Craven de Kere wrote:As I expected, you are unable to substantiate what you assert. Dropping names does nothing to support your contention. <shrugs>
I am familiar with the references you cite. And none of them can substantiate your statements either.
This statrement makes me doubt you actually have any familiarity with the authors cited.
Quote:For example, you are taking them a huge step further. Nobody *knows* whether the Pauline letters predate the gospels. It's simply considered probable. I personally consider it very probable but this is not a fact either.
I don't recall staing "everyone knows" anything. I don't use terms like that.
Quote:Beyond that there is a question of what degree the revision was taken to.
An extrememly large question, as well as the sequence of revisions.
Quote:The influence of the Pauline letters on the Gospels can't be denied but then again you can't deny the existence of the written sources that predate the pauline letters.
But you fail to mention the fact that the "written sources which predate the Pauline Corpus" are not, in fact, the gospels themselves, and are in fact themselve's suspect. The Reference to Jesus in one version of Josephus springs immediately to mind, as does the purported "Centurion Letter" which includes a physical descriptionof Jesus.
Quote: And several texts attributed to him were done in error. Authorship on many of them is unknown.
This is something I addressed much earlier.
Quote:Trying to assert precisely what Paul's influence was on the gospels is hit and miss. You can't do it with such certainty.
I never attempted to assert certainty. I do assert that Pauline Christianity is the version that has survived to the present day. I also assert that many of the aspects of Christianity that are seen as vitally important to contemporary Christians are likely Pauline constructs, posited in order to make Chrisitanity more competitive with Serapis, Isis, and other mystery cults extant in the Hellenistic world.
Quote:This is why you can't substantiate what you've said. You could, however, make a compelling argument that it was probable.
Which was, indeed my intention. You appear to have misunderstood my intentions.
Quote:The Gospels did not draw solely upon the Pauline letters. What was and was not Paul's hand is arguable.
If any (though I don't go that far to the extreme).
Quote:The revisions certainly did occur. But nobody knows exactly what revisions occured and exactly what predated them.
This is why you will not be able to assert that as fact and substantiate it. You'll have to rely on a more generalized case about Paul. Similar to the one that Frank used.
Again, you would appear to have misinterperated my intentions.
Quote:His importance is undeniable. But you cite specific revisions when this is not possible to establish authoritatively with the currently available information.
See above.
....you I guess you are right....But I'm sure the diehard Godfeinds, and the ignorant teenage Atheist would be very happy doing so.
