The case for trust in scripture

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your explanation why one disciple's recanting would not destroy Christianity is completely unconvincing.
Odd how you won't say why? I cannot think of a single case where someone recanting destroys the whole religion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
After all, we are not talking about regular everyday Christians here, but Christ's own disciples.
(alledgedly, assuming such a relationship existed, when there is little reason to believe it did.)


Originally posted by epiphinehas
Do you think that history would fail to record the fact that one or two of the apostles recanted their position and revealed that the whole divine Jesus thing was a hoax?
Yes. You find me stories of members of any other cult at the time recanting. The torturers aren't going to know that Christianity is about to take over the world, so make sure to stop it. If there was an amazingly good piece of evidence about someone who knew Jesus Christ and said he'd never done anything miraculous, it would be like a character from back to the future. The only people with true interest in a cult are the members of that cult, and they aren't going to go against their own beliefs inexplicably.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The point is, Christians changed the world by the sanctity with which they died. The effect is contrary to the tact of the Muslim extremist, which spreads fear and ill will.
I cannot see how the world has changed from christians being killed years ago? I also don't recall that being your point. I think the point was more along the lines of "What force is it that made them pray while being handed to the lions?" to which the answer is the one I gave, religion. Some christians were willing to die just as some muslims are willing to die. The muslims are probably more devout in that they're willing to take other's lives in the process. The reason for this is that religion gives people a good reason to die. It removes the finality of death and thus any threat humans perceive in it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Moral fortitude here refers specifically to the sanctity with which one is able to meet unjust persecution and death. How can a lie have the effect of producing inexplicable joy and peace in the face of a grim fate?
Very very easily. Loads of religions have been persecuted and are persecuted still. The jews survived it most spectacularly. The main thing to note is that in almost every case of religious persecution, the persecuted do not give up their delusion, and it is because delusion is one of the most powerful forces acting on the human mind. I also cannot see how the joy from religion is inexplicable? It seems one of the most explicable things pertaining to religion. There's a god who cares for you. Yay! The joy a baby has for having a mother isn't inexplicable, and neither is religion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Where do you get, "Paul of Tarsus... was a scheming fellow"? What proof do you have of that? His writings. He makes sure to emphasise the good bits of Christianity (the afterlife, less strict rules) and ignore the less liked bits (worship, damnation, the apocalypse). By scheming I was referring to his ability as a salesman. He really sold christianity to the masses. I'm not calling him bad, though from your quoting it seems you've taken that inference.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Furthermore, I'd be quite surprised if you've even read Paul's writings in any detail, considering your preposterous claim that he "emphasized the appealing aspects of Christianity. Namely, heaven." This statement is groundless and belies ignorance and strong personal bias. I hope you do not fancy yourself an open-minded skeptic at this point.
I've read the whole the bible and many non-canonical texts as well. I may have got the wrong person/text/interpretation (my knowledge of scriptural analysis can probably better the majority of christians but is not as good as most apologetics). Nevertheless, I find the most striking thing about the letters to the corinthians that they are very light. They are a form of christianity that anyone would love to be a part of.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
How do you know Christians are sincere, but wrong? What epistemic proof do you have which you've gleaned from methodological naturalism qualifying you to make that statement?
Sincerity because this is natural to most humans, and it would be a most bizzare coincidence for all the members of a particular belief to all be insincere as well. Wrong because without supporting evidence, a claim must always be ignored, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christians are in a curious situation by which they apply this logic to every single religion in the world apart from one.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You are attempting to cloud what is otherwise quite obvious: of the twenty-seven books of the NT, twenty-five were written by Jews. It is not hard to say who the first people to believe the Gospel were -- the Jews.
You make a rather childish assumption here. The bible is sufficient but not equivalent to all christian texts, of which there are hundreds. If we take authorship of every christian text from the time, and find the mode, who's to say what it will be? It could still be Jews, it might not be. Also, even if they are mostly Jews, the mere existance of an alternative shows that the tradition is spread among other groups as well.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is not an exaggeration that Christ was crucified as a criminal.
Correct, but that's not what you said.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Why is the message believable?
Because it's very simple, and, to some extent, it makes sense.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Linus, Clement of Rome,
Neither of which had been born yet when Jesus is supposed to have died.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Cornelius Tacitus
Who wrote "Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" in the 2nd century. He is doing pretty much what Luke did, just from a non-believing point of view. He's taken a rumour, and assumed its factual accuracy. Of note is that Pontius Pilate wasn't a procurator and Tacitus is keen to make such distinctions in his other writings, so it is most likely this is second-hand information.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Lucian of Samosata
I've spent a long time researching the historicity of christ, and I must admit this name has never come up, which I found fascinating. Reading caused me to shoot up. Maybe there is evidence for an historical Jesus. Unfortunately, looking into it, I can't find anything significant by this chap. He wrote a play which mocks christians and that's about all I can find. Hopefully you can point me to a better source of his?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Josephus
Oh come on. This has been known to be a forgery for so long now it's not even funny.


Originally posted by epiphinehas
Thallus
Eh? I thought almost all his work had been lost? I'm going to ask for a direct source reference for him as well, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Phlegon
As above, I'd like a direct source reference. Unless you meant this guy and thallus to be as one body, because they're not split by a comma... I don't know.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Pliny the Younger
He doesn't even talk about Christ. He talks about christians, and I'm not saying that christians didn't exist 😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Mara Bar-Serapionwho wrote "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" some 40 years after Jesus' supposed death. To who was the letter referring to? it could be anyone who was claiming to be messiah at the time. There were loads of them who got executed. What if it's Jesus? well the writing of the letter's so flowery, it could still just as easily be citing common knowledge of the time, which need not be true for its existence.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Suetonius Worst example yet. I thought citing Josephus showed how poor your research on this has been. Citing Suetonius as well makes me suspect you're just copying and pasting these of some christian website. Suetonius not once mentioned Christ. Not once. He did mention someone who people knew as "the good one" (Crestus) and that is it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The New Testament.
For the last time, religious documents never, under any circumstance, classify as historical documents. Just as stories of norse gods cannot be treated as historical documents.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
First of all, claim (9) deals with the reliability of the texts, not the content. The documents we have are mutually reinforcing and therefore we have an extremely accurate idea what they have communicated from the very earliest times. Secondly, the NT is not blatantly mythological. It is written in an eye-witness style and clearly meant to be a record of actual events.
How else can you write something past "eye witness style"? 1st person (I am god and I did this) or second person (you are god and you did this) just don't work for mythology. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" is written in eye-witness style, but there can't have been any eye-witnesses! It's blatantly mythological because it speaks about people being raised from the dead, and god speaking from the sky, and all sorts of mythical mumbo-...

ThousandYOung,

===========================================
I've given you two such inconsistencies. Did Jesus appear to Mary Magdaline, and was he recognized? When was Jesus born?
===========================================


I assume that the first question refers to the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdaline after His resurrection.

An appearance of Jesus after His resurrection to Mary Magdaline is recorded in: John 20:10-18.. Jesus made Himself known to Mary Magdaline. She recognized Him after He called her name and focused her attention away from her grief and on Him.

An appearance to Mary Magdaline and another Mary is mentioned in Matt. 28:1-10 It appears in this passage that the women recognized Him.

At the present time I think this may be an example of two accounts not easy to harmonize. And I will study them.

However, there are some interesting evidences to be considered for the authenticity of the resurrection of Jesus related to Mary Magdaline:

1.) Mary Magdaline had been a demon possessed woman (Luke 8:2) It is highly unlikely that the disciples would have invented the story that Mary Magdaline was the first witness of the empty tomb of Jesus. In those times women were not provided as witnesses in a fabricated story. The fact that she was a woman and that one who had been demon possessed makes it highly unlikely that they would have falsly inlisted her persona to be a witness of the resurrection.

2.) It is also unlikely that any writer seeking to exalt Jesus would make up the detail that Mary mistook Jesus to be the gardener. It would not serve the purpose to exalt Jesus to explain that the woman Mary did not recognize Jesus immediatly.

3.) Jesus also explains to Mary something about "my God and your God" (John 20:17). For the intent of one, (like John), demonstrating that Jesus WAS God this is an unlikely detail to have been fabricated as it would weaken rather than strengthen the proposition that Jesus was God.
That "my God and your God" was included rings of authenticity rather than fabrication.

4.) The detail that Mary called Jesus "Rabboni", an Aramaic word for "teacher" seems a very perculiar detail to have been fabricated. That Mary uttered the Aramaic word rings of authenticity.


Your second example "When was Jesus born?" I don't see the inconsistency here because there is no date given on which He was born.

You would have to specify exactly what you mean by an inconsistency as to when Jesus was born.

A quick outline of the "when was jesus born" inconsistency:
Herod the Great died in 4BC
Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6AD

The different gospels say Jesus was born when both of these were true.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
A quick outline of the "when was jesus born" inconsistency:
Herod the Great died in 4BC
Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6AD

The different gospels say Jesus was born when both of these were true.

Glenn Miller deals with this objection in the following discussion:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Originally posted by jaywill
Glenn Miller deals with this objection in the following discussion:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

And there's the cut and paste, from a Christian Think Tank no less.

Would YOU deal with it as you promised?

Originally posted by jaywill
ThousandYOung,

[b]===========================================
I've given you two such inconsistencies. Did Jesus appear to Mary Magdaline, and was he recognized? When was Jesus born?
===========================================


I assume that the first question refers to the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdaline after His resurrection.

have to specify exactly what you mean by an inconsistency as to when Jesus was born.[/b]

There's also Luke 24.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And there's the cut and paste, from a Christian Think Tank no less.

Would YOU deal with it as you promised?

That's not cut and paste ThousandYoung - that is a LINK.

There is a difference.

Now could you quote me on this "PROMISE" I made? What Promise ??

Did I promise not to LINK you to a discussion which would provide you a reasonable answer? That's a lengthy discussion which I do not want to re-write here.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There's also Luke 24.

What about Luke 24?

Spell out your objection for me.

========================

Would YOU deal with it as you promised?
=================================

ThousandYoung,

All I recall saying was that I wanted to see your strongest examples.

There was no "promise" that I might never refer you to an exhaustive discussion somewhere if that need should arise.

You get a reasonable answer whether my own typing here or linking you to a fuller examination of the problem. I assume you are interested in that.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================

Would YOU deal with it as you promised?
=================================

ThousandYoung,

All I recall saying was that I wanted to see your strongest examples.

There was no "promise" that I might never refer you to an exhaustive discussion somewhere if that need should arise.

You get a reasonable ans ...[text shortened]... re or linking you to a fuller examination of the problem. I assume you are interested in that.[/b]

*Shrug* If that's how you want to do this...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I'm not going to bother with this discussion any more unless you learn not to hide behind essays you find on the net.

So, you hand wrote that link, did you? No COPYING it from the address bar and PASTING it into the post?

Why would you do that to yourself? That's like handwriting someone else's essay instead of using the COPY and PASTE commands. Same result, more labor. In any case you're trying to get me to debate a website. No thanks. You can debate mine if you want.

Please notice that I took this contradiction and presented it in my own words:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/recognize.html

You, on the other hand, just provided the website.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your explanation why one disciple's recanting would not destroy Christianity is completely unconvincing.
Odd how you won't say why? I cannot think of a single case where someone recanting destroys the whole religion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
After all, we are not talking about regular y, and all sorts of mythical mumbo-...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your explanation why one disciple's recanting would not destroy Christianity is completely unconvincing.
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Odd how you won't say why? I cannot think of a single case where someone recanting destroys the whole religion.

Can you think of a single case where it hasn't?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
After all, we are not talking about regular everyday Christians here, but Christ's own disciples.
Originally posted by doodinthemood
(alledgedly, assuming such a relationship existed, when there is little reason to believe it did.)

Little evidence? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John attest to such a relationship existing. These accounts were written within the first generation of the events and are therefore reliable testimonies by the standards of historians (by comparison, the history of Alexander the Great was written four hundred years after he existed). I would understand your rejection of these documents if they were written five hundred years or so after Christ died. But it is obvious your outright rejection is simply due to the four gospels containing certain incredible claims which you find difficult to believe are possible.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The point is, Christians changed the world by the sanctity with which they died. The effect is contrary to the tact of the Muslim extremist, which spreads fear and ill will.
Originally posted by doodinthemood
I cannot see how the world has changed from christians being killed years ago?

Every time a Christian was killed in public for failing to pay allegiance to Caesar as God, many more were converted as a result. That's why it has been said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church (Tertullian).

Originally posted by doodinthemood
It seems one of the most explicable things pertaining to religion. There's a god who cares for you. Yay! The joy a baby has for having a mother isn't inexplicable, and neither is religion.

OK, so you are on record claiming that the abiding joy and peace faithful Christians experience, even on the verge of death, is delusional. I respectfully disagree. It is Truth which is able to produce perpetual freedom and joy, not lies.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Where do you get, "Paul of Tarsus... was a scheming fellow"? What proof do you have of that?
Originally posted by doodinthemood
His writings. He makes sure to emphasise the good bits of Christianity (the afterlife, less strict rules) and ignore the less liked bits (worship, damnation, the apocalypse).

So Paul "ignored the less liked bits" like worship, damnation and the apocalypse? Not true.

Regarding worship:

"We are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Phil 3:3).

Damnation:

"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:11,12).

Apocalypse:

"But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Rom 2:5).

By scheming I was referring to his ability as a salesman. He really sold christianity to the masses. I'm not calling him bad, though from your quoting it seems you've taken that inference.

Well, you must admit that "scheming" suggests something less than forthcoming, i.e., sly and underhanded.

Nevertheless, I find the most striking thing about the letters to the corinthians that they are very light. They are a form of christianity that anyone would love to be a part of.

Each letter had a different audience and purpose, therefore it is not surprising to find some "lighter" than others.

Tangent:

The Christian life is not an easy one. Paul's teaching that men cannot merit salvation is not as cushy as it sounds. It's a terrifying reality, when properly understood. The author of Hebrews correctly observed that it is, "a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." To be at another's mercy is a fearsome prospect. It is our natural inclination to think of ourselves as good people deserving of God's grace, but this delusion makes it impossible to rejoice in God's grace or to find the true heart of worship. Consequently, the misery of sin plagues carnal Christians until they are made able to give up the illusion of being somehow good enough to merit God's grace. This process is no different than the process of dying. The immensity of the pain is too great for words, but the result is genuine peace and true joy of one surrendered to the Lord's grace -- no longer seeking to merit God's favor. But I digress...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
How do you know Christians are sincere, but wrong? What epistemic proof do you have which you've gleaned from methodological naturalism qualifying you to make that statement?
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Sincerity because this is natural to most humans, and it would be a most bizzare coincidence for all the members of a particular belief to all be insincere as well. Wrong because without supporting evidence, a claim must always be ignored, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christians are in a curious situation by which they apply this logic to every single religion in the world apart from one.

How would you go about proving that Christ walked on water or rose from the dead? Methodological naturalism cannot address the supernatural. In these cases you either must believe the eye-witnesses, or prove that it happened using the scientific method. If you confine yourself to the limitations of the scientific method proving the supernatural, which is your prerogative of course, you will never, so long as you live, believe that Christ ever walked on the water or rose from the dead.

Apologetics are insufficient to convert anyone, merely to remove certain intellectual barriers/prejudices. It takes the Spirit of God Himself to convict the heart of the Truth.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Why is the message believable?
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Because it's very simple, and, to some extent, it makes sense.

I agree, it makes sense. However, I find its simplicity gives rise to a rich and textured complexity upon deeper study.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Linus, Clement of Rome,
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Neither of which had been born yet when Jesus is supposed to have died.

Yet, contemporaries of the apostles.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Lucian of Samosata
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Hopefully you can point me to a better source of his?

Samosata mocked Christians for worshiping a man. Christ isn't named, but the reference is undoubtedly a reference to Jesus.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Josephus
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Oh come on. This has been known to be a forgery for so long now it's not even funny.

Not everything Josephus wrote is questioned. For instance, his reference to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," is considered authentic by the majority of scholars.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Thallus
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Eh? I thought almost all his work had been lost? I'm going to ask for a direct source reference for him as well, I'm afraid

Admittedly, Thallus is not slam-dunk by any means. Here is an informative webpage I found regarding him:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Phlegon

Thallus and Phlegon asserted similar events. Here is another relevant website:

http://www.textexcavation.com/phlegontestimonium.html

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Pliny the Younger
Originally posted by doodinthemood
He doesn't even talk about Christ. He talks about christians, and I'm not saying that christians didn't exist 😉

Yes, but they worshiped Christ, that's the logical inference.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Suetonius
Originally posted by doodinthemood
Worst example yet. I thought citing Josephus showed how poor your research on this has been. Citing Suetonius as well makes me suspect you're just copying and pasting these of some christian website. Suetonius not once mentioned Christ. Not once. He did mention someone who people knew as "the good one" (Crestus) and that is it.

I see no problem with cutting and pasting. I don't mind when others do it, as long as it's relevant to the discussion. In this instance, however, I agree that Suetonius isn't a very good source.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The New Testament.
Originally posted by doodinthemood
For the last time, religious documents never, under any circumstance, classify as historical documents. Just as stories of norse gods cannot be treated as historical documents.

In your mind, what about the NT documents, apart from the record of supernatural events you are already predisposed to disbelieve, disqualifies them from being considered historical documents?

Originally posted by jaywill
Glenn Miller deals with this objection in the following discussion:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Have you actually read what he says? Because it's so much contrived garbage I find it insulting that any human should think twice before disregarding it. A quick look at some of the wild suggestions:
"There was a census in 5BC."
Despite multiple accounts of the other three censi, not a single historian bothered to mention this. Also, it's completely different to the other three censi. In this census it is required of everyone to go to their city of origin. This is a mammoth task. It's a much bigger census than the other three, but every historian just ignored it? They cared more about the census in AD14 which was just roman officers making brief estimates of what land was worth? Secondly, how on earth would the Romans have performed a census in 5BC when they only took control of the province in 4AD?

"Quirinius was actually procurator at the time, not governor"
Wildest attempt at reading 'when quirinius was governor of syria" ever invented. Quirinius couldn't have ever been procurator, because he wasn't equestrian. Secondly, why on earth would Luke have cited someone completely unimportant? It would be like me saying I'm writing this while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is Alistair Darling.

"Luke actually meant 'before' the reign of quirinius"
Odd that the guy writing this feels the need to establish a backup possibility. No need for all the fantastical squirming when you have this theory. It is just a plain lie though, I'm afraid. I can't see how this can have arisen in any sense other than deliberate dishonesty. Every time Luke says before he uses the greek word prin. In this case, he uses the word prote, which means first.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Can you think of a single case where it hasn't?
Almost every single given case of recanting ever? My turning away from Christianity didn't destroy it. Religions are MUCH stronger than you take them to be.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Little evidence? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John attest to such a relationship existing.
You're sliding back on assuming truth to prove truth.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
These accounts were written within the first generation of the events and are therefore reliable testimonies by the standards of historians
I've said this so many times you're embarassing yourself now. Historians grade documents by what they document. Source analysis is content before providence. It doesn't matter if a text about thor was written the same day as thor was supposed to have done something. It doesn't matter if 1 thousand people all wrote about thor doing it, and they didn't contradict. It doesn't matter if all of these texts have been preserved. Historians will still look at it from the grounds of it not being true, because the idea of thor is absurd.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
your outright rejection is simply due to the four gospels containing certain incredible claims
Correct. It is the same reason you reject claims of the Night Journey. It is the logical way.


Originally posted by epiphinehas
Every time a Christian was killed in public for failing to pay allegiance to Caesar as God, many more were converted as a result. That's why it has been said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church Ah right, I see your point. I do think that much more significant in the spread of christianity is the idea of heaven, and the writings of Paul, but persecution could indeed have helped the growth of christianity too. I can't quite see the relevance though?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
OK, so you are on record claiming that the abiding joy and peace faithful Christians experience, even on the verge of death, is delusional.
Well obviously, and I should hope that you would be on the same record saying the same thing about Muslims and Hindus would you not?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I respectfully disagree. It is Truth which is able to produce perpetual freedom and joy, not lies.
I must admit, the opposite stance has a catchier tagline: "Truth Hurts". And really, it does. If your rabbit dies when you're a child and your parents get you a new one and pretend it never died, then you're much happier than had you been told the truth. Also, I would encourage you to speak to Hindus and Muslims about the joy they feel because of their delusion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So Paul "ignored the less liked bits" like worship, damnation and the apocalypse? Not true.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said ignored. That was an exaggeration and I take that back. The point was that he writes very namby pamby for the majority of his depictions of christianity. (also, for future reference, 2 thess was not written by Paul)

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Well, you must admit that "scheming" suggests something less than forthcoming, i.e., sly and underhanded.
Apologies, that isn't what I was aiming at. I still can't think of a more apt word... tactical?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Each letter had a different audience and purpose, therefore it is not surprising to find some "lighter" than others.
It isn't. And it is Paul's clever wording of his message for different audiences that was, in my opinion, the biggest factor in the spread of Christianity.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It takes the Spirit of God Himself to convict the heart of the Truth.
Isn't that a bugger? 😉 That he should create something so marvellous, and then keep himself as hidden as is possible.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Not everything Josephus wrote is questioned. For instance, his reference to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," is considered authentic by the majority of scholars.
I'll quote a slightly large portion of the text:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
Firstly, the "who was called christ" bit can be ignored - Origen looked at this text in many places but explicitly states it does not mention christ. It's also very obviously interpolative style. Nevertheless, we still have a (probably genuine) wording "Jesus, who was the brother of James" and we know James did have a brother called Jesus. Unfortunately, James the Just died 69AD and the James mentioned here died 62AD so they are not the same person. (Jesus was a more common name than it might seem in modern times.)

I will look at the other websites you list later, I'm afraid I don't have time now. Sorry for not answering everything you've written. I'm not just being evasive 😀

=======================================

The point was that he writes very namby pamby for the majority of his depictions of christianity. (also, for future reference, 2 thess was not written by Paul)

=======================================


Really now?

Could you quote me one of these "namby pamby" sections? I would like to see what else he says in the same letter.

Romans? First or Second Corinthians? Galatians? My! Where shall we start ferreting out the "namby pamby" teachings of Paul?

Why should I on your say so, accept that Paul didn't write 2 Thessalonians?