Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2016, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 03:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(19-11-2016 03:13 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 02:30 AM)f stop Wrote:  How did you (or whomever) arrive at that date?

Because Paul's movements (his missionary journeys) in his epistles can be cross-referenced with Acts. Leaving little doubt that he wrote between c. 50-60 AD.

And doing that proves they can't have happened as they are presented.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
And in fact they can't be "cross referenced" at all.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rl...lecture-14

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-11-2016, 04:17 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Ever wonder why Superman never writes his autobiography --- cuz damn --- I'd read that!!!

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 04:35 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(20-11-2016 03:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 03:13 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Because Paul's movements (his missionary journeys) in his epistles can be cross-referenced with Acts. Leaving little doubt that he wrote between c. 50-60 AD.

And doing that proves they can't have happened as they are presented.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
And in fact they can't be "cross referenced" at all.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rl...lecture-14

And why's that? Acts is not a perfect historical narrative, but its accounts of Paul's movements line up near perfectly with Paul's own accounts given in his epistles.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 06:52 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(20-11-2016 04:35 AM)Aractus Wrote:  And why's that? Acts is not a perfect historical narrative, but its accounts of Paul's movements line up near perfectly with Paul's own accounts given in his epistles.

There are several of Paul's letters that are accepted to be forgeries.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 07:56 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(20-11-2016 04:35 AM)Aractus Wrote:  And why's that? Acts is not a perfect historical narrative, but its accounts of Paul's movements line up near perfectly with Paul's own accounts given in his epistles.

No they don't. They cannot both be true. Watch the Pauline lecture of Martin I linked to.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rl.../lecture-5

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 07:51 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(20-11-2016 03:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 02:32 AM)Aractus Wrote:  I disagree. The Gospel of John cannot be reliably dated. The author knows about the content in Mark, that's pretty clear, but he's fairly ignorant of the content of Matthew and Luke. It's fairly safe to assume it's written around the same time as Matthew and Luke, sure it could be written up to 10 years or so later, but that cannot be proven or even demonstrated as likely.

As for the gospel of John being an interpolation of the synoptics - no I don't don't think so at all. It has its own narrative, which may well be interpolated as you put it by the author, but that doesn't mean the author started with the synoptic gospels. 90% of so of the gospel of John is unique to its gospel. As you know it's difficult beyond the obvious examples of the crucifixion, last supper, disruption in the temple, and the baptism to pin down what is and is not "historical" in any of the narratives, what however comes next after that stuff in terms of confidence is that Jesus delivered teachings - including at least most of the stuff in the synoptic gospels.

In terms of the Gospel of John, it does have at least some genuine teachings of Jesus in it. On the other hand some teachings like John 3:16 are rather unlikely. I would be very surprised if modern scholars did not think that John 3:16-21 is a non-authentic saying of Jesus. That alone irreconcilably weakens Christianity as it is one of the most fundamental teachings in the gospel to the Christian faith.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I was not suggesting that John took the words of the Synoptics and tried to interpolate new phrases into the original text.

I was using the term sarcastically in order to indicate that I think the author(s) of John "updated" the Jesus Legend™ from the simpler, less divine, and less-magical form found in the Synoptics to something that fit the evolving narrative of Jesus The Magical God and Also Son of God which evolved during the first few decades after the death of the actual Jesus.

The reason that 90% of it is unique to John is that it took a kernel from the original story (Mark) and added a bunch of the word-of-mouth legends no doubt being told among the early church, "improving" on the Legend of Jesus. The result of including all these legends is that it stands apart from the other three Gospels, in terms of how magical and how divine Jesus is claimed to be.

As you know from our previous conversations, I think you underestimate the human capacity for inventing well-meaning bullshit and telling it to a receptive audience who then passes it along until it becomes a "True Story™, Bro".

[Image: 37835442.jpg]

We see the same phenomenon among communities of UFO enthusiasts, for instance.

I'm thinking Philo is the originator of the Jesus myth, in the gospel of John the first verse uses the term logos to describe Jesus. This is a direct reference to the philosophy of Philo, and it pops up in the last gospel.

The earliest writings about this intermediary between god and man were around before Philo, but Philo "fleshes" them out. His life is spent adding meat to the bones of this intermediary between god and man. Early Christianity simply gave the concept a name and gave it a life story, interestingly during the time which Philo lived. Consider

I think the mention of logos in the first verse of John is quite remarkable and is a callback to Philo's philosophy.

Wilhelm Nestle’s description of the “Jewish-Greek Philosophy” of Philo

Philo is the George RR Martin of Christianity.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
20-11-2016, 10:17 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(20-11-2016 07:51 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Philo is the George RR Martin of Christianity.

If that was true, more of the disciples would have been gruesomely executed. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-11-2016, 10:43 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(18-11-2016 01:32 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  We're talking about a magical being here, why couldn't God just write the entire Bible on his own and make it freely available in every language to every human so they can all be saved?
♫Why'd you pick such a strange place in such a strange time?
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communications!♫


Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gawdzilla's post
20-11-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
CHUCK NORRIS never wrote a single CHUCK NORRIS fact . So? This doesn't prove the CHUCK NORRIS facts are telling lies. The CHUCK NORRIS facts are 1000000% true.

YesYes

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Leo's post
21-11-2016, 01:02 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(20-11-2016 03:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The reason that 90% of it is unique to John is that it took a kernel from the original story (Mark) and added a bunch of the word-of-mouth legends no doubt being told among the early church, "improving" on the Legend of Jesus.

No that's not the reason. The reason is that the primary Johannine source is not common to any of the synoptics. Mark or M or Q or L or a combination thereof did not form the basis, the kernel of the gospel of John - it was formed around a different narrative.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: