Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Certainty? And what might be your standard for that? Some challenge the authorship of Paul's epistles which lead with his name (e.g. Timothy and Titus), so that provides no "certainty." I referred to Schaaf, the premier church historian, but that provides insufficient "certainty" for you too. My proposal solves all the problems with the authorship, but that is inadequate also.
Because you said so! So be it! And there you have it!
|
Where's Anderson Cooper when you need him?
Schaaf is not the final answer, nor the HOTA.
Solving all the problems? Really? And even if you think so, are you sure? Sure enough to get into a battle over it?
I have no problem with anyone thinking it could be, or even seems like Paul. And even deciding to go with it as if true.
But to declare it to be simply so?
They you complain that I even suggested that, as an irrelevant point, it is not established that Paul is the author and you essentially jump into the fray using words that create a presumption of what WE all know.
I thought that having the LCM in the rear-view mirror would be a reminder not to be so certain about things for which there is little or no actual evidence. You might argue that appearing to solve certain problems makes it plausible enough to treat it is true. But if you really want to do it that way, you have to allow for the fact that you are going beyond what matters and what the evidence supports as true — not merely plausible.
A collection of reasonable conjectures does not a single fact create.
Just like the plural of anecdote is not data.
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.
It surely isn't essential. So where is the liberty and charity? I made an aside concerning uncertainty on something that probably doesn't even qualify as a non-essential in terms of Christian faith and this is your response?