tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post910388169410586274..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: How do we know the NT documents were written in the first century?Peter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-63334647752470527422014-09-25T19:21:57.318-07:002014-09-25T19:21:57.318-07:00I don't know much, but Wikipedia must be right...I don't know much, but Wikipedia must be right.... Because the Wiki is always right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-24483542779507783622013-11-15T11:04:29.984-08:002013-11-15T11:04:29.984-08:00Evidently you have yet to read the article. "...Evidently you have yet to read the article. "Anonymous" The only one who should be embarassed at this folly is you with your non-answer which neither refutes nor proves a single thing.The Whymanhttp://facebook.com/whyoutreachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-39778752542443374212013-10-07T02:03:35.327-07:002013-10-07T02:03:35.327-07:00If only to embarrass any apologist silly or stupid...If only to embarrass any apologist silly or stupid enough to use this argument. P52 has been dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of dated textual references or associated archeology (Nongbri, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:1, 23-48.)<br /><br />Moreover Nongbri stated "Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the *later second and early third centuries*. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century."<br /><br />This demonstrated the article is poorly researched nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-9848976868157023052013-09-26T13:35:51.548-07:002013-09-26T13:35:51.548-07:00lol, your response is the "ridiculous" o...lol, your response is the "ridiculous" one. You assert your point via tu quoque, and still provide no evidence. You assert circularity, but have no objective standard by which to base your claim. What transcendent authority of truth gives you the ability to even propose circular reasoning in this case as being false? You have no sources, you have no basis to prove your claims; you're at best, simply a skeptic. Plus, Josephus IS mentioned as a secular historian in this article. You just simply have to read and comprehend. Also, you can find more here at this link:<br />http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05328642780789026686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-54250975753878369632013-04-01T14:21:10.409-07:002013-04-01T14:21:10.409-07:00I don't know much about this stuff but even Wi...I don't know much about this stuff but even Wikipedia states that "First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.[2] Most scholars now affirm this view.[3]"<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy<br /><br />Maybe Dr Saunders should correct the Wikipedia entry!Origen Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371820089113495468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-16193898964006010602013-03-18T22:40:18.383-07:002013-03-18T22:40:18.383-07:00This whole article is ridiculous; I don't have...This whole article is ridiculous; I don't have the evidence to say that the Bible was NOT written during the time of Jesus, but it does not make this article less illogical. <br /><br />By citing all those verses, you're basically <i>using the Bible to prove the Bible</i> by saying the different parts of the Bible match up. However, the validity of a statement due to its congruence with other statements (especially those from the same text) does not prove its truth. People once thought the Earth was flat and all text and images created during that time (including the Bible I believe) supported that. It doesn't mean it was true.<br /><br />Plus, those other non-Bible texts you presented are also Christian texts. If you're going to present evidence, make sure your evidence is impartial. Have any non-Christian texts during that time attested the validity of New Testament texts?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02749598974346490456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-77891651147886922732013-03-15T03:33:56.802-07:002013-03-15T03:33:56.802-07:00Some Atheists could save themselves embarrassment ...Some Atheists could save themselves embarrassment by reading this.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11485138043858836382noreply@blogger.com