Search results for query: *

I think this song might be about LSD.

We won't go into the question of whether the Epistle of Clement is genuine... :)

Well, the Gospels and Acts are full of contradictions like this. (We could also add the discrepancy over whether Paul's companions here were standing or had fallen to the ground.) Is this directly relevant as to whether Luke and Paul wrote the NT books attributed to them?

You mean the discrepancies in Acts as to whether Paul and his companions "saw" or "heard" a magic voice and/or a magic light? That's not much different from the various contradictions in the Gospels.

From the Introduction of Livesey's book: And yes, she seems to agree with Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyson that Acts was also written in the second century.

In the old days of TalkFreethought or FreeRatio, this question would have resulted in more sober discussion. :-/

There are similar debates over the so-called Epistles of St Ignatius, whose letters are full of commands to "obey the Bishops". Catholics are very fond of these letters, whereas many Protestants argue they were actually forged a century after the martyrdom of Ignatius in order to back up the...

Cambridge University Press has just published a new book by U.S. biblical scholar Nina Livesey arguing that the NT Epistles of St Paul were in fact all fabricated in the second century. Unfortunately it's horribly expensive, but it sounds interesting.

Well, the aforementioned Wikipedia is as a good a place to start as any. It questions the historicity of Laozi, but not of Confucius.

I've seen the Wikipedia articles, but I'm curious as to why the evidence for the historicity of Confucius is considered more solid than the evidence for the existence of Lao Zi, considering that the two men are supposed to have been contemporaries who met each other.

Why do historians think that Confucius was an actual historical person, whereas his alleged contemporary and acquaintance Lao Zi (supposed founder of Taoism) was likely a myth?

*sigh* I never said the article in question was on the Secular Web. It could have been in a hard-copy book like "The Empty Tomb" or "Not the Impossible Faith", which members of this forum are likely to be familiar with. I don't appreciate being accused of making things up, which is why I've...

*adds Janice Rael to Ignore list*

When I pointed out "pagan" parallels to the fundy apologist, he said they were inspired by Satan.

Celsus wrote in the late 2nd century CE, I believe, and Origen wrote his rebuttal in the 3rd century. Apologists will argue that "nobody challenged the truth of the Resurrection in the first century".

I was debating with an Xian who assured me that "If the Resurrection went to a court case, the judge would rule in favor of it". When I laughed in his face, he argued that "Nobody challenged or denied the truth of the Gospels and/or the Resurrection accounts in the first century." So, a go-to...

We often hear Xian apologists saying variations on the theme of "The Resurrection must have happened because nobody denied it at the time!" I have an idea I've seen an article or essay refuting this silly claim, but I can't recall where. Any suggestions?