For those who are interested, I just posted another reply to Jon Curry in one of the older threads. It's lengthy, but some of you may be interested in some of the issues discussed.
I'll give some examples of the claims Jon Curry made. Regarding the early Christians' judgments about the books of the New Testament canon, he wrote:
"As far as their concern for apostolicity, this also is bogus. They say they are concerned that the writing be apostolic. But how do they know something is apostolic? Is it a matter of textual criticism? Of course not. It starts with how widely accepted a writing is and also touches on other factors, such as whether or not the writing is orthodox. I'm not impressed by people saying 'Only apostolic writings count, and since I want certain books it must be that those books are apostolic.' That's not demonstrative of high moral standards."
Regarding the moral standards of the earliest Christians, Jon wrote:
"The issue is your claim to 'high moral standards' amongst early Christians. If early Christians engage in widespread forging of documents, why should we accept your claim to high moral standards? That's the relevance of the issue. As to how I know it, it's just apparent. I've cited many examples. Forged documents represent a very large proportion of early Christian writings and a very low proportion of books on the bookshelf at Barnes and Noble....It's rare enough [for forgeries to occur today] that it is news."
When I told Jon that if a document attributed to Paul didn't begin circulating until after Paul and those who knew him were dead, then that lateness would itself be a major difficulty for any forger to overcome, he responded:
Since he wanted me to explain it to him, I did. But while Jon is so skeptical of arguments for the traditional authorship attributions of the Bible, he doesn't seem to be nearly as skeptical about alleged internal evidence against the traditional authorship attributions. He even refers to how he has "suspicions" about documents like 1 Corinthians and Philemon, which are accepted across the scholarly spectrum. He writes the following about passages in which Paul comments on his own handwriting and passages that use the phrase "I, Paul" (1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 19, etc.):
"These are all cause for suspicion of these documents. 'I Paul' references are also suspicious as they are in many pseudonymous works as a dead give away to forgery."
And Jon has taken up an argument that's popular in online skeptical circles regarding how Eusebius of Caesarea supposedly advocated lying. Roger Pearse discusses and refutes the argument here. I've added some comments of my own in response to Jon Curry, including some citations of other scholars commenting on the subject (Roger Pearse cites some scholars as well).
Anybody interested in any of these issues can find my responses to Jon Curry here. The more Jon attempts to justify his rejection of Christianity, the more he has to propose theories of widespread ignorance, widespread forgeries, widespread apathy, etc. In his recent responses to Steve Hays and other posters here, Jon has commented on how "honesty" led him to where he is. Read his comments in the thread linked above and ask yourself whether it seems likely that it's honesty that's led him to the left of the Jesus Seminar.