Total Posts:149|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pauline Epistles

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

The main reason I would reject an argument from silence as the only evidence in this case is because asserting that they were written before 70ce is a positive claim and should have positive evidence, arguments from silence are an example of negative evidence. Negative evidence is great for a positive claim if there is also positive evidence for it.

Now, I know that sometimes negative evidence can be strong, I do not think it necessarily is in this case.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:00:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

Hurry up and go see a psychiatrist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:01:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

Another reason why I think it is weak is because including that prediction would not make too much sense. The Pauline Epistles are mostly about the resurrection, talking about a successful prediction would change it to be talking more about the miracles.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

No offense, Brad, but any credibility you had was shot when your self prophecy did not come true (I am happy you're still around though). Presumably your prophecy and your understanding of St Paul come from the same source.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:06:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:00:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

Hurry up and go see a psychiatrist.

The Truth is hated by you antichrists who are always looking for proof to know if our Creator actually exists. Those of us who have faith in God don't need any proof.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:08:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:04:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

No offense, Brad, but any credibility you had was shot when your self prophecy did not come true (I am happy you're still around though). Presumably your prophecy and your understanding of St Paul come from the same source.

The reason why I know why Saint Paul was a true saint is not by evidence that can be seen. It's because He testified to the same exact knowledge of God that God had me testify to. Saint Paul and I are ONE voice of the Lord.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 2:32:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Link me to the criticism if you don't mind?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 2:40:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

bornofgod ask God for the answer... what he think?
Never fart near dog
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 4:18:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Most biblical scholars believe Paul was the first author in the NT and wrote 14 of the 27 books in the NT. Pauline Christianity is the backbone of Christianity today.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 4:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:06:12 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:00:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

Hurry up and go see a psychiatrist.

The Truth is hated by you antichrists who are always looking for proof to know if our Creator actually exists. Those of us who have faith in God don't need any proof.

So you blindly accept it as true?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 5:33:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 2:32:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Link me to the criticism if you don't mind?

It isn't a historian/scholar, but the points are interesting. The person proposing the criticism is somewhat of an *** to people. I am not at my computer (using a friends as mine crapped out), so I will PM you it when I get my laptop back.

I do remember some of the criticisms, so I can list those for now if you want.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:21:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 2:40:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

bornofgod ask God for the answer... what he think?

This question you asked; : : : So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?::

God's answer. "There's absolutely no evidence that Saint Paul existed". However, some of the knowledge that was written in the new testament concerning statements made by Saint Paul definitely came from My knowledge.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:40:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 4:24:44 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:06:12 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:00:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

Hurry up and go see a psychiatrist.

The Truth is hated by you antichrists who are always looking for proof to know if our Creator actually exists. Those of us who have faith in God don't need any proof.

So you blindly accept it as true?

I speak from experience, not by reading words in a book. All us saints and prophets were spoken to directly from the mind of our Creator. Our minds are His mind. From that first initial spoken words in our mind, we get to know that our Creator exists. This is the moment called "faith". It is no longer necessary for us saints and prophets to "believe" there is a Creator. Faith means we KNOW our Creator. Belief means you DON'T KNOW FOR SURE that our Creator exists. Believers get to know our Creator through miracles that they can't explain and other observations of this world that don't make sense to them. A few of them have heard His voice but not in the same direct commands that us saints and prophets have to obey.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whoever "Paul"(s) were, they didn't know Jesus Christ of the Gospels as Paul never mentions Jesus' ministry or teachings, he just uses Jesus Christ as a human sacrifice role mirroring that of a paschal lamb one is to assume, a magical lamb that requires only "believing" in the Story of the magical lamb to work its magic of getting souls into heaven.

Some think Paul(s) were the secret writings of Church Fathers as whoever wrote the Letters claiming to be "Jewish" was never a Jew as no Jew I know of would think to use the word "church" to describe Jewish religious fellowship. It would be anathema yet not only Paul does this, so does Jesus in the Gospels, talk about founding a "church" upon the rock of truth which is Church Fathers stealing Rome's Janus-Pater god lore and applying it to "Peter", like Paul's "journeys" looking so much like the biography of Apollonius of Tyre's.

I've read that there are NO texts in existence that anyone knows of of dates for Paul's Letters before the second half of the second century. Nothing in the NT can be dated earlier except by making guesses which has been done extensively so much that many assume "70 A.D." dates both Paul and Mark as earliest known NT writers. But it all hearsay, no historical documentation to confirm these dates.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:58:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:40:29 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 4:24:44 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:06:12 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:00:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

Hurry up and go see a psychiatrist.

The Truth is hated by you antichrists who are always looking for proof to know if our Creator actually exists. Those of us who have faith in God don't need any proof.

So you blindly accept it as true?

I speak from experience, not by reading words in a book. All us saints and prophets were spoken to directly from the mind of our Creator. Our minds are His mind. From that first initial spoken words in our mind, we get to know that our Creator exists. This is the moment called "faith". It is no longer necessary for us saints and prophets to "believe" there is a Creator. Faith means we KNOW our Creator. Belief means you DON'T KNOW FOR SURE that our Creator exists. Believers get to know our Creator through miracles that they can't explain and other observations of this world that don't make sense to them. A few of them have heard His voice but not in the same direct commands that us saints and prophets have to obey.

How do you know it is not a hallucination?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:01:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And Brad, you big phony, didn't God tell you about the "Paul"s you so admire being fraudulent as most everything else in the Bible? Pauline Christianity ruined Christianity as far as I'm concerned and you're Gentile lunacy isn't any better for saving Christianity from absurd beliefs violent inhumanitarian beliefs as yours are. I mean, you don't even care about your own children's fates as you predict they along with everyone will be burned to a crisp with lava covering the earth. How is this "Christianity"? How is this even religion when its pure doomsday horror film script material? Brad, stop lying to us and yourself. Your prophesy of your own death didn't happen, even when you started fudging the dates, so you're still fudging with your prophet role trying to fool yourself again that you didn't fail when you did. Time to get a real life and a real religious belief system.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:21:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:58:03 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:40:29 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 4:24:44 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:06:12 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:00:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:33 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

Why do people need proof to know whether or not God's saints testified to His knowledge or not?

You have a saint in this forum who has been testifying to the Word of God for the past 6 years and 9 months who knows exactly what Saint Paul understood.

Hurry up and go see a psychiatrist.

The Truth is hated by you antichrists who are always looking for proof to know if our Creator actually exists. Those of us who have faith in God don't need any proof.

So you blindly accept it as true?

I speak from experience, not by reading words in a book. All us saints and prophets were spoken to directly from the mind of our Creator. Our minds are His mind. From that first initial spoken words in our mind, we get to know that our Creator exists. This is the moment called "faith". It is no longer necessary for us saints and prophets to "believe" there is a Creator. Faith means we KNOW our Creator. Belief means you DON'T KNOW FOR SURE that our Creator exists. Believers get to know our Creator through miracles that they can't explain and other observations of this world that don't make sense to them. A few of them have heard His voice but not in the same direct commands that us saints and prophets have to obey.

How do you know it is not a hallucination?

Everything man observes is an illusion and that's why God can make some illusions look like miracles.

I've spoken to many of God's chosen believers who have done LSD. They know the difference between the objects that most of God's people perceive as reality and what's not reality.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay, we all know bog is delusional, can we stay on topic?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:01:47 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
And Brad, you big phony, didn't God tell you about the "Paul"s you so admire being fraudulent as most everything else in the Bible? Pauline Christianity ruined Christianity as far as I'm concerned and you're Gentile lunacy isn't any better for saving Christianity from absurd beliefs violent inhumanitarian beliefs as yours are. I mean, you don't even care about your own children's fates as you predict they along with everyone will be burned to a crisp with lava covering the earth. How is this "Christianity"? How is this even religion when its pure doomsday horror film script material? Brad, stop lying to us and yourself. Your prophesy of your own death didn't happen, even when you started fudging the dates, so you're still fudging with your prophet role trying to fool yourself again that you didn't fail when you did. Time to get a real life and a real religious belief system.

The Roman Catholics and Vatican loved their saint Paul once they changed all his writings to make him appear to be a traveling church salesman. They had no idea what he was saying but they sure liked his name.

If you want to blame someone for what you observe in this world, then blame the Creator of it all. Adam and Eve blamed the objects of this world and each other instead of blaming God for planning, creating and forming all the illusions that they thought was real.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:06:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.

Unless God told Paul directly about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD he wouldn't have known anything about it. It's possible that the first saint was told about this future event but highly unlikely. Since all the saints prior to the incident in Jerusalem, it would be unnecessary for them to know about it.

The saints who were living in Jerusalem just before the Roman government attacked Jerusalem, were warned directly from the mind of our Creator which is our created existence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:22:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.

You got me - I concede! ;-) I mainly just wanted to give this thread a push. I was shooting from the hip, and would really need to do some studying before I could contribute anything worthwhile.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:26:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 12:22:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.

You got me - I concede! ;-) I mainly just wanted to give this thread a push. I was shooting from the hip, and would really need to do some studying before I could contribute anything worthwhile.

All you have to do is ask Me, your Creator.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:27:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 12:26:26 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/7/2015 12:22:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.

You got me - I concede! ;-) I mainly just wanted to give this thread a push. I was shooting from the hip, and would really need to do some studying before I could contribute anything worthwhile.

All you have to do is ask Me, your Creator.

Hahaha! Thanks, but no.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:28:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 12:27:36 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/7/2015 12:26:26 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/7/2015 12:22:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.

You got me - I concede! ;-) I mainly just wanted to give this thread a push. I was shooting from the hip, and would really need to do some studying before I could contribute anything worthwhile.

All you have to do is ask Me, your Creator.

Hahaha! Thanks, but no.

The proud of this earth will bow down to Me.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 3:37:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 12:06:21 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:48:20 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:55:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:42:51 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I have been reading a criticism on the dating of the Pauline Epistles that argues that all of them were forged, that they didn't exist until the later half of the 2nd century. While I am still skeptical about dating them that late (I need to finish reading the criticism and then look for support of it), the arguments for them appearing after 70ce seem decent.

So, a question I have is, what evidence is there that any Pauline epistle was written before 70ce?

First off, I'm not pushing an early or late date because I have not researched it, but I believe a common argument for an early date would be that there was no mention of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Granted it is an argument from silence, but it seems reasonable he would have wanted to mention a fulfillment of prophecy if he had written after such an event (and if he knew about such a prophecy).

This is an interesting post. I hope you get more response.

You're assuming a lot. The Pauline epistles are largely concerned with theological questions not history, so you would not expect any mention of long past historical events unless they bore on some theological point he was trying to make. The fulfillment of so-called prophecy regarding the second temple you refer to was a product of the gospel writers and there is no real question they came after Paul. Therefore Paul could not have been aware of said 'prophecy' before it was written.

Unless God told Paul directly about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD he wouldn't have known anything about it. It's possible that the first saint was told about this future event but highly unlikely. Since all the saints prior to the incident in Jerusalem, it would be unnecessary for them to know about it.

The saints who were living in Jerusalem just before the Roman government attacked Jerusalem, were warned directly from the mind of our Creator which is our created existence.

BoG, we're discussing the proposition that the Pauline epistles were written long after 70AD. Your reply demonstrates you haven't grasped this simple fact about this thread. Please stop polluting every single thread with your irrelevant nonsense.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 4:09:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 3:37:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
BoG, we're discussing the proposition that the Pauline epistles were written long after 70AD. Your reply demonstrates you haven't grasped this simple fact about this thread. Please stop polluting every single thread with your irrelevant nonsense.

+1
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO