Raf

It is an affront to all of us that you claim not to have said what you said: relying on evidence will not lead to your conclusion. Those were your words. Do you include things as evidence that are not evidence at all, and berate me for not accepting it. The "guidance of the holy spirit" is not evidence. It's your chosen method to dismiss it. I am aware it makes me look like the bad guy when I say such things, but it needs to be said. "I know it in my heart" and "God has shown me" are nothing but appeals to emotion. Mocking people who have educated themselves and studied the material and have come to conclusions that are against their belief system as quote-unquote "intellectuals," making yourself the arbiter of who's right based solely on whether they agree with you... you want to talk about a fundamentally dishonest approach to this discussion? THAT'S a dishonest approach. Truth: you have shown no interest in an honest examination of evidence. You do not address the evidence. You do not rebut it. You do not refute it. You simply get on your holy high horse and decree its lack of value by mocking the messengers. Dodge. Distract. Anything but admit. I've seen this movie before.

It's more profitable for him to attack me than it is for him to defend his position having already announced the evidence will not support his view. We have so-called eyewitness testimony handed down from non-eyewitnesses buttressed by a fraud pretending to be someone he's not. So criticize those who have the training and expertise to point out the truth. Criticize those who seek unbiased experts to separate history from propaganda. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Because when you have the law on your side you pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. When neither is on your side, you pound the table. TLC's table is already a pile of splinters.

That's "intelligence quotient," genius. Listen, you're the one who put "intellectual" in quotes, thus resorting to ad hominem against an educated scholar in the field we are discussing. Don't try to act like I'm the one getting personal. And calling you "evidence-dismissing" is not an attack. It is an accurate description of your own stated method of approaching this material.

Can't even give it away. Okay, here goes... This movie is based on a true crime. The perp of the true crime watched another movie for inspiration. Let's call it That movie. One of the stars of That movie starred in This movie as the perp he had inspired. Another star of That movie was also in This movie. In one scene (This movie), he tells another character to quit smoking or he (or she: I don't recall) would get cancer. Irony: he was a smoker in real life, and he died of cancer three years later. The lead actor first heard about the incident on which the film is based as it was actually unfolding in real life. Another movie swept the Oscars in all the major categories that year, but you can't sweep the writing categories. So while the competitor won Best Adapted Screenplay, This movie won Best Original Screenplay. Neat trick considering how much of the dialogue was improvised.

I love how he puts "intellectuals" in quotes. Like there's nothing to be said for people who actually study the material and the sources as opposed to just listening to his evidence-dismissing heart about it. Meanwhile Paul is the author of Colossians, and if he's not, God is, so what's the big deal. That gets emphatic support. A guy spends a lifetime educating himself on the issues and he's an "intellectual" in quotes, unworthy of TLC's attention.

If those are the only options, this belongs in doctrinal. If one of the options is "the majority of this story is horsehockey," then you've picked the right subforum. I don't believe Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys like Matthew says. I don't think he overturned tables at the Temple once at the beginning of his ministry, like it says in John, and once near the end, like the other gospels say. I don't think he predicted Peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed and three more times before the cock crowed again. I don't think Pilate wanted to let him go but caved to the pressure of the mob. Pilate put down mobs. He didn't cave to them. I don't think Pilate gave the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and Jesus Barabbas (which means son of the father). They didn't have that tradition. I don't think Jesus was crucified between two robbers AND two evildoers... because they. didn't. crucify. robbers. I do't believe Joseph of Arimathea (which didn't exist but actually means "best disciple") was a member of the unanimous Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, but he was the shy and quiet type who happened to have an unused tomb and, shucks, let's just give it to Jesus. Oh, and then I'll disappear from the story never to be heard from again.

Dude's not even at bat.

"I disagreed with it." You didn't address it. You didn't rebut it. You didn't acknowledge it. You didn't refute it. You did... nothing. This is what I mean when I talk about unbiased scholars. This is someone who had every reason to cling to the traditional authorship of the epistles, but he refused to do it because he knew damn well the evidence did not support his position. You, on the other hand, have none of this guy's scholarship credentials, haven't studied the material, and -- this is most significant -- you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong, even if the evidence establishes it. That, again, makes it pointless to argue with you. What evidence can I show you to demonstrate that you should value evidence? Your method of debate and discussion is simply dishonest. You disagree with the notion that Paul was not the author of Colossians, yet you refuse to heed the advice IN Colossians, which warned of forgeries being written in his name. It's folly to think it's impossible any of those forgeries made it into the Bible. Of COURSE it's possible. There's a warning RIGHT THERE. But you're smarter than the Bible scholars, I guess. Unless you agree with them. That seems to be the relevant barometer. Whatever, dude.

If you'd read it, then you would know that the false epistles' distortion of Paul's doctrine was already discussed. You don't address that. Nice try.

10!

He didn't read the articles. I'm not terribly surprised. So the fact that the author lies about his own identity means nothing. Ok. Personally, I would think that lying about your identity would automatically fail any acid test. But who am I? The articles do show how the fraud epistles distort Paul's message, but I suppose it's asking too much to read them. And Paul, supposedly, warning people to avoid fraud letters written in his name but subverting his doctrine... I guess that really doesn't mean much. Ffs

Interesting article on authorship of the Pauline Epistles.

Dispensation after a few days, but yeah.

InfoAbsorption is correct enough. "I Can't Hold Back" by Survivor

There's a story in my eyes Turn the pages of desire Now it's time to trade those dreams For the rush of passion's fire I can feel you tremble when we touch And I feel the hand of fate Reaching out to both of us I've been holding back the night I've been searching for a clue from you I'm gonna try with all my might To make this story line come true Can ya feel me tremble when we touch Can ya feel the hand of fate Reaching out to both of us This love affair can't wait ... I'm on the edge ... You voice explodes inside my head ... I won't back down Girl it's too late to turn back now Another shooting star goes by And in the night the silence speaks to you and I And now the time has come at last Don't let the moment run too fast I can feel you tremble when we touch And I feel the hand of fate reaching out to both of us There's a story in my eyes, turn the pages of desire Now it's time to trade those dreams For the rush of passion's fire .... The only thing I left out was the title and repeats of the chorus.

I feel bad for Mira Sorvino. She wins an Oscar and nobody remembers! Tommy Lee Jones The Fugitive Joe Pantoliano That outta open the game up

There's a story in my eyes, turn the pages of desire Now it's time to trade those dreams for the rush of passion's fire.

I lost my original point in my last post. Bias works both ways. If a researcher goes in determined to undermine the "integrity" of the word, he will find errors and mistakes where none exist. "Answer a fool not according to his folly" does not contradict "Answer a fool according to his folly," for example. So I tend to go with research that shows open mindedness. Again, I was impressed that Nelson admitted Matthew didn't write Matthew. They should go further and admit Mark didn't write Mark (or know Palestine), Luke didn't write Luke and John didn't write John. Scholars are in general agreement about the letters Paul did write and the ones he didn't. But there are a few that are questionable. Non-traditionalists do not believe he wrote Colossians or Ephesians. Traditionalists insist he did. I'm inclined to go with the non-traditionalists because they have nothing to gain or lose by their position. My position is not strengthened or weakened if Luke was a physician, or if he wrote Acts. He's still demonstrably full of it on enough crucial issues (the birth of Christ, the conversion a thousands on the day of Pentecost, the aftermath of Paul's conversion) to cast doubt on his credibility when it comes to the resurrection (about which, again, every single gospel writer disagrees on multiple mutually exclusive issues).

One of the challenges with critical Biblical research is finding unbiased researchers. If someone goes in with the mindset that the Bible is absolutely positively the Word of God, you cannot expect that person to buck tradition even if the evidence leads away from it. I am impressed that the Nelson commentary admits Matthew did not write Matthew. But it really should be emphasized that people don't have a clue who wrote the gospels because, unlike Betty Webb, the gospel writers did not sign their work. Luke, in particular, is written by someone who not only did not sign his work, but also did not cite his sources or explain his methodology, something historians of the time actually took the trouble to do. The closest Luke gets is at the beginning of his gospel, where he does NOT claim to have spoken to eyewitnesses but, rather, to have investigated other written accounts of the life of Jesus. We don't know much about these other accounts other than that the gospel we know as Mark was almost certainly one of them. In Acts, the same author would have us believe that he was, at times, Paul's traveling companion. He wants us to think he was there. Many scholars believe that is not the case. We go back to Acts v. Galatians. If Paul is right, Luke is lying and unreliable. If Luke is right, Paul is lying and unreliable. It is not credible that both are right. The apostles, with Paul in their presence shortly after his conversion, would simply not have taken Barnabas' word that Paul had changed. They would have questioned him. They would have discussed his gospel and compared it to what they were personally taught by Jesus. And it defies reason that Paul would have been in the presence of the apostles without talking to them about the life, death and resurrection of the savior. Either Galatians or Acts is wrong about what Paul did after his conversion. Is it credible to believe that a companion of Paul would get this detail wrong? Is it credible to believe Paul is lying about not getting his gospel from the apostles? How many times do you find yourself needing to explain the difference between how Paul acted in the book of Acts and what he says is the right thing to believe and do in his own letters? One thing that becomes very clear is that the author of Acts was not as close to Paul as he would have you believe. Rather, this account is written by someone who is trying desperately to harmonize Paul with the apostles and present them as having some kind of continuity -- a continuity, it should be noted, that Paul himself does not claim. Rather, Paul would have believers reject anyone who disagreed with him -- even if it's an apostle. Read Galatians again. Paul is pretty emphatic about not being an heir to their doctrine. The author of Luke-Acts wants people to think he was a companion of Paul. Why? Because that bolsters his credibility. (It worked! People believe these works are history because they were written by a companion of Paul. Never mind that Paul contradicted his accounts at every turn). This was not an unusual occurrence in the ancient world. Heck, it's not even that rare these days. People claim to be eyewitnesses all the time to stuff that just never happened. Remember the pedophile ring operating out of a D.C. pizza shop? There were witnesses! The author of the gospel of John would have you believe he was eyewitness to at least SOME of what happened in the gospel. So what if he totally forgot about the 40 days Jesus spent getting tempted in the desert after his baptism. So what if he was the ONLY one who remembered the raising of Lazarus from the dead. (Seriously: how do the other gospel writers get away without mentioning this mind-blowing miracle?) So what if he had Jesus cleanse the temple at the beginning of his ministry instead of the end? Isn't the point that he cleansed the temple? Maybe. But if cleansing the temple is really what got Jesus into enough trouble for people to want him executed, then the writer of John would have known that it had to be near the end of his ministry. And if Jesus had cleansed the temple TWICE, once at the beginning of his ministry and again at the end, ONE of the gospel writers would have mentioned that he did it twice. No one does, probably because it only happened once. IF it happened at all.

Another shooting star goes byAnd in the night the silence speaks to you and IAnd now the time has come at lastDon't let the moment run too fast

I'm going to add a few cents of my own. Leah, you said earlier (at least I think it was you) that you were agnostic, except when you are angry. Then you're atheist. I'm going to suggest to you that you are neither. I speak as an atheist. If you are angry at God, then you believe in Him. And that's okay. You have questions. You are not satisfied with the answers you have received. You are entitled to those emotions. But atheism is not an angry position. It's letting go of anger. You can only be angry at God if you believe in Him. I am not angry at God. I am disappointed in certain people (not all) who claim to speak in his name. People who hate and concoct a God who magically hates the same people they do. You know the type. (That was funny). I guess what I am saying is, don;t lose faith out of anger. There are plenty of reasons to be atheist. Anger is not one of them. If you decide, out of calm reflection, that you do not believe in God, and you have questions about what to do next, talk to me. I've been through it. But if you are angry with Him, then atheism is not going to help you. Plenty of people here will be happy to help out, and you have people in real life. Best wishes. And by the way, I have no bad memories of your dad. The worst I've heard of him comes from credible witnesses. And I was not impressed with his performance at the 1989 Rock. But I was still grateful, many times, for when he tried to teach positive messages from the Bible. Helped me through some pretty tough times. Not trying to defend him, but wanted you to know that along with all you've heard from GSC, our collective impression of him is just a bit more nuanced than that.

Meanwhile, in 14 days...

So you are telling me you have a signed document with contemporaneous Witnesses vouching for the identity of the author. Fascinating.