass.

And Kelber, although he does not make the connection that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's preaching, observes [Kelb.OWG, 66]:

The prolific use of the third person plural instead of the passive is in keeping with the popular style of storytelling.

Pritchard [Pritch.Lit, 37-44] offers correspondence with our determination criteria. He points out that a literary analysis of Mark indicating that someone very like Peter (as we conventionally recognize him) was behind it: Mark's Gospel has a limited vocabulary (1330 words) and was written in "man on the street" Koine Greek; the rhetorical devices used are few in number and are the sort that would be used by someone who was uneducated; and, it bears an uncomplicated sentence structure: "Its sentences are made like the speech of the less educated men, upon whom the niceties of logically subordinated ideas are largely wasted." (! - Nice words about Peter, eh!)

Obviously, one who is desperately conspiracy-minded might suggest that all of this could be faked, but this would suggest a literary artistry beyond what the author of the second Gospel evidences otherwise (i.e., faking being uneducated). Further, it has been objected that much of Mark looks like "community tradition" rather than a personal account - although remember that it is not held that ALL of Mark's material came from Peter, and at any rate, the community had to get the material from somewhere! [Mart.NTF, 204-5] The most parsimonious explanation for the above is not some wild conspiracy, but that Mark's Gospel was created "essentially on the basis of traditions imparted by Peter" [Reic.Root, 57] and on his preaching - just as Papias indicates.

Originally posted by jpholding

Wow. LonelyGuyMan doesn't know what common words like "certified" mean.

I certainly do know what the word means with regards to “certified” to practice law or medicine in the state of NY. I guess I’m still struggling with what it means in regards to “Christian scholarship”, as in the following quote you still can’t defend:

Originally posted by Senile Librarian

Familiarity with credentialed, certified, detailed Christian scholarship

So since you can’t defend what that means, I’ll just have to assume that the scholarship of Price, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar are all “certified”. And I’m quite familiar with them. So I guess your lame attempt and technique is still exposed.
Nice try librarian…gosh that tutu sure looks tight on you…perhaps the low carb twinkies would help get you back on your toes?

Yes, it is quite the ball to see you running and hiding like this, refusing to engage specifics because you can't.

What specifics? I’m calling you on your weak appeal to this hilarious notion of “certified” Christian scholarship, and my alleged “lack of familiarity” with it. It seems it's you who can’t identify what it is, and defend it in your own words. I’m not running, I’m right here laughing at your tripe. You’re exposed librarian, your game is tired, your mind is weak, your schtick never varies, and your insults are permanently stuck at the third grade level. But you do amuse me…please continue…

Sad to say, few people realize just how funny this comment is -- particularly, Jaltus and GrayPilgrim. That speaks for itself.

Sorry librarian, no one is here to defend you. Are you scared of me? Do you need some more friends to help you? Are Jaltus and GrayPilgrim “certified”? Sure you don’t want to cut and paste something from Glenn Miller at this point?

Can you also admit that your species is full of rampants cowards who mouth off constantly and refuse to defend their beliefs from detailed scrutiny, precisely because they have no such "evidence" to present, being that they can barely understand what is presented?

Yes. You’re a perfect example in the Christopher Reeves thread. You mouth off constantly about things you know NOTHING about, things you have ZERO evidence for, and then claim, “Garsh, some udder smart people agree with me…”…nice try librarian…tell us about the card catalog system…something you do know…

Oh I see. MDs and Scientists with no training in formal logic, just a materialist worldview based on them not knowing what to look for. I see.

Oh, so now all scientists don’t have training in “formal logic”?
But I guess librarians, apologists and ancient historians do?
Tell us about N.T. Wright’s formal training in “logic” as it relates to verifying eternal life or the authenticity of "mark's" writings.
Tell us about your own training in “formal logic”…

I wonder, what would you have someone “look for” with regards to supporting your claim that “life” continues after death?Where should we “look” for wherever Christopher Reeves consciousness is hiding? Is it under the ground like your ancient ignorant ancestors thought? Or is it in your closet?

Please…consider that a SPECIFIC question for you…oh bastion of logic and deep thinking… I’ll hold my breath waiting for your witty SPECIFIC answer.

So what? You'd run and hide just as fast if I used my own words. You're exposed, little girl.

Ahhh…now the little librarian monkey is mimicking me…how precious…I’m right here badass…show me your evidence…show all the stupid “materialists”, and untrained scientists, “where to look” for your eternal life evidence, your worldwide flood evidence, your “young earth” evidence… oh yeah…answersingenesis.com

See below. Then I expect you to do the same for the Annals of Tacitus, little one.

Are you claiming that our knowledge of the biography and sources of “mark” is equal in quality to our knowledge of Tacitus? Is that what you’re claiming? I just want to make sure and give you a moment to retract that before you make a bigger fool of yourself…if that’s possible.

Did Tacitus record any accounts of magical stars wandering the sky, virgin births, singing angels, dead people being raised, dead saints trippin’ around Jerusalem? Did Tacitus ever claim he was god, or the only way to god? I musta missed that…

The Annals have no "biography" of Tacitus or date or location on them, by the way. But maybe you are far more brialliant than Greco-Roman historians who say we have enough information.

Enough information for what?

We have many surviving documents by Tacitus, what do we have from “mark”? Is anyone here declaring the works of Tacitus inerrant and god’s word? I don’t know any historians saying that…so this whole distraction is all irrelevant. This is just your standard dodge librarian…you’re exposed…you’re a monkey trained to push a button when you hear a skeptic’s challenge… “If you don’t believe in god men walking on water…you can’t believe in any history right up till WWII…"

…sorry ignorant librarian…your “logic” is flawed…and your historical critical method is clearly biased…should I be surprised?

It was what you were challenged on, little one. Having problems with your literacy again?

Sorry…I already conceded that there lived a man named Yeshua. I’m sure there were many. Next claim.

So you admit Price is a wayward nobody in context, then? Or does Price hear voices?

Price has all those degrees, affiliations, teaching positions and books that you can only dream about….librarian…

He can start all the journals he wants; but the day he represents himself as a lone and sane voice in the wilderness, while everyone else (including the other three you named) are said to be biased, delusional, or subject to wishful thinking, he steps beyond what can be claimed as "rational" and becomes a glory hog of the LGM School of Thought. Luckily he has gullible guys like you to keep him cheered.

He’s not alone, there’s plenty of scholars who question the historicity of the gospel claims. Maybe you missed the whole Jesus Seminar thing 15 years ago? Maybe you’ve never heard of Crossan, Mack, Wells, Riley, Paterson, etc.

Peter’s got some of them summarized pretty well here.
Seems they run the gamut.

Sorry librarian, nice try, but your lame tactics are again exposed. Price just happens to be one good example of a former confessional Christian PhD apologist, with all the degrees that you only dream of, who suspects from his scholarly investigation that the gospels are just run-of-the-mill fictional hagiography.

And you, as usual, are merely vomiting forth with the usual non-answers -- because you have none, and never will have any, and will remaining hiding in your little dark corner, eating your curds and whey.

I've got an answer for all your lame tripe and I’m right here...librarian. Your tactics are exposed. It’s you who are frightened, it’s you who doesn’t have answers, it’s you who can’t keep a job at a prison library, it’s you who’s wearing the tutu and making the same tired cliché insults…please continue. This is what you do for a living, and yet you’re being dismantled by a “little school girl”. Is that who first beat you up on the playground back in third grade?…a little girl you called names, who proceeded to kick your butt and gave you a complex? Is that what turned JP into the grumpy, anti-social, dork we see today? How tragic…

For a guy not interested in wasting time, he sure keeps doing it a lot. Here's what I can fit on Mark. Run the other way, quick!

I enjoy dismantling the pompous and pretentious. And they don’t get much bigger than you on this site, although perhaps Richbee comes close...

The "anonymity" of the Gospels authors is something that many skeptics hang their hat upon.

I don’t “hang my hat” on it. And I don’t speak in the first person plural. I simply point it out, and ask why would anyone believe an anonymous document from the first century is the “inerrant word of god”?
Strike one librarian…

Yet I have noted that in making this argument, critics never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that the Gospels are.

I’m sorry, what other ancient documents does anyone claim is the “inerrant word of god”? The Qu’ran? I don’t believe it either. What other documents claim to be the innerant word of god? Certainly not Tacitus or Josephus.
Strike two librarian…you didn’t even get the bat off your pudgy shoulder for that fastball…

If it is objected that the Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts -- and this is a very common point to be made, even among traditionalists -- then this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels.

Nobody worships the writings of Tacitus. Nobody claims that any of the writing ascribed to Tacitus is sacred or inerrant or anything other than Tacitus thoughts on history and morality.
Strike 3 librarian…

{*snip long irrelevant history lesson on Tacitus* ho hum…}

So all you’ve got is a quote from a desperate early church promoter - Eusebius, allegedly quoting a source he doesn’t even trust - “Papias”, who didn’t claim to know “Mark” or “Peter”, as claiming that the author of this first gospel document, that is the foundation for your complete worldview, might have been written by an associate of Peter. And this is all you need to claim it is the inerrant word of god! How wonderful for you! Your mastery of logic and credulity, even for one as highly educated as a prison librarian, is still quite impressive.

Seems I trust Peter Kirby’s scholarly research on how trustworthy "Papias" is, a bit more than yours.

Strike Four librarian…seems you’ve been exposed…but please…continue to amuse me in your tutu...

Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan

Seems I trust Peter Kirby’s scholarly research on how trustworthy "Papias" is, a bit more than yours.

Strike Four librarian…seems you’ve been exposed…but please…continue to amuse me in your tutu...

Well, this is what Kirby says:

"Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark."

Doesn't this part agree with what Holding said?

(I think you may have read Kirby's comment about fragment X and thought he was referring to all of the fragments)

Originally posted by LoonlyGoofyGuy

I certainly do know what the word means with regards to “certified” to practice law or medicine in the state of NY.

Then it's time to expand your horizons beyond the state of New York and start using a dictionary.

I guess I’m still struggling with what it means in regards to “Christian scholarship”,

We know well your struggles with the most basic vocabulary. Check the dictionary and see if you can figure this one out. Try to use one other than the one you got yesterday in Mrs. Kibbitz's class right after you got done with nap time.

So since you can’t defend what that means, I’ll just have to assume that the scholarship of Price, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar are all “certified”.

I never said otherwise, goofy boy. What I said is that you're utterly and woefully incapable of responding to material presented from such scholarship. In fact, you'd be hard pressed even to defend positions from any of those scholars you agree with, or to defend against any position you might take against them if such existed. Indeed you would not even be able to blow your nose with their support, or tie your shoes, or butter your bread, or use soap and water.

And I’m quite familiar with them.

Rubbing them repeatedly on your head isn't what we are talking about here, little one. We're talking about serious and intellectual use of their work, critical evaluation of it, comparison to other (and responding) works, and so on. This you could not do with the help of a Cray supercomputer.

Nice try librarian…gosh that tutu sure looks tight on you…perhaps the low carb twinkies would help get you back on your toes?

The evidence suggests that if any of us has been ingesting anything with the toxic levels of preservatives that Twinkies have, it is you, since your "arguments" never change.

What specifics?

The ones you dutifully ignore other than with vague sound bites.

It seems it's you who can’t identify what it is, and defend it in your own words. I’m not running, I’m right here laughing at your tripe.

Ah, smell that...irony, roasting on an open flame, from one who cannot even PRODUCE words to call his own, and calls running, laughing.

Sorry librarian, no one is here to defend you. Are you scared of me?

To the same level, mayhaps, I might fear a garden slug.

Do you need some more friends to help you? Are Jaltus and GrayPilgrim “certified”?

Yes, they indeed are. Especially compared to you, my dear little short order Burger King grease jockey.

Sure you don’t want to cut and paste something from Glenn Miller at this point?

What for? You can't answer it anyway, and never will, ever. No, all we will get is shallow, ignorant, mouth-foaming whining about cutting and pasting.

Oh, so now all scientists don’t have training in “formal logic”?

No, just the ones that don't and show they don't. So much for that red herring. Now what fish will come out of that cavernous mouth next?

But I guess librarians, apologists and ancient historians do?

Some indeed do (per above). Some even offer actual answers.

Tell us about N.T. Wright’s formal training in “logic” as it relates to verifying eternal life or the authenticity of "mark's" writings.

What for? It's all above your addled little head to begin with. You can't read Wright; it contains words with more than 5 letters. Much less could you ever directly address any of his arguments.

I wonder, what would you have someone “look for” with regards to supporting your claim that “life” continues after death?

Here's a hint, little one:

"I'm going to go out and look for some wooden clothespins!"

"Oh yeah? How?"

"I'll take my metal detector!"

The absolute inanity of using physical means to find an extra-physical entity evidently escapes these brilliant minds.

When you have the guts to actually answer Miller directly, in detail, we'll see if you're anywhere near as "bad" as you claim to be, Mr. Urkel....

Are you claiming that our knowledge of the biography and sources of “mark” is equal in quality to our knowledge of Tacitus?

Yep, if not better. So when do you plan to address the comparative evidence rather than wheedling off into red herrings like this one:

Did Tacitus record any accounts of magical stars wandering the sky, virgin births, singing angels, dead people being raised, dead saints trippin’ around Jerusalem?

Uh, well, he did record healing miracles by Vespasian, but what has this to do with the tea in China, little man? I can't wait to hear the explanation of how recording of miraculous events somehow casts doubt upon the authorship of a document and somehow erases the value of external attestations and internal evidence. If you don't like Tacitus, heck, we'll just play with Suetonious. No one doubts he wrote his Lives of the Caesars, and that has miracles coming out of its ears. So want to come out and play, grease jockey?

Did Tacitus ever claim he was god, or the only way to god?

No. What's your point? Mark didn't either. And I still wait for why this affects evidence related to attestation.

We have many surviving documents by Tacitus, what do we have from “mark”?

We have maybe 4 works by Tacitus. What do you mean "many"? And what in the world does number of surviving documents have to do with external attestation and internal evidence for authorship? While you're at it, why don't you ask what color floor Tacitus and Mark used for their kitchen tiles?

Is anyone here declaring the works of Tacitus inerrant and god’s word?

No, and who cares? That's yet another red herring, as if claims made post-authorship have a whit to do that changes any lick of evidence regarding external attestation and internal evidence. Oh, I see. So if someone now claims Tacitus' Annals is God's inerrant Word, all of the evidence I cited goes out the window, fwip, just like that? It reduces in value at once? Sayit again, guy. How stupid. Be more stupider. Show us your red herrings.

I don’t know any historians saying that…so this whole distraction is all irrelevant. This is just your standard dodge librarian…you’re exposed…

Oh my, but the irony reeks.

you’re a monkey trained to push a button when you hear a skeptic’s challenge… “If you don’t believe in god men walking on water…you can’t believe in any history right up till WWII…"

If the button-impression fits -- WEAR IT. As usual, your epistemology is a presumptive sham, devoid of any rational basis.

Sorry…I already conceded that there lived a man named Yeshua. I’m sure there were many. Next claim.

Take your pick -- I have 1500+ articles for you to choose from; take up to 5 as options if you dare.

Price has all those degrees, affiliations, teaching positions and books that you can only dream about….librarian…

Who cares? My sources have thousands of degrees, affiliations, teaching positions, and books of their own...lose the straw man...grease jockey...

He’s not alone, there’s plenty of scholars who question the historicity of the gospel claims.

But not the historicity of Jesus himself, little one. Maybe you missed the category on Jeapordy for this round -- and that the Jesus Seminar thing is regarded as fringe lunacy by the majority.

I think that the Jesus Seminar is a scholarly hoax in which people are pretending to know things that we cannot possibly know and no scholarly issue is settled by having scholars vote. At first I thought it was a joke, but it isn’t a joke. They really take themselves very seriously and they pretend to have informed opinions about issues that are very hard to settle. They also pretend to settle these by voting. I think that is absurd. If this isn’t a hoax then it signifies that the New Testament studies as we know them become intellectually bankrupt because they have used up all of the capital of rationality, logic and rigorous argument that sustains scholarship. You cannot give up on all of the rules and still be a going concern. -- Jacon Neusner

A group of secularized theologians and secular academics went seeking a secular Jesus, and they found him! They think they found him, but, in fact, they created him. Jesus the 'party animal,' whose zany wit and caustic humor would enliven an otherwise dull cocktail party --this is the product of the Jesus Seminar's six years' research. -- Birger Pearson

No, the case argued by this book (The Five Gospels) would not stand up in any court. The critical study of the historical Jesus is an important task-perhaps important for reasons theological as well as historical-but The Five Gospels does not advance that task significantly, nor does it represent a fair picture of the current state of research on this problem. Some of its purported revelations are old news, and many of its novel claims are at best dubious. No, I was not involved in the project, nor were any of my colleagues at Yale and Duke, all of whom share my view that the Jesus Seminar is methodologically misguided. Should you take it seriously? Only if you want to compare its findings to other scholarly reconstructions of Jesus of Nazareth. If you are interested in the problem, there are at least a dozen other books I would recommend in preference to this one. But their authors are less likely to be interviewed on the radio: no scandalous sound bites. -- Richard Hays

I'd challenge you to debate specifics, but what for? You'll just run and hide as you always do, screaming like a little girl in high heels.

Maybe you missed the whole Jesus Seminar thing 15 years ago? Maybe you’ve never heard of Crossan, Mack, Wells, Riley, Paterson, etc.

Yawn. Them and their little dogs, too. Even have written depth articles three of them. Care to try refuting or debating any of them, grease jockey?

Peter’s got some of them summarized pretty well here. Seems they run the gamut.

Which one? Harvard to Claremont?

Price just happens to be one good example of a former confessional Christian PhD apologist, with all the degrees that you only dream of, who

Price just happens to be a spoiled crybaby, a good example of a brat who didn't learn enough the first time and now resents any correction. In the meantime there are Ph D sources I use that make mincemeat of him -- and which you have no power to dispute, grease jockey...

I don’t “hang my hat” on it. And I don’t speak in the first person plural. I simply point it out, and ask why would anyone believe an anonymous document from the first century is the “inerrant word of god”?

True, not your hat, your whole head...and we're still waiting for an actual argument in favor of "anonymity" and not merely red herrings that have zero to do with issues of authorship...ball one grease jockey...

I’m sorry, what other ancient documents does anyone claim is the “inerrant word of god”?

Oops, what's that greasy red thing? It's a burger jockey carrying a fish...looks like all that evidence about Tacitus gets flushed if someone somewhere calls the Annals the Word of God....ball two, grease jockey....you didn't even pick up a ball, you picked up a fish....

Nobody worships the writings of Tacitus. Nobody claims that any of the writing ascribed to Tacitus is sacred or inerrant or anything other than Tacitus thoughts on history and morality.

Whoa, it was the same pitch again, high and wide and smelling of fish...ball three, grease jockey...

{*snip long irrelevant history lesson on Tacitus* ho hum…}

Yep. Long avoidance manuever; ignoring all the actual argument. Ball four, I walk, all over you.

So all you’ve got is a quote from a desperate early church promoter -

And all you do is namecall, in place of actual argument. Who is Eusy "promoting" too and how does this make what he says untrue? Oh -- so if someone "promotes" a view, they must be wrong? That means you who promote materialism....

Eusebius, allegedly quoting a source he doesn’t even trust -

Er, excuse me? Nowhere does Eusy say he does not "trust" Papias. He says that he thinks he is not always the sharpest tool in the shed...and he says that because of his theology, not because of his relating of hard authorship data. Oops. Red herring #465,384 and reason #8593 why you are dumb stupid, though wise to avoid detailed debate with me. You can't even get the simplest things right, so what hope do you have against someone who knows the ropes?

“Papias”, who didn’t claim to know “Mark” or “Peter”, as claiming that the author of this first gospel document,

Uh, wheeee. Like, you have to claim to "know" the author in person to be authoritative. So much for all that about Tacitus authoring the Annals then, since people like Tertuallian never met the guy. So much indeed for the vast majority of ancient external attestations. So much for the grease jockey's credibility as an arguer. Just one greasy red herring after another.

And this is all you need to claim it is the inerrant word of god!

No, it's all I need to make a case for Marcan authorship of Mark. That's it. Put the herring down and back away from the fish tank....

Seems I trust Peter Kirby’s scholarly research on how trustworthy "Papias" is, a bit more than yours.

Ball five -- as GDon noted, you just made a "arse" of yourself linking (cutting and pasting, the lazy way) to someone who has agreement with what I say...and otherwise doesn't affect my point. Seems you've been exposed, gutted, laid out, and buried. Funeral at 2 PM, right after John Paul 2's. :mourn:

So there we have it. Another long-winded avoidance maneuver by the grease jockey showing yet again that he couldn't argue his way out of a parchment bag, though he is good at filling it with fish, lemon, dill, and other spices, and in the process making a horrendous odor. Stay tuned tomorrow for yet another gutting of the Loony Guy with the JPHOCD.

Originally posted by jpholding

Then it's time to expand your horizons beyond the state of New York and start using a dictionary.

We know well your struggles with the most basic vocabulary. Check the dictionary and see if you can figure this one out. Try to use one other than the one you got yesterday in Mrs. Kibbitz's class right after you got done with nap time.

There are few things more simultaneously amusing and hideous than watching a pudgy, ugly, grumpy librarian flailing about in a tight pink tutu.

You’re exposed librarian. There is no such thing as CERTIFIED Christian scholarship or apologetics. It’s another BS phrase you pulled out your rectum to try and impress the credophiles who buy your tripe. Any frustrated, unemployed, halfwit librarian can pick up the bible and some commentary and do it. Oh look, here comes one now.

So spare me your constant hilarious appeals to the chosen authorities that you’ve decided to worship. They’re all in the same boat, torturing the same ancient literature, and coming to vastly different conclusions. Get over it…Wright isn’t right…and Malina can’t get inside the head of a first century Canaanite slave girl…

I never said otherwise, goofy boy. What I said is that you're utterly and woefully incapable of responding to material presented from such scholarship. In fact, you'd be hard pressed even to defend positions from any of those scholars you agree with, or to defend against any position you might take against them if such existed. Indeed you would not even be able to blow your nose with their support, or tie your shoes, or butter your bread, or use soap and water.

I don’t need to defend ANY position librarian, that’s your chosen profession for milking your twinkie money from those who want the puerile, obsessed, Reader Digest version of “certified” scholarship.
I have a real profession that pays very well, and provides a real benefit to my society. And unlike you, I pay federal and state income taxes…heck, I paid more in tips last year than you paid in taxes…get a real job you lazy prig, then maybe you can support your wife like proud paternal ANE men are supposed to. Have you no SHAME?

I’ve read enough “certified scholarship” to know that there is NO high ground in Christian scholarship. That biblical scholarship has been going through a period of rapid change in the last century, as new documents are found, and various forms of literary and historical criticism are applied to these documents. I also understand enough history to know that without the Roman sword and patronage, that there was NO original Christian orthodoxy either, Paul was constantly battling opposing views to his cult, and now without that sword and patronage, Spong’s claims to orthodox scholarship are just as valid as Jack Chick’s…

Freedom from being burned at the stake has finally allowed this sacred collection of myths and fairytales to be dissected by scholarship without an “orthodox” confessional bent. Sorry librarian, the jig is up, but I’m sure there are plenty of credophiles left who will admire your tutu and dance steps and send you 5 dollars on paypal for your lame performance.

Scholars and historians have evidence that early Christianity was a schizophrenic diverse patchwork of movements from Paul’s cosmic "savior" cult, to the wisdom teaching of reforming communities of Q/Gospel of Thomas sayings, to the gnostics and mystics. That’s why fictions like Acts were written, to give one tradition some authoritative credibility over the others. That’s why early Christians forged epistles, redacted gospels, and interpolated other historical documents. That’s why Eusebius needed to come up with an authoritative church history, by quoting the hearsay of someone he thought was stupid from 200 years in the past. That’s why once an orthodox Christianity was in power, it destroyed all the documents that criticized it, and persecuted those of any competing “unorthodox” Christian traditions.

These are all typical things done by any powerful bureaucracy that needs to cover-up for their lies and keep sheep in line…and you need to swear to defend it all…because that’s how you make a living…how amusing…begging money to defend some anonymous works of fiction from 2000 years ago…I guess it beats collecting overdue book fines from prisoners.

"I'm going to go out and look for some wooden clothespins!"

"Oh yeah? How?"

"I'll take my metal detector!"

The absolute inanity of using physical means to find an extra-physical entity evidently escapes these brilliant minds.

Typical wretched analogy from a shallow thinker...I use my EYES to see clothespins...you intellectual defect...

Again, why not tell us what you use instead of a “metal detector” to detect an “extra-physical entity”

I’m waiting….
…oh yeah…you use something cut and pasted from Glen Miller
‘Garsh, Glen read some stuff from Plato and some udder smart philosophers and they all believed in ghosts and goblins and evil spirits…it must be TRUE!”…

Hey, why not have me over the next time you and Glen have a séance with Christopher Reeves…I’ll bring my “baloney detector” and a video camera…

So if someone now claims Tacitus' Annals is God's inerrant Word, all of the evidence I cited goes out the window, fwip, just like that? It reduces in value at once? Sayit again, guy. How stupid. Be more stupider. Show us your red herrings.

Is anyone worshiping the words of Tacitus as the inerrant word of god? If so, I guess that makes them just as deluded as you are…(although I don’t really think you “worship” anything other than your own needy ego…)
You’re the one that brought up the red herring of Tacitus. It is a red herring, I’m just playing along. It has no bearing on the authorship or veracity of the gospel of Mark.

And if Eusebius’ hearsay, of Papias’ hearsay, of vague references to documents and people he didn’t know, is all you’ve got…well then I guess I’d be trying to distract people with this Tacitus BS, and tired, lame insults, instead of just admitting that the biography of “mark” is clearly in dispute among most “certified” scholars.
Sorry librarian…you’re exposed…and it sure ain’t purty…

Take your pick -- I have 1500+ articles for you to choose from; take up to 5 as options if you dare.

Sorry, my spam blocker prevents me from accessing your little web wasteland.
Please don’t flatter yourself librarian, there is nothing you’ve written that remotely interests me.
I’ve figured out what the JPHOCD sufferers haven’t….You’re just not that important or interesting…I’d rather read something by Betty Bowers or Josh McDowell…

But not the historicity of Jesus himself, little one.

I’ve already conceded that there could very well have been a “historical Jesus”. So what? There could also have been a historical King Arthur and Lancelot…the problem is, you will never know their true biographies, all you have is some hazy myth and contradicting hagiographies…

That’s why you’re so frustrated little librarian, that’s why you’re so angry, that’s why you’re so caught up in your little honor/shame name calling games…because you’ve chosen the bizarre profession of trying to prove something that can’t be proven, something that can only be believed by suspending critical thinking, and substituting it with credulous faith….good luck with that.

In the meantime, please continue to amuse me with your Credentialed Certified Christian Scholarship Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – CCCSOCD…

Originally posted by LoonyGoofyGuy

There are few things more simultaneously amusing and hideous than watching a pudgy, ugly, grumpy librarian flailing about in a tight pink tutu.

Well, stop taking photos of Charles Darwin and pay attention to what's happening here; then you won't make such a rich embarrassment of yourself in front of millions, trying to do your impression of someone who actually reads scholarly literature and uses it for more than just the thickness when you need a seat at the dinner table.

You’re exposed librarian. There is no such thing as CERTIFIED Christian scholarship or apologetics.

Oh dear, Loser is stumped by the dictionary once more in his quest to win an argument after 785634 straight losses. Last time it was, "Ha, I'll bet there is no such word as 'jodhpur' " and when he lost that one he had to stand butt naked at the burger grill for a week. It wouldn't have been so bad except he wasn't even allowed to wear an apron, and the hot grease got on even those most particular areas of danger. Like his scalp. He's only 3 foot 4 you see.

Any frustrated, unemployed, halfwit librarian can pick up the bible and some commentary and do it.

Too bad any boot-shaking, underemployed, quarterwit grease jockey can't pick up a dictionary and so something else. Besides sit on it of course.

So spare me your constant hilarious appeals to the chosen authorities that you’ve decided to worship. They’re all in the same boat, torturing the same ancient literature, and coming to vastly different conclusions.

Witness: The plea of the hapless, gutless, plaid-covered ignoramus without anything of the sort of intellectual equipment needed to address any one of the names he soils with his keyboard, waving the white flag in unerring desperation, pleading, "Don't throw me in that briarpatch!"

I don’t need to defend ANY position librarian, that’s your chosen profession for milking your twinkie money from those who want the puerile, obsessed, Reader Digest version of “certified” scholarship.

Witness: He is unable to defend any position, for his intellectual equipment consists of a rusted wheel and a dead squirrel.

[And unlike you, I pay federal and state income taxes…

Poor ignorant sap. I pay federal taxes -- Florida has no state income taxes, as it happens -- it is my 501c3 that does not; but if you have a problem with that, I am sure Danny Boy Barker and Reginald Finley will be glad to forsake their tax exempt status. But why I am I saying this? You think a 501c3 is the dress size you'll wear to the prom, if you can get a date.

heck, I paid more in tips last year than you paid in taxes…

We always figured you to be a rancid little cheapskate. Next time spare yourself embarrassment and keep the 32 cents next time you go to McDonald's for your wedding anniversary. And stop picking the chewing gum off the bottom of the tables, your tightwad. And stop wrapping it up as a gift for your kid when you get home!

I’ve read enough “certified scholarship” to know that there is NO high ground in Christian scholarship.

This vague message of public service has been brought to you by Glaxo SmithKline, maker of hallucinogenic drugs, specially formulated for those like LoserGoofMan with delusions of grandeur about their own competence.

I also understand enough history to know that without the Roman sword and patronage, that there was NO original Christian orthodoxy either, Paul was constantly battling opposing views to his cult, and now without that sword and patronage, Spong’s claims to orthodox scholarship are just as valid as Jack Chick’s…

Ah, nothing like hillbilly commentary to liven up the hills. We'll put those lines to juice harp and play them at the next meeting of Morons Anonymous we see having a conclave in the middle of the interstate. It's the waving of white flag by one without the critical capacity to tell Jack Chick from Spong -- finding both of them equally, intellectually inaccessible to his addled little mind.

Freedom from being burned at the stake has finally allowed this sacred collection of myths and fairytales to be dissected by scholarship without an “orthodox” confessional bent.

Is that Acharya S on the line suing for plagiarism? Or is it someone else trying to sell LGM paranoia meds?

Scholars and historians have evidence that early Christianity was a schizophrenic diverse patchwork of movements from Paul’s cosmic "savior" cult, to the wisdom teaching of reforming communities of Q/Gospel of Thomas sayings, to the gnostics and mystics.

This evidence is located exactly 3 miles down Main, 2 blocks to the right, and between LGM's butt cheeks. In reality, early Christianity was a generally unified whole, with no significant difference between what was taught in Paul and the so-called mythic Q community (which is actually Jerusalem Christianity; being that Q is a fantasy document with zero literary, epigraphic, or archaeological evidence, let alone evidence of an actual "community"), and with the likes of GThom emerging 150 years too late to be given serious consideration as an original. I'd offer a debate on any of these issues, but our resident coward has already left the room at Wile E Coyote speed.

That’s why fictions like Acts were written, to give one tradition some authoritative credibility over the others. That’s why early Christians forged epistles, redacted gospels, and interpolated other historical documents.

And the proof of ahistoricity of Acts and of forgery of any single document is where, exactly? Pick one:

a) LoonyMan's deluded imagination
b) orbiting Betelgeuse
c) on Blueberry Hill
d) all of the above

That’s why Eusebius needed to come up with an authoritative church history, by quoting the hearsay of someone he thought was stupid from 200 years in the past.

And the problem with accepting hearsay is what now, other than that Thomas Paine the God doesn't like it?

That’s why once an orthodox Christianity was in power, it destroyed all the documents that criticized it, and persecuted those of any competing “unorthodox” Christian traditions.

Yep, that's definitely Acharya on the line, and she wants to know who stole her Screwball Award from the mantle.

Typical wretched analogy from a shallow thinker...I use my EYES to see clothespins...you intellectual defect...

You use your eyes to find BURIED clothespins? Is that why your face is so dirty all the time? I thought all of that came from the books you read from Steamshovel Press.

Again, why not tell us what you use instead of a “metal detector” to detect an “extra-physical entity”

Uh, philosophical argumentation -- just like the bulk of great minds throughout history who have rejected materialism and epiphenomenalism...not that this keeps LoserBoy from proclaiming himself superior from his armchair to the world's greatest philosophers...or getting out of that armchair to answer Miller in detail....

I’ll bring my “baloney detector” and a video camera…

Detection of baloney is a piece of cake. Can you give us a DNA sample?

Is anyone worshiping the words of Tacitus as the inerrant word of god? If so, I guess that makes them just as deluded as you are…(although I don’t really think you “worship” anything other than your own needy ego…)
You’re the one that brought up the red herring of Tacitus. It is a red herring, I’m just playing along.

IOW LoonyBoy can't defend his ridiculous argument that nature of the work and what is claimed of it has some bearing on authorship evidence.

And if Eusebius’ hearsay, of Papias’ hearsay, of vague references to documents and people he didn’t know, is all you’ve got…well then I guess I’d be trying to distract people with this Tacitus BS, and tired, lame insults, instead of just admitting that the biography of “mark” is clearly in dispute among most “certified” scholars.

IOW, he hasn't the intellectual cajones to even begin making a critical argument. Sorry, LoonyBoy, exposed -- and standing in front of hot grease. And it sure could be purtier...

Please don’t flatter yourself librarian, there is nothing you’ve written that remotely interests me.

So indeed says the one would couldn't refute even the simplest article thereon, not from any corner he hides in.

I’ve figured out what the JPHOCD sufferers haven’t….You’re just not that important or interesting…I’d rather read something by Betty Bowers or Josh McDowell…

Gosh, yet I'm so unimportant that he spends 3 hours a day responding to me. Denial while in process: classic JPHOCD.

the problem is, you will never know their true biographies, all you have is some hazy myth and contradicting hagiographies…

(waiting 47 days for LoonyGuy to provide an actual argument that proves any of this, or shows a problem)

So it runs to this: Still no answer to any actual argument, other than greasy red herrings which LoonyBoy quietly dropped in his embarrassment, a more embarassing drop than the one he had to do when he lost the bet about pants. Tch tch. Stay tuned tomorrow for another drubbing of the incompetent inept into ennui.

YEC Boy,

"certified"

So if a "certified" theologian disagreed with you about a theological matter, would he/she still be "certified"?

Guess what-the reason your can't support your beliefs about the existence of the "soul" is that there is no such thing. You can't explain what such a thing is or provide actual evidence that it exists.

Here is something else to consider, from your good buddy "Ebon":

"But just because a belief makes our existence more pleasant does not mean it is true. It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to be able to set it aside and face life as it really is. Heaven is just such a belief. Comforting though the idea may be, a rational examination shows that it suffers from intractable logical problems. Therefore, we should face up to the fact that it is fiction, and find within ourselves the wisdom and the honesty to go on without it."

"To those who have never known the freedom of a life without dogma, losing the safety net of belief in a pleasant afterlife may seem frightening and traumatic at first. But like so many other doctrines of theism, the discarding of it ultimately turns out to be not a loss, but a gain. The idea of "eternal life" makes our lives comparatively fleeting and worthless - after all, why bother trying to make yourself a better person now when you'll have eons to do it later? Why bother trying to ease the suffering of your fellow beings when all their tears will eventually be wiped away? This concept devalues our achievements, debases our very humanity. Far better, far more commendable, is the atheist who does not fear death, though he accepts that when you're gone, you're gone, and strives to make the best use of the gifts of life and consciousness in the short time span available."

"Tragically, the means that theists have adopted in an attempt to escape the end are instead depriving them of the only chance they will ever have. Using such precious time to pray and abase yourself and follow superstitious rituals, all in the hope of winning the favor of some fictitious supernatural being, is a terrible waste. Life is too short to spend it on your knees. Instead of preparing for another existence that will never come, we should make the best use of the life we do have. To learn wisdom, to appreciate beauty, to stand up for what you believe in, and to love - these are far better uses of the all too brief time allotted to each of us."

Jimbo

HOLDING:
Witness: The plea of the hapless, gutless, plaid-covered ignoramus without anything of the sort of intellectual equipment needed to address any one of the names he soils with his keyboard, waving the white flag in unerring desperation, pleading, "Don't throw me in that briarpatch!"

POWELL:
I don't understand this. Despite his pleas to the contrary, Brer Rabbit actually wanted to be thrown into the briarpatch to escape Brer Fox who had prepared the tar baby to get Brer Rabbit stuck.

John Powelll

Originally posted by jimbo

YEC Boy,

"certified"

So if a "certified" theologian disagreed with you about a theological matter, would he/she still be "certified"?

Yep. Next question, Baldy Boy? I'll wait for you to get your foot out of your mouth.

Guess what-the reason your can't support your beliefs about the existence of the "soul" is that there is no such thing. You can't explain what such a thing is or provide actual evidence that it exists.

Only 654 times to you in the other thread. Guess you need a dictionary too huh. By the way, when you sold tektonics.com, was it willingly, or did that engineering firm threaten to sic ICANN on you for a clear rules violation?

Here is something else to consider, from your good buddy "Ebon":

Ebon Bon the non-answerer? I'll answer it when you answer Miller, and when he answers all the outstanding material I have on him. Good luck.



John Powell: True about Brer Rabbit. Fits in with the whole JPHOCD proposition, though....

JPHOLDING:
John Powell: True about Brer Rabbit. Fits in with the whole JPHOCD proposition, though....

POWELL:
Ok. I think I understand now.

As you were.

I think LGM is winning on the wit category, but readers should recognize my bias in his favor.

John Powell

YEC Boy,

So "certified" Christians think you are wrong. Isn't it fun using meaningless words in a desperate effort and make your claims seem more impressive?

Only 654 times to you in the other thread. Guess you need a dictionary too huh.

Nope, you need to realize that you are wasting your entire life promoting the idiotic delusions of ancient people. That is precisely why you have such trouble explaining your beliefs and supporting them. They're false and absolutely ridiculous. You are living in a fantasy world sport.

By the way, when you sold tektonics.com, was it willingly, or did that engineering firm threaten to sic ICANN on you for a clear rules violation?

I don't know what you are babbling about now, YEC boy. What ICANN violations are you ranting about? Inquiring minds want to know.

Your insanity is sad but strangely entertaining! Keep up the great work!

Jimbo

Originally posted by jimbo

I don't know what you are babbling about now, YEC boy. What ICANN violations are you ranting about? Inquiring minds want to know.

Didn't someone once post links to a pornographic website in your old guestbook? (oddly enough, that post remained.)

Sigh…I’m so disappointed in the quality, and even the coherence of your insulting wit, JP. I had such high expectations for you...alas you've let me down...I'd rather trade barbs with Richbee...

Perhaps I’ve pushed your buttons so hard, that now you are irreparably damaged, and are just flailing about in that tight pink tutu, making these incredibly wretched incoherent attempts at puerile invective.…

Perhaps if you breath more deeply while making your next post, more oxygen will reach that small portion of your brain that controls your wit?

Originally posted by jpholding

Well, stop taking photos of Charles Darwin and pay attention to what's happening here;

{*note to self: Holding thinks Darwin was a librarian...*}

then you won't make such a rich embarrassment of yourself in front of millions, trying to do your impression of someone who actually reads scholarly literature and uses it for more than just the thickness when you need a seat at the dinner table.

{*note to self, Holding thinks “millions” are reading this, and that this is a witty retort*}

Oh dear, Loser is stumped by the dictionary once more in his quest to win an argument after 785634 straight losses. Last time it was, "Ha, I'll bet there is no such word as 'jodhpur' " and when he lost that one he had to stand butt naked at the burger grill for a week. It wouldn't have been so bad except he wasn't even allowed to wear an apron, and the hot grease got on even those most particular areas of danger. Like his scalp. He's only 3 foot 4 you see.

Sigh…What can I say to the above? You’re incoherently babbling now JP. I imagine your neurons and synapses misfiring, the vein pounding in your neck, and the spittle spraying your screen and keyboard as you write this….deep breaths JP...in and out...slowly...

Too bad any boot-shaking, underemployed, quarterwit grease jockey can't pick up a dictionary and so something else. Besides sit on it of course.

Sigh…more incoherent material that could be used to have you officially “certified”. Perhaps Lazy A will e-mail this all to Hank Hanegraff and the Florida Dept of Mental Health?
Best not to answer the doorbell for the next few days…

Witness: The plea of the hapless, gutless, plaid-covered ignoramus without anything of the sort of intellectual equipment needed to address any one of the names he soils with his keyboard, waving the white flag in unerring desperation, pleading, "Don't throw me in that briarpatch!"

Ouch…”plaid-covered”…that really hurt…now I’m an out of fashion skeptic.

Witness: He is unable to defend any position, for his intellectual equipment consists of a rusted wheel and a dead squirrel.

Well this tired, cliché visual is at least coherent, but this certainly will not get you on American Puerile Idol.

Poor ignorant sap. I pay federal taxes -- Florida has no state income taxes, as it happens -- it is my 501c3 that does not; but if you have a problem with that, I am sure Danny Boy Barker and Reginald Finley will be glad to forsake their tax exempt status. But why I am I saying this?

I would be happy to support any law that abolishes 501c3 scams whether they be yours, Barker’s or Finley’s. I’m tired of taxpayers supporting everyone’s tripe. Get a real job.

You think a 501c3 is the dress size you'll wear to the prom, if you can get a date.

…teehee…Do you realize what you sound like to others Holding? Did you just stop maturing in 7th grade?

We always figured you to be a rancid little cheapskate. Next time spare yourself embarrassment and keep the 32 cents next time you go to McDonald's for your wedding anniversary. And stop picking the chewing gum off the bottom of the tables, your tightwad. And stop wrapping it up as a gift for your kid when you get home!

…sigh…
I’m confused Holding, are you saying I’m cheap because I tip people MORE than you pay in taxes? Was the word MORE that confused you? If 32 cents is all you paid in taxes, then let me make it clear… I tip MUCH MORE than you pay in taxes…

This vague message of public service has been brought to you by Glaxo SmithKline, maker of hallucinogenic drugs, specially formulated for those like LoserGoofMan with delusions of grandeur about their own competence.

“LoserGoofMan”…teehee…good one JP…you’ve really got me reeling now…

We'll put those lines to juice harp and play them at the next meeting of Morons Anonymous…

I’m confused again, why are you speaking in the first person plural? Does this attempted insult make the claim that you and others play the “juice harp” at meetings of “Moron Anonymous”?

I would expect a librarian to be able to express himself in clear grammatically coherent sentences, yet you seem to be struggling. Is there a reason? Breathe deeply JP…let the woozy feeling pass before you start typing again…

I’m also somewhat mystified why you would attempt to claim that I can’t tell the difference between Spong and Chick, when I used them deliberately as diametrically opposed examples to demonstrate the huge divergence in Christian thought and/or “scholarship”. Again, I’m sorry you’re struggling with these simple concepts.

Is that Acharya S on the line suing for plagiarism? Or is it someone else trying to sell LGM paranoia meds?

I’m sorry if you are not familiar with the religious persecution of countless people suffered at the hands of Christians throughout the theocracies of Europe, and even in our own country, that you despise. I would have thought that someone who prides himself on being a Christian scholar and historian would be more familiar with that history. But perhaps this is just more evidence of the depths of your psychotic delusion, denial and apologetic technique? Alas, I don’t have the time nor desire to educate you, and besides you’re much more amusing in your current ignorant, delusional state.

This evidence is located exactly 3 miles down Main, 2 blocks to the right, and between LGM's butt cheeks.

…teehee…JP said ”butt cheeks”…he’s so naughty…
…careful now…you wouldn’t want Fred Phelps hearing you say that to another man…

In reality, early Christianity was a generally unified whole, with no significant difference between what was taught in Paul and the so-called mythic Q community (which is actually Jerusalem Christianity; being that Q is a fantasy document with zero literary, epigraphic, or archaeological evidence, let alone evidence of an actual "community"), and with the likes of GThom emerging 150 years too late to be given serious consideration as an original. I'd offer a debate on any of these issues, but our resident coward has already left the room at Wile E Coyote speed.

“Unified Whole”
Oh My! Thanks for once again demonstrating the depths of your arrogant, ignorant delusional apologetic mind virus Holding…You really do this for a living?

Hrmmm…Lets see what the Harold W. Attridge: The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School has to say…I wonder…Is he more “certified” than you?

Harold W. Attridge

The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers where different groups of disciples of Jesus gathered and tried to make sense of what they had experienced with him and what had happened to him at the end of his public ministry. Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. Some of them understanding his death and the resurrection experience, if they focused on it, in terms of exaltation. Others understanding it in terms of a resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus, others not worrying very much at all about the resurrection of Jesus, but concentrating on his teaching and trying to propagate that. We can see, even in the canonical text, in the Book of Acts, that there were different groups that were in competition with one another. Those who insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them. There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew. So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....

---

© source where applicable

Lets see what many other "certified" scholars had to say about the diversity of early christianities:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...diversity.html

Oh my…the prison librarian apologist is exposed as hapless and ignorant again. When will it end? When can I stop smirking at your intellectual bankruptcy Holding? You’re making a fool of yourself. Please…do continue…

And the proof of ahistoricity of Acts and of forgery of any single document is where, exactly? Pick one:

a) LoonyMan's deluded imagination
b) orbiting Betelgeuse
c) on Blueberry Hill
d) all of the above

Oh MY! Take Two!

Are you really this naïve of NT criticism? I can’t believe it…you simply can’t be this woefully ignorant. This has to be a gift from god to amuse me.

Let’s see what some other scholars say about just just the pastoral epistles:

Eddy
Although purported to have been written by Paul, the relatively complex church organization reflected by the Pastorals did not exist until many years after Paul’s death.

Mack
The Pastorals were undoubtedly written during the first half of the 2nd century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca.140). Quotations from them first appear in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (180) and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the mid-second century. Their attribution to Paul is a forgery for their language and thought are clearly unPauline. Also, references to particular occasions in the lives of Titus, Timothy, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters.”

The New Oxford Annotated Bible
The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are entirely absent (the union of the believer with Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law), and some of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary usage ("the faith" as a synonym for the Christian religion rather than the believer’s relationship to Christ).”

Oxford Companion to the Bible
Second Timothy, although attributed to Paul, is found by many scholars to be so unPauline in vocabulary, style, theological concepts, church order, emphasis on tradition and in contrast with the chronology of his career as given in Acts and Romans, that it is widely considered to be a forgery.

Remsberg
That the Pastorals are forgeries is now conceded by all critics. According to German critics they belong to the second century. They were certainly composed after the death of Paul.

Robertson
As to the Pastorals, most scholars now agree that they are second-century forgeries because they deal almost exclusively with second-century situations. These documents were not written by Paul..

Wells
It is widely agreed that the Pastorals are mostly forgeries although Titus and 2 Timothy may contain some genuine notes from Paul.

Sigh…imagine…most scholars agree that the pastorals are clearly forged documents in your sacred canon. But you are completely unaware of this?!?

Yet I’m supposed to believe your claim of Eusebius’ hearsay of Papias’ hearsay of something he heard from some other unnamed source, that there was a guy named mark who might have known a guy named Peter, who knew Jesus, and mark wrote down stuff Peter told him that Jesus said…

...uh huh….and this whole thing was inspired by god…sigh…sorry…I just can’t seem to bring myself anywhere near your level of gullibility…

Perhaps John Powell will explain ECREE to you in a subsequent post.

And the problem with accepting hearsay is what now, other than that Thomas Paine the God doesn't like it?

Oh look…I just saw a flying saucer out my window…quick go tell everyone to run for their lives…

You use your eyes to find BURIED clothespins? Is that why your face is so dirty all the time? I thought all of that came from the books you read from Steamshovel Press.

I’m sorry…have you since buried the clothespins? Now that I exposed your wretched analogy?
Here’s how you described them originally…

Originally posted by JP “now I’ve buried my clothespins” Holding”

"I'm going to go out and look for some wooden clothespins!"

"Oh yeah? How?"

"I'll take my metal detector!"

More hilarious dancing by the intellectually and apparently reading impaired librarian.

Do you ever get embarrassed Holding? Do you ever read your tripe here and realize how pathetic you look?. Have you no SHAME?
I thought you were all about your “honor” Holding? I wonder…what would a real ANE man do in your incredibly embarrassing situation here? I would think he would shave his head, put on some sack cloth, and wander the desert…you should try it…or feel free to continue to amuse me a while longer…

Uh, philosophical argumentation -- just like the bulk of great minds throughout history who have rejected materialism and epiphenomenalism...not that this keeps LoserBoy from proclaiming himself superior from his armchair to the world's greatest philosophers...

By “philosophical argumentation” I take it you mean ignorant, ancient men who had no clue about the brain, or modern cognitive neuroscience, but instead enjoyed pulling introspective answers about consciousness out of their rectums like you and Miller do?

What part of the body do you think Aristotle thought was the seat of consciousness Holding?

What did Rene Descartes think was the purpose of the pineal gland in the brain?

You’re hilarious and exposed librarian. You and Miller are both ignorant little theologian/philosopher wannabes. It’s just that he isn’t the puerile, immature socially retarded prig that you are. You don’t have a real job, you’ve never done any real work in any field that requires any scientific or intellectual discipline…you’re a woefully ignorant, frustrated pseudo-intellectual admired only by other Christian dolts who can’t think for themselves. And sigh…I suppose there’s a 501c3 living in that for you…

It’s clear you’ve never read or studied any science Holding. It frightens you. You were scared to even take a position on the foolishness of YEC because you claimed such woeful ignorance about science. You have no clue about any of the modern discoveries of neuroscience, and in this post it’s clear you don’t even understand the one subject you’ve devoted your entire obsessive life to. I find you tragically amusing, it’s like you’re some kind of macabre Shakespearean character completely unaware of what a despicably ugly and flawed person you are.

But please…continue to prance about with more of your marvelously witty references to “butt cheeks” and “LakeGoofyMan” and claims that I am “plaid covered” and hilarious claims that Christianity started from a “unified whole” and that the authenticity of all the epistles and Acts is unassailable. I'll just continue to be amused.

Originally posted by dumbo

So "certified" Christians think you are wrong.

Yep. They also think I'm right. Isn't it fun to avoid engaging in specifics while running away, little one?

Ooo oo! Let me do this one:

"You need to realize that you are wasting your entire life promoting the idiotic delusions of modern people. That is precisely why you have such trouble explaining your beliefs and supporting them. They're false and absolutely ridiculous. You are living in a fantasy world sport."

There! Did you just vanish in a puff of smoke?

I don't know what you are babbling about now, YEC boy. What ICANN violations are you ranting about? Inquiring minds want to know.

You'll have to explain to all of us where you FOUND a mind to inquire with... No, I'll just let you stew in the mystery. Just be happy I wasn't interested in wasting $1500 on pinning your hide to the wall. Your insanity is sad but strangely entertaining! Keep up the great work!

Dear Cheetoh Breath,
Ah, so you spend another six hours desperately struggling to type yet another 6 pages of mindless drivel…all the while not suffering at all from JPHOCD…and this was what occupied you for two days? Isn’t it a good idea to go and shave, shower, brush your teeth, and apply some deodorant? Your breath is so bad by now that people on the phone are going to hang up.

Sigh…I’m so disappointed in the quality, and even the coherence of your insulting wit, JP.

Can I help it if words of more than 6 letters are beyond your vocabulary? This is the price I pay for dealing with someone so ignorant, he has to ask for a price check at a dollar store.

I had such high expectations for you...alas you've let me down...I'd rather trade barbs with Richbee...

Now indeed we know the truth: LoonyGuy deals in little plastic dolls with bad fashion taste.

Perhaps I’ve pushed your buttons so hard, that now you are irreparably damaged,

How is that possible? When you last emerged from your cave, the lever was just emerging from the R and D section of Pharaoh Rootintootin’s intelligence agency. You

Perhaps if you breath more deeply while making your next post, more oxygen will reach that small portion of your brain that controls your wit?

Perhaps if you drew away from the keyboard, there would be more oxygen available for others and far less carbon monoxide.

{*note to self: Holding thinks Darwin was a librarian...* }

Not at all. I think you thought he was, given that your eyeballs are tattooed with what you think wrongly to be Dewey Decimals.

{*note to self, Holding thinks “millions” are reading this, and that this is a witty retort*}

Return memo: Please install deflector shields so as not to be distracted by LoonyGuy’s irregular spinning and gyration.

Sigh…What can I say to the above? You’re incoherently babbling now JP.

The signature spells “defeat” and the tears flowing signify it further. If he ever actually did speak his mind, he’s be completely speechless.

Sigh…more incoherent material that could be used to have you officially “certified”. Perhaps Lazy A will e-mail this all to Hank Hanegraff and the Florida Dept of Mental Health?

Not likely; he’s too scared to enter the post office for fear of being recognized from the posters on the wall.

Best not to answer the doorbell for the next few days…

What for? Are you a JW now?

I would be happy to support any law that abolishes 501c3 scams whether they be yours, Barker’s or Finley’s. I’m tired of taxpayers supporting everyone’s tripe. Get a real job.

You heard it here. Cheapskate MacDruggles wants to ban the Salvation Army so he can have an extra 2 cents in his pocket to go out and spend on tartar removal gear. I’ll take up a collection with them and send you your two cents; don’t spend it all in one place, and whatever you do, don’t make Lincoln cry this time.

…teehee…Do you realize what you sound like to others Holding? Did you just stop maturing in 7th grade?

I should grow up then and start referring to tutus instead?

I’m confused Holding,

This is never hard to accomplish in any event.

are you saying I’m cheap because I tip people MORE than you pay in taxes?

LoserGoofyGuy implied I paid ZERO in taxes, in his ignorance of what being a 501c3 actually constituted, so I leave it to all others to contemplate the conclusion that LoserGoofyGuy does not know of any numbers greater than zero.

“LoserGoofMan”…teehee…good one JP…you’ve really got me reeling now…

With the red herring on the hook at all times, that’s to be expected.

I’m confused again

For the convenience of others, it would take far less time if you would simply advise us of those much rarer occassions when you are NOT confused, thank you.

why are you speaking in the first person plural?

Because we find that it offers you the singular chance to exploit trivia and boost your self-esteem, and this is necessary as the ASPCA has insisted upon it.

I would expect a librarian to be able to express himself in clear grammatically coherent sentences,

There’s not much that can be made “clear” to those whose education ended in the principal’s office.

I’m also somewhat mystified why you would attempt to claim that I can’t tell the difference between Spong and Chick,

It’s clear indeed – you actually regard both as representative of “scholarship”. Even in quotes this is a ludicrous application and only highlights your rampant, uneducable gullibility.

I’m sorry if you are not familiar with the religious persecution of countless people suffered at the hands of Christians throughout the theocracies of Europe,

Oh, I’m very familiar with the vastly overplayed showcases of ingrates and ignoramuses like you who turn a mere handful of people into “countless” victims, to the point of making the Spanish Inquisition execute more people than lived in the entire nation of Spain. It is precisely because I consult real historians and scholars that I know better, while you resort to sources like “Christian Crimeline” for your intellectual nourishment.

Alas, I don’t have the time nor desire to educate you, and besides you’re much more amusing in your current ignorant, delusional state.

The translation is, he has no education to offer and is going to run away and hide, just as usual.

…careful now…you wouldn’t want Fred Phelps hearing you say that to another man…

Why not? You and Phelps doing something tonight?

Oh My! Thanks for once again demonstrating the depths of your arrogant, ignorant delusional apologetic mind virus Holding…You really do this for a living?

Yep. Which is why I recognize your sound bites from Attridge, et al as non-answers or as proof you don’t do any homework, or else don’t have even the most primitive grasp on what you read. Let’s take this one by one:


[quote= HaroldW. Attridge
The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers where different groups of disciples of Jesus gathered and tried to make sense of what they had experienced with him and what had happened to him at the end of his public ministry.[/quote]
“Probably”? What’s his evidence for this? And what “different centers”? Rome? Jerusalem? Galilee? And at what time periods? Do you just swallow this gullibly because you like what it says?

Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. Some of them understanding his death and the resurrection experience, if they focused on it, in terms of exaltation. Others understanding it in terms of a resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus, others not worrying very much at all about the resurrection of Jesus, but concentrating on his teaching and trying to propagate that.

So where is this alleged “others” group that understood a “resuscitation” and “concentrated” on teachings? There is no evidence for such a group at all; Attridge merely invents such groups out of whole cloth, or based on an imagined parsing of a Q document without a shred of physical evidence behind it, and the assumption that what was in this delusional Q was ALL that was taught by this group he also imagines. This is why you’re scared stiff to debate me – you know you can’t defend your precious soundbites with data and justification.

We can see, even in the canonical text, in the Book of Acts, that there were different groups that were in competition with one another. Those who insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them.

Well WHOOPY doo, an actual specific! And according to Acts – which Attridge here takes as fully reliable – whose position was granted credence by the apostolic circle? The latter! The former? It went on to become the Ebionites. There is no argument as to which group represented the authentic core message of the early Christian movement. Cut and dried, it was those who rejected imposition of the Torah on Gentiles.

There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew.

Say WHAT! These very people he refers to went on to learn more and accept the Christian message. How in the world can a group in need of more information, that went on to CONVERT and accept further revelation, be regarded as proof of a “different take” on the original message!?

So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....

Fudd! He GETS all this info from Acts, so how in the world can he say that it doesn’t “suggest” any more diversity! Plus his only examples (by you) are of 1) a group that was weighed in the balance and found wanting; 2) a group that needed more information, and changed their views when informed! No wonder you race behind your corner when confronted.

Are you really this naïve of NT criticism

Nope! I’ve seen all your little friends and their silly arguments. Old news, little one. Take this crap:

Eddy
Although purported to have been written by Paul, the relatively complex church organization reflected by the Pastorals did not exist until many years after Paul’s death.

PLEASE! This argument is so old that it could have been told by waitresses at the Last Supper. Asked and answered:
Many critics say that the church organizational structure depicted in the Pastorals is too advanced, indicating a date beyond Paul's death. Kummel and many others use this one [Scot.PE, xxi; Barc.TTP, 5; Hould.PE, 16], with Bassler [Bass.12TT, 18] rather exaggeratedly describing the organizational scheme depicted as "far beyond" what is found in Paul's other letters. Nevertheless, the entire "church order" objection is strictly an arbitrary one, and against the evidence:
i) It is simply presumed that churches could not have developed so far in Paul's time. Grant observes that "...we should beware of assuming that all churches 'developed' in the same way at the same time." [Gran.HNT, 212] Paul was certainly a man of genius, quite capable of organizing a church and its functions. Furthermore, the idea of "slow development" is simply left over from the Tubingen and history-of-religions notion of how things evolve: Change can also be quite rapid, especially when there is a need for it! As Ellis points out [Ellis.PP, 46], the transformation of Germany between 1989 and 1990 would have to be dismissed as ahistorical on the sort of grounds required by critics! This alone is grounds for dismissing this objection; but there is more:
ii) There are indications both of such development in other NT churches, and that the development is not as far along as some claim. Church offices referred to in the Pastorals are also found in Phillipians 1:1 (elders and deacons) and in Acts 14:23 and 20:17 (elders). The letter to Titus regards bishops and elders as the same, which is NOT a reflection of the second century monarchial episcopacy, which is where most skeptics of Pauline authorship find a parallel. (It may also be added that such qualifications as delineated by Paul would have been well-known in the second century, when critics claim that the Pastorals were written!) Finally, separate studies by Burke [Burk.ME] and by Meier [Meie.PrPE] have shown that the level of administration depicted in the Pastorals is "still a long way off" from the organizational level found in Ignatius or Polycarp at the beginning of the second century.
iii) The organization depicted find parallels outside Christianity. For example, Scott [Scot.PE, 30] observes that the word used for "bishop" (episkopos) was "used in the pagan world to denote a governing man in any civic or religious organization." There was also a similar office found among the Qumranites. [CarMoo.Int, 364n] Therefore, there is no reason to assume a late date for the Pastorals on this basis.
Finally, let us add that if the Pastorals are as advanced in their organization as is supposed, then it is rather odd the three churches as diverse in their structures as the Roman Catholics, Plymouth Brethren, and Presbyterians cite the Pastorals as their manual for organization! [Fee.RCO, 142]

Mack
The Pastorals were undoubtedly written during the first half of the 2nd century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca.140).

Snoooooreeee…..
As for Marcion, Tertullian noted that he rejected the Pastorals; and Oden adds that Marcion "was prone to cut what he did not like. The absence of the Pastorals from his skewed canon cannot be significantly weighted as a reflection of consensual, primitive Christianity." [Oden.12TT, 11] We can discern, for example, that Marcion would have had a hard time swallowing 1 Timothy 1:8, 4:1-5, and 6:20, and 2 Tim. 3:16! [Town.12TT, 31; Moss.12TT, 14] There were also a few other things in the Pastorals that Marcion would also frown at: The regulations regarding women (Marcion's church allowed women to hold church offices, in line with his view on gender differences); the marked distinction between the laity and the officeholders (again, not typical of Marcionism), and the recommendation that Timothy take wine for his stomach (the Marcionites used WATER for the Eucharist!). By the time he cut out all of this, there would not be much left in the Pastorals for Marcion to use! (In fact, there is so much in the Pastorals that Marcion would dislike that some scholars have suggested that they were a polemic designed to "reclaim" Paul from Marcion's influence!)

Quotations from them first appear in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (180)

Oh great! Mack just dated Tacitus’ Annals to the third century then.

and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the mid-second century.

How? I just love these detailed non-explanations, just the thing for gullible no-accounts like LoonyGuy.

Their attribution to Paul is a forgery for their language and thought are clearly unPauline.

Snoooooreeeee….I don’t have room to post all of the needed response to this, so:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/pastorals.html#style

Also, references to particular occasions in the lives of Titus, Timothy, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters.”

Duh, what??? How so? Maybe it didn’t occur to Mack the Knife that the Pastorals were written between 62-64 AD, AFTER what is recorded in the other letters.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

Oooh, I’m trembling…

The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are entirely absent (the union of the believer with Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law),

Same as Mack on style. As for the other, maybe the Oxy people would like to explain what reason Paul had for mentioning things like “the union of the believer with Christ” and why it wouldn’t be gratuitous in context. No, dips like you swallow this sort of reasoning left over from the 19th century and don’t bother to question the assumptions behind it.

and some of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary usage ("the faith" as a synonym for the Christian religion rather than the believer’s relationship to Christ).”

Someone at Oxyland apparently missed passages like Romans 1:5 and Galatians 1:23 where Paul uses the word “faith” in exactly that way. Been here, done that:
Throughout the Pastorals, Paul refers to "the faith" in the sense of a creed or a tradition, which is said to contradict Paul's usual way of referring to faith only in a personal way (Barc.TTP, 6). However, Paul refers to "the faith" in a creedal way in other places (Rom. 4:12, 4:16; 1 Cor. 16:13, 2 Cor. 13:5, Gal. 1:23; 3:23, 6:10; Phil. 1:25, 27; Col. 2:7). It was therefore not a foreign usage to him; he simply uses it that way more often in the Pastorals, as we would expect if he were writing to church leaders whose job it was to safeguard creeds and traditions - and considering that he was near the end of his life, this would not be a bad idea [Town.PTPT, 312]!

Oxford Companion to the Bible

Same junk here.

Remsberg

REMSBERG! This guy was a school teacher who worked in Lincoln’s day, who the heck are you trying to fool!

Robertson

, I have a hint for you: Next time, instead of copying and pasting from Louis Cable’s website, get your rear end out and do some real research in REAL authorities, like the ones I used for my article on the Pastorals:
• Allen.EPEP Allen, Stuart. The Early and Pastoral Epistles of Paul. London: Berean Publishing Trust, 1977.
• Barc.TTP Barclay, William. The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956,
• Barr.PE Barrett, C. K. The Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
• Bass.12TT Bassler, Jouette M. 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
• Blackman, E. C. Marcion and His Influence. London: SPCK, 1948.
• Burk.ME Burke, Patrick. "The Monarchial Episcopate at the End of the First Century." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7, 1970, pp. 499-518.
• CarMoo.Int Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament.
• Dibel.PE Dibelus, Martin and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
• Donel.PEPE Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tubingen: Mohr, 1986.
• Ellis.PP Ellis, E. Earle. "The Pastorals and Paul." Expository Times, November 1992, 45-7.
• Fair.PE Fairbairn, Patrick. Pastoral Epistles. Minneapolis: James and Kloch, 1976. (Published 1874.)
• Fee.12TT Fee, Gordon. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.
• Fee.RCO Fee, Gordon. "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of ad hoc Documents." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28, June 1985, pp. 141-51.
• Fior.PExPE - Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986.
• Gamb.NTC Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
• Gran.HNT Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.
• Guth.PE Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. London: Tyndale, 1957.
• Hans.PE Hanson, A. T. The Pastoral Letters. Cambridge: The University Press, 1966.
• Heib.Int Heibert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.
• Hould.PE Houlden, J. L. The Pastoral Epistles. Penguin Books: 1976.
• Kell.PE Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963.
• Knig.PE Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
• Kumm.Int Kummel, Wener G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
• LeaGr.12TT Lea, Thomas and P. Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy Titus. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
• Mahl.CyEp Malherbe, Abraham J. The Cynic Epistles. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
• Mars.PE Marshall, I. Howard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1999.
• Meie.PrPE Meier, John P. "Presbyteros in the Pastroal Epistles." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35, 1973, pp. 323-45.
• Moss.12TT Moss, C. Michael. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Joplin: College Press, 1994
• Oden.12TT Oden, Thomas. First and Second Timothy. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989.
• Perr.NTI Perrin, Norman. The New Testament: An Introduction. New York: HBJ, 1974.
• Quin.LTi Quinn, Jerome. The Letter to Titus. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
• Scot.PE Scott, E. F. The Pastoral Epistles. London: Hudder and Stoughton, 1936.
• TT.RMex Thatcher, Tom. "The Relational Matrix of the Pastoral Epistles." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 March 1995, pp. 41-5.
• Town.12TT Towner, Philip. 1-2 Timothy and Titus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.
• Town.PTPT Towner, Philip. "Pauline Theology or Pauline Tradition in the Pastoral Epistles: The Question of Method." Tyndale Bulletin, 46.2, Nov. 1995, pp. 287-314.
• WilsS.LkPE - Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. London: SPCK, 1979.

Sigh…imagine…most scholars agree that the pastorals are clearly forged documents in your sacred canon. But you are completely unaware of this?!?

Sorry, you’re out of date. The consensus is swinging back to some form of authenticity – usually to the idea that Luke was the scribe he did ‘em. Time to get out of your La Z Boy and learn!-

Yet I’m supposed to believe your claim of Eusebius’ hearsay of Papias’ hearsay

Still waiting for some explanation of why “hearsay” is unacceptable as testimony.

of something he heard from some other unnamed source,

The apostles? Yep, definitely an unknown group.

that there was a guy named mark who might have known a guy named Peter, who knew Jesus, and mark wrote down stuff Peter told him that Jesus said…

You’ll get all the explanation you need once you explain why we should accept all the “hearsay” from “unnamed sources” that Tacitus authored the Annals…and once you advance past the kindergarten argumentation of posturing in bewilderment as a form of “argument”. There’s nothing “ECREEABLE” about a man named Mark writing a document, though given your limited imagination, perhaps literacy is indeed a foreign notion.

Oh look…I just saw a flying saucer out my window…quick go tell everyone to run for their lives…

And this has what, now, to do with the evidential quality of hearsay merely BECAUSE it is hearsay…? I told you to back off from the aquarium and put the herrings down, chuckles…time to call the Fish Police…

I’m sorry…have you since buried the clothespins?

Nope. The contextual marker of the metal detector ought to have informed even your limited imagination that the searcher had in mind buried objects. Of course you assume that when someone says, “I will be flying to New York” that they intend to flap their arms and do so, unless a plane is specifically mentioned…that’s all right, we understand how it is when your brain is stultified into inactivity and simple matters of contextual information escape you…

I thought you were all about your “honor” Holding? I wonder…what would a real ANE man do in your incredibly embarrassing situation here?

Celebrate! The Wicked Witch is dead.

By “philosophical argumentation” I take it you mean ignorant, ancient men who had no clue about the brain

Oh dear, so Alvin Plantinga is ignorant and ancient. Do tell. By LoserBoy’s accounting, there are no non-materialist philosophers today. We do beg pardon for exposing him to a life beyond the grease trap…

What part of the body do you think Aristotle thought was the seat of consciousness Holding?

Too bad you don’t know the seat from the one sitting in it, LoserBoy.

You’re hilarious and exposed librarian. You and Miller are both ignorant little theologian/philosopher wannabes

So ignorant that we can’t even be directly answered, apparently. But we’ll see LoonyGuy in two more days, after he has worked out all his frustrations, banged his skull against the concrete to clear his alleged mind, and found yet more literature he can hypocritically copy and paste from as a way to avoid offering direct answers.

YEC Boy,

No, I'll just let you stew in the mystery. Just be happy I wasn't interested in wasting $1500 on pinning your hide to the wall.

Pinning my "hide to the wall" for what? Oh, that's right-like usual you are just making stuff up.

Keep believing in and promoting Christianity because that is absolutely the most important thing you can do with your life. When you die you will get the big prize you have been hoping for. Really! Keep your eyes on the prize!

All the best,

Jimbo