Comment

afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

He was still sending them money and I am not going into the Duetropaul argument since it proves nothing.

P.S. do you know what an argument from authority logical fallacy is? Especially since you are going against the grain with your dating of the Gospel of Thomas. Did you know that around 60% of polled Bible scholars believe the resurrection is a true literal historical event?

source

Sort:hotnew top

kromem@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
He was still sending them money

How do you know? Because he says so in the letters?

It’s worth looking a bit closer at the fine details…

For even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me help for my needs more than once. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the profit[g] that accumulates to your account. I have been paid in full and have more than enough; I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Philippians 4:16-18

Interesting. Paul is getting fancy fragrances sent to him?

Should we be upset about this?

Well wait a second, what do those later cannonical gospels say?

While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head. But some were there who said to one another in anger, “Why was the ointment wasted in this way? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me.

Mark 14:3-6

Pretty weird how Paul accepting an expensive fragrance is paralleled in the gospels with Jesus being gifted an expensive fragrance as being a good thing.

I’d be very skeptical of just how much of the money Paul was collecting was being used for its stated purposes.
source
- afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  How much would be enough money to no longer be bitterly opposed? Be exact. The exact coinage needed.
  
  Or you know you can drop this indefensible position that if there is a schism it means there was founder. Since again you have zero evidence of this theorem. I promise to let it die.
  
  Thanks you for admitting the Mark was not writing the history of Jesus, he was writing the history of Paul. I am glad we agree that Mark said nothing about the historical Jesus.
  
  source
  - kromem@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Thanks you for admitting the Mark was not writing the history of Jesus, he was writing the history of Paul. I am glad we agree that Mark said nothing about the historical Jesus.
    
    That’s not what I said and you know it.
    
    You seem in this reply and your others to be much more interested in debating a strawman than actual nuance around textual criticism.
    
    That’s arguably even easier to do without me replying at all where you would need to twist what I was saying to do so.
    
    If you are ever interested in actually discussing the material seriously, I’ll be around.
    
    source
    afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Pretty sure you did say that. The best source we got for the guy you have admitted wasn’t even talking about him.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Duetropaul, like the drag race? Holy Ghost, it’s real.

source
- afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Huh? There are 13 letters in the NT that are ascribed to Paul. Of them 7 modern scholarship thinks he wrote and the others are forgeries. It was a rampant problem in the Roman Empire people would write books under a different person’s name for revenge or other reasons. Some people believe however that there are still elements of Paul spoken word in the fake letters, I am on the fence about that.
  
  It is kinda interesting to consider it. There are 27 books in the NT, and of them only 8 are written by the person who was ascribed as the author traditionally. So much for the Bible being a good source of knowledge about what was going on.
  
  source
  - TokenBoomer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Thanks. I did not know this. Guess I have to get back to watching the Gnostic Informant.
    
    source
    afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    No problem. Really anything from Bart Erhman would give you much more than you would ever want to know. Yes I disagree with the man on a few things but 99% of stuff we are in agreement on.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments