Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
The list starts with:
John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919-1983)
John William Wenham (1913-1996)
Edward Earle Ellis (1926-2010)
James G. Crossley (b. 1972)
Martin Mosse
Graham Jackman
Since we are including traditionalists, many more can be found (likely most scholars in the 1500s-1700s when they touch on the issue.)
Point proven for Stuart.
John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919-1983)
John William Wenham (1913-1996)
Edward Earle Ellis (1926-2010)
James G. Crossley (b. 1972)
Martin Mosse
Graham Jackman
Since we are including traditionalists, many more can be found (likely most scholars in the 1500s-1700s when they touch on the issue.)
Point proven for Stuart.
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
No point proven. I used "traditionalist" as a nice way to say apologist. It's just a list. Which is not what I asked for, rather your "essay".
You need to explain why these positions are correct, why the signatures are to be believed, why they are more probable than being added by a collector or editor at a later date. I could list dozens of individual problems with the position, but let's let you start by giving a summary of the defense, and then we can go through point by point.
You need to explain why these positions are correct, why the signatures are to be believed, why they are more probable than being added by a collector or editor at a later date. I could list dozens of individual problems with the position, but let's let you start by giving a summary of the defense, and then we can go through point by point.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
No. There is a principle, an ethic: "he who avers must prove''. The onus is on you to do so.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:40 pm You want a whole essay simply because you are ignorant on the topic and make bogus claims?
(your attempt at gaslighting is unsuccessful and unacceptable. all you've done is mark yourself as a potential malignant narcissist).
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
I proved what I asserted.
A solid list of modern scholars with a pre-70 AD view.
And I never offered an essay - especially not to two annoying posters.
And I definitely enjoy the topic, and try to squeeze in time, for my own studies.
(Right now the studies around the Grantley McDonald threat to sue is way above in priorities.)
And I did not even go to the earlier centuries than 20th.
Before F. C. Baur, c. 1850, early dating was the norm.
Your posts are nonsense, since you moved the goal posts.
Are you always this silly and dense?
Anyway, it is good that you walked back your Acts-->Mark-ending claim.
A solid list of modern scholars with a pre-70 AD view.
And I never offered an essay - especially not to two annoying posters.
And I definitely enjoy the topic, and try to squeeze in time, for my own studies.
(Right now the studies around the Grantley McDonald threat to sue is way above in priorities.)
And I did not even go to the earlier centuries than 20th.
Before F. C. Baur, c. 1850, early dating was the norm.
Your posts are nonsense, since you moved the goal posts.
Are you always this silly and dense?
Anyway, it is good that you walked back your Acts-->Mark-ending claim.
Punk-thug posting. Gave me a laugh.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
Aver:
to declare positively
to verify or prove to be true in pleading a cause
Usage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vFRB61xyls
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
Which positions?
Why would I take up a challenge to explain why various competing positions are all correct?
This team is really, really dense.
You are just as bad as the old IIDB team.
Worse, because you lack some of their smarts and logic.
Btw, my list was not "apologists".
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
You have not defended a damned thing. You have asserted things, but not explained why they are probable or not.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:10 pmWhich positions?
Why would I take up a challenge to explain why various competing positions are all correct?
This team is really, really dense.
You are just as bad as the old IIDB team.
Worse, because you lack some of their smarts and logic.
Btw, my list was not "apologists".
Your word is not good enough.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
More non-responsive stupidity from our triad of posters.
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
apologist be apologizing
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
whatever, why are you folks so absurd in discussion?
And then you try to team up as a group of absurdists, so tacky.
Why not actually quote my words?
Then you could try to make a case that I offered more stuff.
And why would I try to apologetically convince a group of non-Christian mythicist and quirky ultra-late-date forum writers?
They start with paradigms that could never accept and understand early NT dating, which is a true pearl of understanding .
And then you try to team up as a group of absurdists, so tacky.
Why not actually quote my words?
Then you could try to make a case that I offered more stuff.
And why would I try to apologetically convince a group of non-Christian mythicist and quirky ultra-late-date forum writers?
They start with paradigms that could never accept and understand early NT dating, which is a true pearl of understanding .