Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2016, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2016 08:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 08:19 PM)Aractus Wrote:  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.

YOU said Acts and the journeys are consistent. Paul himself said they are not. All your attempted evasion is not going to change the fact that YOU asserted a falsehood, and I referenced you to a scholar that agreed with me, and YOU refused to even look at it.

Quote: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.

And they totally DON'T. You are wrong. Martin agrees with ME. You are no scholar, obviously. They are not "small details" if the Church accepted the text in the canon as representing the truth, and it isn't. They can't both be true, and they are not "small details". They were big enough for Martin to spend an hour of his class on the subject. They are important if the "Word of god" is supposed to be entirely true.

Quote: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).

So you CLAIM, with no evidence, and Paul himself contradicts you.

Quote:The reason you gave is rubbish.

So you say, with NO REASONING. We see who's spouting "rubbish" here.

Quote: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.

Johannine theology was written FAR .... decades... LATER, WHICH IS MY POINT, (according to you, so we see how much that 'rubbish' is worth), and you utterly FAILED to name even one of the other texts you are comparing Acts with.

Maybe you could take a class on the subject some day.

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, 10:04 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Welcome to TTA, Aractus. Heh.

"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
21-11-2016, 10:23 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 05:35 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(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.

(21-11-2016 05:35 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I'm growing tired of your dogmatic rhetoric.

Um.........Aractus, Bucky is....well.....he's got a lot to say. I've learned a lot from him but he'll tell you what he thinks, that's for sure. We love him though.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 10:42 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 08:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU said Acts and the journeys are consistent. Paul himself said they are not. All your attempted evasion is not going to change the fact that YOU asserted a falsehood, and I referenced you to a scholar that agreed with me, and YOU refused to even look at it.

I didn't assert a falsehood, and I've explained what I meant several times. Finding that there are parts of Acts that are problematic is not an issue. The Jerusalem council is considered a historical event by scholars whether or not the details in Acts are "perfect" or not - do you dispute that? You need to clearly explain your position on these things, because you seem to be arguing for a position that is not consistent with current scholarly opinion.

Quote:They are important if the "Word of god" is supposed to be entirely true.

Exactly. They are only important for Christians who take the Bible as the inerrant word of God, not for atheists who take it as an ancient text written by Luke or Luke's associate who made a number of errors with factual details.

Quote:Johannine theology was written FAR .... decades... LATER, WHICH IS MY POINT, (according to you, so we see how much that 'rubbish' is worth), and you utterly FAILED to name even one of the other texts you are comparing Acts with.

Right, no it wasn't. The Gospel of John may have been written around ten years after the synoptics, but there's no clear evidence of when it was written down. Maybe you can explain to me what proves to you when this gospel was written?

The problem is when you start with an assumption of when you think this gospel was written, it biases everything else you claim. For all we know it was written in 80AD before Luke or Matthew was written - let's suppose this gets proven with the mummy manuscripts, the way that the dead sea scrolls proved that Daniel was always written in Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew, and that the Masoretic Text was more authentic to the first century temple scrolls than the "LXX". There's no use in using that assumption as we can't prove when John was written, but curious isn't it that it's one of the first books found in early manuscripts - there are two late second century manuscripts containing a copy of the book: P66, and P75. Whereas the first manuscript containing a copy of Mark isn't until the fourth century AD.

This I think shows you the problem. There is wide scholarly consensus that Mark was composed +/- 5yrs from 70AD. Yet the historical record tells the complete opposite story, leading scholars to simply concluded that Mark must have been copied far less than the other three gospels in the first and second centuries. That seems reasonable to me, but the question remains why in particular Matthew would have been so widely circulated when it was written by a Jew, and by 80AD by anyone's reckoning the church was majority Greek not Jew. That's why I'm not satisfied with the explanation on the dating of Matthew and Luke, or for that matter John. 80AD seems too late for a Jewish Christian to write a gospel that would have survived alongside Mark and Luke. By 70AD the Jerusalem church was completely destroyed, and the church outside of Jerusalem was the Pauline church.

For Matthew to have been written that late, and have survived, to me suggests that the church was not as unified as most scholars today believe it was at that point. And that brings me back to the point of John - his gospel appears to have been written to an audience with a specific early Christianity paradigm that differed to the vanilla Pauline theology. But with that said, so does the gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James. So that alone is not enough evidence to show that it was written later than Matthew.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 11:24 PM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Mythical characters can't write.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 01:37 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
Really? How'd your boy Price do in the debate Min?

That's right, he got creamed. And you can't say he didn't have the opportunity to prepare himself - he was involved in organising that debate for well over a year. You and I both know that Ehrman will never debate someone like Carrier who doesn't show him respect (he labels people like him as atheist fundamentalists), and it's very unlikely he will ever debate that topic again.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 03:51 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(21-11-2016 10:42 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I didn't assert a falsehood, and I've explained what I meant several times. Finding that there are parts of Acts that are problematic is not an issue. The Jerusalem council is considered a historical event by scholars whether or not the details in Acts are "perfect" or not - do you dispute that? You need to clearly explain your position on these things, because you seem to be arguing for a position that is not consistent with current scholarly opinion.

We're not talking about the Jerusalem Council. Nice try at more evasion. I don't have to explain anything. YOU said Acts was consistent with Paul's journeys. It is NOT. In fact he himself refutes Acts. That is all I said. You did assert a falsehood, and refused to even look at scholarly proof I had that agreed with me. Stop pretending you have the high-ground. You don't. You claimed dates for Acts and provided NO EVIDENCE for your claims.

Quote:Exactly. They are only important for Christians who take the Bible as the inerrant word of God, not for atheists who take it as an ancient text written by Luke or Luke's associate who made a number of errors with factual details.

You never provided a shred of evidence for when or by whom it was written. We're waiting.

Quote:Right, no it wasn't. The Gospel of John may have been written around ten years after the synoptics, but there's no clear evidence of when it was written down. Maybe you can explain to me what proves to you when this gospel was written?

That's not the subject and you're attempting more evasion.

Quote:The problem is when you start with an assumption of when you think this gospel was written, it biases everything else you claim. For all we know it was written in 80AD before Luke or Matthew was written - let's suppose this gets proven with the mummy manuscripts, the way that the dead sea scrolls proved that Daniel was always written in Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew, and that the Masoretic Text was more authentic to the first century temple scrolls than the "LXX". There's no use in using that assumption as we can't prove when John was written, but curious isn't it that it's one of the first books found in early manuscripts - there are two late second century manuscripts containing a copy of the book: P66, and P75. Whereas the first manuscript containing a copy of Mark isn't until the fourth century AD.

All bullshit evasion and totally irrelevant to the discussion AT HAND. The theology in John reflects GREEK Gnostic thought long after the Synoptics were written.
Stop spouting your bullshit "wide scholarly "consensus" UNLESS you provide evidence.

Quote:"...........that seems reasonable to me, but the question remains why in particular Matthew would have been so widely circulated when it was written by a Jew, and by 80AD by anyone's reckoning the church was majority Greek not Jew. That's why I'm not satisfied with the explanation on the dating of Matthew and Luke, or for that matter John. 80AD seems too late for a Jewish Christian to write a gospel that would have survived alongside Mark and Luke. By 70AD the Jerusalem church was completely destroyed, and the church outside of Jerusalem was the Pauline church."

Nice try at changing the subject. (And BTW yet ANOTHER thing you're totally wrong about. At the end of the 1st Century the Jews were so intimidated by the members of the Way sub-sect (Christians) in Israel that the Jews required the proclamation of the "Expulsion Curses" which would have been totally unnecessary if the state of the Jerusalem Church were anything AT ALL like you claim (with no references), and which were known about by the authors of John, (thus falsifying your claimed early authorship dates).

Quote:For Matthew to have been written that late, and have survived, to me suggests that the church was not as unified as most scholars today believe it was at that point. And that brings me back to the point of John - his gospel appears to have been written to an audience with a specific early Christianity paradigm that differed to the vanilla Pauline theology. But with that said, so does the gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James. So that alone is not enough evidence to show that it was written later than Matthew.

Are you on drugs ? NONE of this has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the POINT at hand here. Nice try at evasions, throwing out red herrings, and setting up straw-men that I said NOTHING about are not even remotely a part of this discussion AT ALL.

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
22-11-2016, 04:22 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(22-11-2016 03:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You never provided a shred of evidence for when or by whom it was written. We're waiting.

I don't need to provide evidence when I'm citing the current majority opinion of NT scholars. Luke-Acts is written by the same author - "Luke". The onus of proof is on you if you disagree about this. The only thing that even approached evidence was your claim that there were many different Acts, but that's all you could say, and I would point out to you that most of those texts are Gnostic and therefore come after the early Christian texts. "Acts of Paul" for example - written 80 years after Acts of the Apostles.

Quote:All bullshit evasion and totally irrelevant to the discussion AT HAND. The theology in John reflects GREEK Gnostic thought long after the Synoptics were written.

Right now we're getting somewhere. The gnostic texts don't come until quite a bit later than the gospel of John.

Quote:Nice try at changing the subject. (And BTW yet ANOTHER thing you're totally wrong about. At the end of the 1st Century the Jews were so intimidated by the members of the Way sub-sect (Christians) in Israel that the Jews required the proclamation of the "Expulsion Curses" which would have been totally unnecessary if the state of the Jerusalem Church were anything AT ALL like you claim (with no references), and which were known about by the authors of John, (thus falsifying your claimed early authorship dates).

Josephus didn't seem bothered by them. He barely gave them a second thought - and may not have even mentioned Jesus or his followers whereas he did mention John the Baptist. And he wrote Antiquities of the Jews in c. 94AD.

Quote:Are you on drugs ? NONE of this has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the POINT at hand here. Nice try at evasions, throwing out red herrings, and setting up straw-men that I said NOTHING about are not even remotely a part of this discussion AT ALL.

It has to do with my point, perhaps not your point. You're the one claiming (with no evidence) that the Gospel of John is a Gnostic work. If it's a Gnostic work why does it appear bound with Luke in P75 at the height of Gnosticism? Can you explain that to me? What you're saying makes no god-damned sense whatsoever.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 04:33 AM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2016 04:36 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
(22-11-2016 04:22 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Right now we're getting somewhere. The gnostic texts don't come until quite a bit later than the gospel of John.

LMAO.
YOU'RE getting nowhere. The Gospel of John is FULL of Gnostic Greek concepts ("the Word") and ANYONE who has ever even taken NT 101 knows that. The concept of "divinity" in John, which is FAR different from the other gospels, is Gnostic. Clearly and now obviously you have NO education AT ALL on these topics. And yeah, in light of your FALSE assertions, and refusal to address the evidence I GAVE YOU (from Martin) you DO have to support everything you babble here.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-benedic...the-minim/

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
22-11-2016, 04:48 AM
RE: Why didn't Jesus write the New Testament?
It sounds to me like you're pushing an opinion. Here let me offer you an explanation - the "Gnostic concepts" in John provided the theological framework for Gnosticism which sprouted during the second century.

John isn't a Gnostic work though, because Gnosticism did not exist until the mid second century, which is well after the latest possible dating of the authorship of John.

John 3:16 is not at all a "Gnostic concept" - in fact it is the direct opposite. So much for John being a Gnostic text.

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: