Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No one has to prove that a book of supernatural claims is false or in error.
Fundamentalists are the only ones claiming that the Bible is without error.
So fundamentalists are the only ones who have to prove any of their claims.
What many of the faithful don't understand, is that they can't hand wave the evidence, without first explaining why the reasons they consider these to not be forgeries, when it's the same criteria used to determine other historical forgeries as well.
Yet you have no qualms accepting this as fact.
From your profile:When was the church formed? The 'early church' relates to the same idea as 'early morning' when we understand the meaning of 'morning'.
That reads like an incoherent sentence to me. You can't even get the grammar correct, e.g. 'when it's the same criteria used'. It sounds rambling to me to try to sound sophisticated.
From your profile:
That's convenient. I understand exactly what was being said. But your claim to not understanding an argument means that you don't have to consider it or respond to it.
Why do so many apologists play this way?
You're welcome, brother!Thank you my brother in Christ for reminding us again, 'I'd rather have Jesus' (and the version presented by the late Jim Reeves).
Yes, indeed!OzSpen said:However, he's not the Jesus of fantasy, imagination or atheistic speculation. He's the Jesus who has always existed as a member of the Trinity but came in the flesh at the first Christmas, coming as a human being to die for the sins of all, including the sins of atheists.
Scholars consider Ephesians to be a forgery for several reasons, including:And you provide not one piece of evidence. None! Your personal assertion carries no more weight than any other assertion. I await your evidence and how you discern it is authentic or inauthentic material.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120425162142AADehOVPlease define 'Deiteropauline'.
Really? Again, you think your opinion trumps theirs? If the reasons for forgery were as good as you seem to think, all experts would agree.Yeah, but they're not good reasons.
The people compiling the canon had well authorized documentation from hundreds of years of the material being circulated and by whom. There was concern over Peter early on and due to the lack of collaboration it was a time before it was included.^ Furthermo
There were many gospels and epistles in circulation. One example was the Gospel of Peter. Many people assumed that the Gospel of Peter was written or dictated by Peter, but the early Christians banned it as a forgery. How did they decide it was a forgery? They felt that it contained heresies, and the real Apostle Peter would not have written such a gospel. Orthodoxy of the teaching was their standard for authenticity. A forgery with an orthodox teaching could have easily slithered into the NT canon. Hebrews is another example. Nobody knew who wrote Hebrews, but they attributed it to the Apostle Paul. The people creating the NT canon had no certainty about the authors.
I agree. Assumptions, biases and opinion do not stand as evidence or proof of forgery.And you provide not one piece of evidence. None! Your personal assertion carries no more weight than any other assertion. I await your evidence and how you discern it is authentic or inauthentic material.
All critical experts do.Really? Again, you think your opinion trumps theirs? If the reasons for forgery were as good as you seem to think, all experts would agree.
I think the reasons critical scholars cite, trumps theirs. I'm not big on arguments from incredulity. I understand why you might be.Really? Again, you think your opinion trumps theirs? If the reasons for forgery were as good as you seem to think, all experts would agree.
Setting aside the question of which if any scriptures might be forgeries, would solid evidence that some NT book is a forgery imply that this book is NOT inspired scripture? If you found out that Slippery Sam from Siam wrote one of the NT books as a practical joke, would you tear that book out of your bible in disgust, or would you be amazed that God can inspire scriptures - even when the writer is not aware that he/she is part of God's plan?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?