Originally posted by rwingett The two scholars I mentioned, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, are both Christians. What is their 'vested interest' in denying Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? They have none. It is merely were the evidence has led them.
I looked up the bio of Crossan and read this:
He was Co-Chair of the Jesus Seminar from 1985 to 1996 as it met in twice-annual meetings to debate the historicity of the life of Jesus in the gospels.
I wouldn't trust him to be objective as far as I could throw a house.
The other I have not looked up. But I'll make a bit of a concession. There was a scholar I knew who I would trust as fair, who said he had difficulty believing Paul authored one of the those Timothy Epistles. If I spell the name right his name was Geotchius the author of "The Language of the New Testament".
I wouldn't dare to challenge him on it on technicalities of Greek grammer. But what I explained to you about teamwork and coordination I would also submit for his consideration.
Give me a little credit for admitting it and volunteering the info.
Originally posted by rwingett Not Christian enough for you, eh?
I'm not a party-line type of guy; I trust that you have gathered as much from reading any of the posts I've put up here over the last five or so years. I AM however, beholden to orthodox thinking. By that, I mean, the spiritual truths which have been passed down since Adam first left the Garden, guarding and honoring the Promise given to the woman after the Fall.
The fellows you submit as "scholars" are anything but. For me, a scholar says, "Honor the truth." The fellows you put forth are so smitten with their charter, on those rare occasions when they stumble upon the truth, they are typically 180 degrees from it. Their version of orthodoxy has neutered the truth. The irony, unfortunately, is totally lost on them. They have no understanding of the concept that their denouncement of the branch leaves them separated from the tree.
Originally posted by Ullr I've come to the conclusion from reading these forums that the defining characteristic of a "real Christian" is willful ignorance.
Originally posted by josephw That's an ignorant statement.
Ullr:1
josephw: 0
Gosh man, his statment was as plain as the nose on your face.
How you could construe it to be ignorant is beyond me.
Please, tell us kindly, why was Ullr's statement ignorant?
Originally posted by karoly aczel Ullr:1
josephw: 0
Gosh man, his statment was as plain as the nose on your face.
How you could construe it to be ignorant is beyond me.
Please, tell us kindly, why was Ullr's statement ignorant?
Well, it's kinda like the way you keep score. 😕
Originally posted by Ullr
I've come to the conclusion from reading these forums that the defining characteristic of a "real Christian" is willful ignorance.
Do you want to know why I think that is an ignorant statement? I'll tell you. First of all it's Ullr's personal opinion about individuals he has singled out based on his own bias and ignorants about matters beyond his comprehension. Secondly, although it may be an easy statement for you to understand, it is without merit. Ullr makes the claim, but fails to support the accusation. Thirdly, and more importantly, it's false.
Originally posted by josephw Well, it's kinda like the way you keep score. 😕
Originally posted by Ullr
I've come to the conclusion from reading these forums that the defining characteristic of a "real Christian" is willful ignorance.
Do you want to know why I think that is an ignorant statement? I'll tell you. First of all it's Ullr's personal opinion about individuals he h ...[text shortened]... e claim, but fails to support the accusation. Thirdly, and more importantly, it's false.
First of all you're correct it is my opinion. This is why I prefaced as "I've come to the conclusion" rather than saying "It is a fact that ..."
Secondly, I don't feel the need to back up the opinion because the evidence is all over the spirituality forums and this thread. But I'll give an example. Rwingett provides some reasonable argument to the discussion here and the first reply was your flippant and dismissive: "Believe what you want" reply. You might as well just stick your fingers in your ear and shout "I'm not listening!"
Originally posted by Ullr First of all you're correct it is my opinion. This is why I prefaced as "I've come to the conclusion" rather than saying "It is a fact that ..."
Secondly, I don't feel the need to back up the opinion because the evidence is all over the spirituality forums and this thread. But I'll give an example. Rwingett provides some reasonable argument to the discuss ...[text shortened]... ou might as well just stick your fingers in your ear and shout "I'm not listening!"
No sir, you are mistaken.
I did not dismiss rwingett. I knew where he was going. rwingett is one of my favorite posters.
Originally posted by Ullr Hey I kind of like the way Karoly keeps score. Good head on his shoulders obviously.
Why thank you.
Dear josephw, I just tell it like the way I see it...
I would,ve thought Ullr's comment was obvious, or that at least you could get into the spirit of his comment wothout much trouble.
I see you as starting much trouble with your replies. The theist line without much backup.
Then again some of your replies are constructive and funny.. so.. I hope I haven't scared you away from replying to me🙂
Dear josephw, I just tell it like the way I see it...
I would,ve thought Ullr's comment was obvious, or that at least you could get into the spirit of his comment wothout much trouble.
I see you as starting much trouble with your replies. The theist line without much backup.
Then again some of your replies are constructive and funny.. so.. I hope I haven't scared you away from replying to me🙂
".. I hope I haven't scared you away from replying to me."
Not at all. I enjoy our debates. Let's keep it fun.
Dumbed Down Christians
17 Aug '10 10:13
Back to Top