Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2016, 05:26 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 02:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 01:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How come John needs a mystery source to explain it? Why can't John just be the one fan-fiction project that was successful?

You know, like this piece of dreck.

[Image: Fifty-Shades-Grey.jpg]

^ This started as Twilight fan-fiction written out on a Blackberry... ^

What stops this 'different' narrative from being about John the Baptist? There was no consensus among early Christians on whether it was Jesus or John who was the Christ. Indeed you'll find that Jesus and John the Baptist share many similarities.

References required.

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
21-11-2016, 05:35 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 10:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Totally WRONG. Totally.

I'm growing tired of your dogmatic rhetoric. I said the accounts line up 'near perfectly' - and I was not talking about just one aspect of the narrative, I was talking about the present movements of Paul in his letters.

Quote:In Acts it says he was there (in Jerusalem) 5 (FIVE) times. Five.

He only goes to Jerusalem three times, in total, in the book of Acts by 50AD:
  1. The first time is in Acts 9 when Paul goes down from Damascus shortly after his conversion (three years later by the chronology in Galatians). At that time "they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26) - that doesn't sound like he was known personally to them.
  2. The second time is in Acts 11-12.
  3. The third time is the Council itself in Acts 15.
The only one of those visits not mentioned by Paul is the second visit. Now you say he went to Jerusalem five times - well, yes, after the council he went two more times according to Acts:
  1. Acts 18 to "salute the church".
  2. Acts 21 where he visits James, goes to the Temple, and is arrested.
Those two visits happen after he writes Galatians, and the final visit (the fifth) is corroborated by Romans and 1 Corinthians. And that's not all that is corroborated, 1-2 Corinthians themselves provide good evidence of Acts 18:3 which says that Paul was a tentmaker. In the 50's AD Corinthians was but a tiny town with barely any fixed structures - yet Paul writes to them repeatedly (at least three times, since 2 Corinthians is an amalgamation of multiple letters to them).

Quote:And it recounts his meeting with the entire community, multiple times, and they all knew him.

That's a gross oversimplification. It does not say they all knew him during his first two visits. In Acts 11:30-12:25 (the second visit in Acts) Paul has no direct interaction with the church leaders that is recorded by Acts (other than John Mark). That doesn't sound like they knew him well.

Quote:The 5 times where he is said to know the entire community, and his OWN statements are totally irreconcilable. Totally. They cannot BOTH be true.

Firstly, Acts does not have to be 100% accurate - and in fact we would expect it not to be, considering it is thought to be written around 80-90AD, which is 20-30 years since Paul is believed to have died. Secondly, they know him well only after the third visit - the Jerusalem Council - that is consistent with Galatians.

Thirdly, you're arguing over small details, rather than the broader information in Acts. Paul became well known to the church in Jerusalem, and a writer in the 80's (Luke or a disciple/associate of his) isn't to know that Paul was once not very well known to them prior to the Council. That's something that Paul knows, but would be much less obvious to someone else writing after he has died, given his huge influence over the direction of the church. It doesn't mean that Acts is completely wrong, it just means that like any ancient document it contains ordinary errors that we would expect to find in it.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 05:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 02:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  What stops this 'different' narrative from being about John the Baptist? There was no consensus among early Christians on whether it was Jesus or John who was the Christ. Indeed you'll find that Jesus and John the Baptist share many similarities.

References required.

both had a divine birth where angels came and touted their horns
Both were ministers of a 'new faith'
both were executed in the time of agrippa
both were/are considered christ(at least one older almost gnostic religion believes john was the christ)
both had a tremendous amounts of followers

While for some differences it would have made more sense if Jesus were born to Johns' parents and John to Mary and Joseph. Jesus after all had such a position that he was reading scripture, and priests in the ancient world didn't just let ANYONE do that for the same reason that priests in our world don't let anyone give communion or the likes. That is their livelihood. Indeed it seems very strange that a carpenter would be in such a highly regarded position as that.

If you were talking about literary references from the bible with regard to its passages like Luke 20:1

I wouldn't be able to give you the exact details like that as its been quite some time since I bothered reading the bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2016 06:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 05:35 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I'm growing tired of your dogmatic rhetoric. I said the accounts line up 'near perfectly' - and I was not talking about just one aspect of the narrative, I was talking about the present movements of Paul in his letters.

Poor baby. "Growing tired" ... oh my. Perhaps the truth gives you the "vapors". Facepalm
I don't care. I proved you totally wrong. I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself. You failed.
YOU were the one that made the fist (incorrect) dogmatic assertion. Now you can't handle the fallout. I proved they IN NO WAY "lined up almost perfectly".

Quote:He only goes to Jerusalem three times, in total, in the book of Acts by 50AD:

No one set any end date UNTIL YOU were proven wrong. Now you try to hedge, you dishonest twit.

Quote:Firstly, Acts does not have to be 100% accurate - and in fact we would expect it not to be, considering it is thought to be written around 80-90AD, which is 20-30 years since Paul is believed to have died. Secondly, they know him well only after the third visit - the Jerusalem Council - that is consistent with Galatians.

It is totally inconsistent with Galatians. Your idiotic apologists are shit. You don't know when Acts was written, and you provided no evidence. There were many many books of Acts , and your dating is unsupported. The theology that Peter and other proclaim in Acts is very advanced. There is NO WAY the advanced theological concepts they speak of would have had time to develop in the short time Acts tries to make it looks like they did. But I do get, the nuances of the texts are not something you have any awareness of.

Quote:Thirdly, you're arguing over small details, rather than the broader information in Acts.

No. It proves one of them is totally false. It's not "small details". Scholars know and accept they cannot both be true. They are INCONSISTENT.
But then, even when handed a lecture, by a leading NT scholar who totally agrees with me, you refused to watch it. No wonder you know nothing.
Fail again.

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
21-11-2016, 06:01 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 05:47 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 05:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  References required.

both had a divine birth where angels came and touted their horns
Both were ministers of a 'new faith'
both were executed in the time of agrippa
both were/are considered christ(at least one older almost gnostic religion believes john was the christ)
both had a tremendous amounts of followers

While for some differences it would have made more sense if Jesus were born to Johns' parents and John to Mary and Joseph. Jesus after all had such a position that he was reading scripture, and priests in the ancient world didn't just let ANYONE do that for the same reason that priests in our world don't let anyone give communion or the likes. That is their livelihood. Indeed it seems very strange that a carpenter would be in such a highly regarded position as that.

If you were talking about literary references from the bible with regard to its passages like Luke 20:1

I wouldn't be able to give you the exact details like that as its been quite some time since I bothered reading the bible.

I said "references" not more assertions.

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
21-11-2016, 06:27 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 06:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't care. I proved you totally wrong. I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself. You failed.

You didn't "prove" anything, other than the fact that just as I said some of the details regarding Paul (in fact quite a lot) are different in Acts than they are in his Epistles. That's not relevant to what I said which pertained to his movements - not to his character.

Quote:No one set any end date UNTIL YOU were proven wrong. Now you try to hedge, you dishonest twit.

The only one who's dishonest here is you. Galatians is written before the later journeys - do you dispute this?

Quote:It is totally inconsistent with Galatians. Your idiotic apologists are shit. You don't know when Acts was written, and you provided no evidence. There were many many books of Acts , and your dating is unsupported.

There is no reliable way to date Acts, other than to assume that Luke wrote it not too long after his gospel. The overwhelming scholarly view is that Luke-Acts are the work of a single author. Do you dispute this?

Quote:No. It proves one of them is totally false. It's not "small details". Scholars know and accept they cannot both be true. They are INCONSISTENT.

They have inconsistencies, but they have convergences as well. No one's claiming that Acts is a perfect historical document - in fact I said several times it isn't. It's allowed to have errors, as it should. It's written after Paul has died. The author cannot consult him directly about such things as his conversion, or his early experiences in Jerusalem.

Now I have said many times that I do not believe Paul had a vision of Jesus. That contradicts Acts in several places, but not the Pauline Epistles. But that said, it was still on the road to Damascus that his conversion took place, regardless of exactly how he was converted.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2016 06:44 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 05:47 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  both had a divine birth where angels came and touted their horns
Both were ministers of a 'new faith'
both were executed in the time of agrippa
both were/are considered christ(at least one older almost gnostic religion believes john was the christ)
both had a tremendous amounts of followers

While for some differences it would have made more sense if Jesus were born to Johns' parents and John to Mary and Joseph. Jesus after all had such a position that he was reading scripture, and priests in the ancient world didn't just let ANYONE do that for the same reason that priests in our world don't let anyone give communion or the likes. That is their livelihood. Indeed it seems very strange that a carpenter would be in such a highly regarded position as that.

If you were talking about literary references from the bible with regard to its passages like Luke 20:1

I wouldn't be able to give you the exact details like that as its been quite some time since I bothered reading the bible.

I said "references" not more assertions.

Getting references for ALL the similarities seems like a lot of effort, effort that I don't exactly want to put in for something that I don't feel is very worthy of discourse but something that is an interesting enough to ponder on.

If you would like references however here's some regarding the similarities in the stories of their birth.

link

The link doesn't seem to be working as a direct link, you'll have to copy and paste it it seems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 05:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You seem stuck on the idea that what was written down in each Gospel required a specific, written source, rather than being an amalgamation of scroll or letter fragments and/or common church-group stories.

That's not what I'm saying. Q or Q + M + L were at least partly written, proven by the fact that segments that come from Q in Matthew and Luke are sometimes letter-for-letter identical.

As for John, he used a primary source let's call it J. Or he used several sources J1 ... Jn. It doesn't matter whether it or they were written or oral, they were different to Mark/Q/M/L/Matthew/Luke.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2016 07:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 06:27 PM)Aractus Wrote:  You didn't "prove" anything, other than the fact that just as I said some of the details regarding Paul (in fact quite a lot) are different in Acts than they are in his Epistles. That's not relevant to what I said which pertained to his movements - not to his character.

More shifting of the goal posts. YOU said Acts was consistent with the journeys in his letters. I proved they are not. And he said so HIMSELF. NO ONE said anything about his character. Evasion.

Quote:The only one who's dishonest here is you. Galatians is written before the later journeys - do you dispute this?

Prove it. And that is not the point and YOU know it. Galatians CONTRADICTS Acts. That is the point.

Quote:There is no reliable way to date Acts, other than to assume that Luke wrote it not too long after his gospel. The overwhelming scholarly view is that Luke-Acts are the work of a single author. Do you dispute this?

I said nothing about authorship. YOU dated it. I said it could not have been dated at the time you claimed, and I gave a reason for saying that. you gave NOTHING.

Quote:It's allowed to have errors, as it should. It's written after Paul has died. The author cannot consult him directly about such things as his conversion, or his early experiences in Jerusalem.

Who decided "It's allowed to have errors". What does that even mean ?

Quote:Now I have said many times that I do not believe Paul had a vision of Jesus. That contradicts Acts in several places, but not the Pauline Epistles. But that said, it was still on the road to Damascus that his conversion took place, regardless of exactly how he was converted.

Irrelevant. You answered NONE of the important questions I raised about your assertion.

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
21-11-2016, 08:19 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 07:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove it. And that is not the point and YOU know it. Galatians CONTRADICTS Acts. That is the point.

Galatians is written before Acts - do you question that? Acts of the Apostles therefore is the contradictory material, not Galatians. Acts switches to the first-person narrative from chapter 16 through to the end. Many scholars have noted that this makes it plausible that the author has first-hand knowledge of those events, but only second-hand knowledge of the events up to and including Acts 15.

We don't expect an author that is not an eyewitness to any of the events to get them all right all the time.

Now again, you're fixated on these small details between Acts and Galatians. What I said is that the whole of the seven genuine epistles line up well with the account given in Acts of Paul's movements. For example, in Philemon one of Paul's last epistles, written while he is under house arrest and awaiting execution, he mentions that Timothy and Luke and with him, as well as Epaphra, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas. Mark, Timothy, and Luke are all placed as companions of Paul at different times in Acts, his letter to Philemon shows that these people were indeed companions of his as he mentions them by name. In fact he mentions Timothy in almost all his letters.

The author of Acts does not have perfect knowledge of the past - but he does have valid knowledge to do with the missionary journeys of Paul across the Mediterranean, who his companions were, and that he was arrested and placed under house arrest (after which it is almost certain he was executed).

Quote:I said nothing about authorship. YOU dated it. I said it could not have been dated at the time you claimed, and I gave a reason for saying that. you gave NOTHING.

The reason you gave is rubbish. I gave the date that most scholars agree upon, and you claimed that its theology is too advanced. Yet the only other Christian writings we have to compare to from the same era are the New Testament texts, and Johannine theology is even more advanced. So I'm not convinced at all by that argument.

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: