Is Biblical Scholarship Crawling with "Unscientific" Piety?

A perfect example of an assertion without evidence is the claim that Jesus and his merrymen actually existed.
It’s not just the phony gospels and forged letters. There were at two dozen “authentic” burial shrouds, lots of authentic thorns from the crown of them, one church claimed to have Jesus’ foreskin, and there were enough splinters of the Cross, Constantine’s mom had some, that John Calvin said the amount of wood would make “a full load for a good ship.” Just recently another tomb of Jesus was discovered! How tombs does that make? I’ve lost count but we know it’s authentic because there’s no body. I mean how much more proof do you need?

No, this is what an assertion without evidence looks like: “It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there … It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs.” – Eusebius, The History of the Church, p50,52.

Seventy six percent of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke. Are you asserting without evidence Matthew had some other sources other than his imagination and the Septuagint? Name 'em and claim 'em™. Here’s what an asserton with evidence looks like: Matthew had more than one author. In Matthew 13:53-55 when Jesus is finished preaching in the synagogue the townsfolk are amazed. “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his brothers James and Jospeh and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” Where then did this man get all this?" What they should have been saying is, “Is not this is the child who was visited by Magi who brought him royal gifts, the one the soldiers were looking for when they killed all the male children?” This is a pretty good clue that the birth narrative in Matthew is a later addition because the author of chapter 13 seems completely unaware of it.

Justin is said to have gone to live in an area where Artemis was known and worshiped.

Where’s the original?
What we don’t have are any responses from the supposed recipients of any of the epistles or supposed letters from the churchmen. That’s not to say the diligent forgers and fakers at the world’s largest fabrication factory didn’t try to make up for this fact. The lack of any reference to Jesus Christ or Christians by Seneca was an embarrassment that the Church clumsily tried to rectify in the the 4th century by forgery. The forger seemed to be familiar with Seneca’s letters to his friend Lucilius.
“Hail, my dearest Paul … so great a man, so beloved in all ways … You are the summit and topmost peak of all people …We were much refreshed by the reading of … the many letters which you have addressed to some city or capital of a province…which inculcate the moral life with admirable precepts…Farewell, dearest Paul.”
I don’t think even Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel would try to foist that letter on the gullible Christians they make their living lying to.

1 Like

You haven’t responded to a single thing I wrote. You’ve just used my reply as a springboard for evidence-free phantasms and irrelevancies. Hitchens’s razor and stubble-burning are the only responses needed.

Ooops that was a mistake. I meant twenty - at least 20 non-canonical gospels.

There is evidence. His dialogue with Trypho in which he debated the conclusions of Jewish redactors of the Septuagint.

Religion is all about making stuff up so the religious just assume everybody does it. Justin supposedly fled to Ephesus at the time of the Bar Kochbar revolt. That’s when, according to tradition, he became part of the new Christian community. There he would have found himself competing with the priests of Artemis, the virgin goddess. Justin successfully had Mary the mother of Jesus declared a virgin citing his Greek copy of Isaiah as “evidence” of scriptural foreknowledge (read: superstition). The Greek priest who then forged that part of the Gospel of Matthew took things a step further by taking the word “harah” in Hebrew a past or perfect tense, and switching it into a future tense: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel in Matthew 1.23. Now THAT is making stuff up.

Do we have anything that we can be sure is a copy of one of those “letters?”? No. Yet copies of copies of copies is all we have of the New Testament texts. There was so much obvious fraud and fakery in the early Church you have to have blinders on not to see it.

It’s not without evidence. You have the burden of proof here. Show me something that wound up in the hands of a secular historian or a person who didn’t work at the Christian fabrication factory in Rome.