JohnLArmstrong (August 30, 2008 at 1:30 pm)

QUOTE: "Please show me any peer reviewed work supporting 'the entire New Testament is fiction' position." And the OT too. I think that's pretty well accepted. There's zero evidence for all the major events of the Bible: Genesis: Less than Zero Tower of Babel: Zero and it's ridiculous Noah's Ark: Less than Zero Exodus: Zero David's Empire: Zero Jesus: Sketchy at best Acts: Zero The Bible is a theological text full of myths and folklore. It's not a historical document.

groundhog0339 (August 30, 2008 at 6:52 am)

Heres a challenge: Please show me any peer reviewed work supporting "the entire New Testament is fiction" position. When I say peer-reviewed, I'm not talking Jesus seminar (heck even then ...). I'm talking about actual, recognized, proven NT scholars (whether American or European). They can be atheists, liberals, moderates, or conservative; I'm not picky. Of course, they might be part of the conspiracy, too, so watch out.

groundhog0339 (August 30, 2008 at 6:40 am)

Well, according to you, the entire 1st century is fake, so this quote doesn't surprise me.

ShinoCunning (August 30, 2008 at 4:38 am)

Someone knows their theology quite well. Here I am living in the small world of bebo, where the discussions are seldom interesting. I was thinking you'd discuss Christianity's resemblance with that of earlier pagan beliefs, but not from the zeigeist perspective obviously, lol.

JohnLArmstrong (August 29, 2008 at 9:49 pm)

QUOTE: "Apparently, you are simply denying New Testament history altogether." The NT isn't history. It's mythology and folklore. See my video on "historical documents".

JohnLArmstrong (August 29, 2008 at 9:48 pm)

QUOTE: "Let's try a quote from I Timothy." FAKE!

JohnLArmstrong (August 29, 2008 at 9:47 pm)

QUOTE: "Merely saying that Paul's writings are on shaky ground does not make them so." Really, you need to either read chapter 8 of my online book or view some of my Skeptic Paul Study videos. This topic is too broad for 500 characters.

groundhog0339 (August 29, 2008 at 7:17 pm)

Let's try a quote from I Timothy. The recently confirmed Dead Sea Scroll scrap of I Timothy dates before 68AD (Pauls death and the closing of the cave). "God was revealed in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, And received up in glory." - I Tim 3:16 Saying that Jesus is God revealed in the flesh is an obvious reference to John's theology (25 years later). So this wasn't an invention of John (or gnostics) later on.

groundhog0339 (August 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm)

Merely saying that Paul's writings are on shaky ground does not make them so. In order to come up with a gnostic history, you'd have to either deny or reinterpret the first century texts way out of context (1st century Judiasm). This is simply bad scholarship and wishful thinking. It's a conspiracy theory based on the maturing of doctrine in the first century. John, James, Peter and Paul all met in 49AD (Gal 2:1) and agreed on doctrine. Later, John said Jesus was God. Did he change his mind?

groundhog0339 (August 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm)

Apparently, you are simply denying New Testament history altogether. Okay. That does explain your lack of first century knowledge. You believe in an alternative history where the gnostics play the key role. That said, the weight of textual evidence, both secular and biblical, weigh heavily against your proposal. How did so many people so early get it so wrong? I can see why you try to shift the burden of proof to others. There is no positive 1st century evidence in favor of your position.