- Location
- AZ
Doesn't this thread belong in the tree free zone or rant and rave? Just sayin.
Deism and the Tree of Knowledge
- Thread starter guymayor
- Start date
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this thread belong in the tree free zone or rant and rave? Just sayin.
[/ QUOTE ]Nah, rant and rave is about gear, and the op did mention the tree of knowledge...a cheap way to make it belong here I guess, but reading the synopsis of the life of Paine was worth it.
Doesn't this thread belong in the tree free zone or rant and rave? Just sayin.
[/ QUOTE ]Nah, rant and rave is about gear, and the op did mention the tree of knowledge...a cheap way to make it belong here I guess, but reading the synopsis of the life of Paine was worth it.
- Location
- Sunshine State
Happy Easter! This is the day that Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead after three days in the tomb. May the Risen Lord be with you and yours on this glorious day!
- Location
- Victoria, BC, CAD
And Happy Zombie Jesus day for the rest of us held hostage by the Christian faith.
- Location
- Sunshine State
In celebration of this special day, in the name of Jesus I release you from your bondage and set you free to follow whichever god you choose, or none at all.
BTW, I didn't really need to do that. God has already granted you free will. You can thank Him for that, or not, it's your choice.
Happy Easter!
BTW, I didn't really need to do that. God has already granted you free will. You can thank Him for that, or not, it's your choice.
Happy Easter!
GlennButler
New member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain
tcsafety, thanks for your reply.
[ QUOTE ]
Glenn, while I am trying to find my copy of Dawkin's book, do you care to address my critique directly? Where am I wrong? I did mention that I was paraphrasing Plantiga, but I also included my own statements from what I had read of Dawkin's book. While you may not like them and choose to characterize them in a certain manner, you could make a substantive critique of them. Perhaps later.
[/ QUOTE ]
As the one who slandered Dawkins' views on religion and philosophy as childish, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claim. It's difficult for me to critique your reasons for thinking Dawkins' has childish views when you didn't present any reasons. You didn't quote anything Dawkins has said or written. So to say where you're wrong is easy. You're claiming Dawkins' views on religion and philosophy are childish, yet you present no evidence when asked. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
At least you honorably admit to only having read a portion of one of his books.
And why do you keep misspelling Plantinga's name? Are we talking about the same critic?
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, my statements stand until proven incorrect otherwise. You may not like them, but please make an argument against them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding me? You really believe you can belittle Dawkins' work, provide no evidence for your claim, and continue to insist that your statements stand. This is not how argumentation works. If you wish to persuade me that Dawkins' views on religion are juvenile, you'll have to specify those views and make a direct critique. I haven't made any claim, I've only denied yours.
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding you statements about New Testament authorship, you made a conclusion. Please give us an argument on why you think this and why we should share your conclusions. Please also let us know which scholars you are primarily utilizing to draw your conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct. I only shared a conclusion, a conclusion that has been reached by an overwhelming number of New Testament scholars. The only dissenters are a handful of conservative evangelicals who will not, who cannot, conclude that the evidence conflicts with their a priori theological views, regardless of what that evidence might be.
We can go through the canon book by book if you insist, but I hope that's not necessary to make my point. I'll start with the earliest canonical gospel, The Gospel According to Mark. The idea that most of the NT authors are unknown to us is not some idiosyncratic idea I woke up with yesterday while toppling off the turnip truck. It's the prevailing view of well-researched, well-reasoned scholarship.
Brown, Raymond E., An Introduction to the New Testament
From p. 127.
Author Detectable From Contents: A Greek-speaker who was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry and made inexact statements about Palestinian geography. He drew on preshaped traditions about Jesus (oral and probably written) and addressed himself to a community that had undergone persecution and failure.
Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
p. 67.
We do not know who the author was, only that he was a Greek-speaking Christian, presumably living outside Palestine, who had heard a number of stories about Jesus.
Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Authors of the Bible Are Not Who We Think They Are
(I can't give you a page number here because I have the book on my iPad.)
Chapter 7. (Writing about the four canonical gospels)
For my purposes here it is enough to reemphasize that the books do not claim to be written by these people and early on they were not assumed to be written by these people. The authors of these books never speak in the first person (The First Gospel never says, "One day, Jesus and I went to Jerusalem..."). They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous. At the same time, later Christians had very good reason to assign the books to people who had not written them. As a result, the authors of these books are not themselves making false authorial claims. Later readers are making these claims about them. They are therefore not forgeries, but false attributions.
Obviously, I cannot delve into word count, writing style, contextual credibility, and every other criteria that NT scholars use to determine authorship. I hope I've provided a taste of the scholarship that's accessible to us, but you'll have to do your own homework and actually read the relevant literature yourself.
Other sources that may be helpful.
Metzger, Bruce M., "Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha," Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 15-16.
The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles This is now a free Google e-book that shows scholars have been aware of these authorship problems for decades.
Levine, Amy-Jill., The Jewish Annotated New Testament
I hope you will explore the links I've provided and maybe even read one of the books. Thomas Paine was a great thinker and you have unfairly and incorrectly maligned his views.
*Please don't bother to extoll the "we passages" in Luke/Acts. I know what the traditional explanation is and I find it problematic. The Luke/Acts author makes so many mistakes about Paul's life and teachings that it's far-fetched to claim close companionship. Furthermore don't tell me there was early attestation for the traditional Gospel titles. Justin Martyr quotes the Gospels after 150 CE but does not indicate the Gospels were attributed to anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Please don't link to church web sites written by some internet junkies, instead provide some references to genuine NT scholarship, preferably scholars who were not fundamentalist, evangelicals before they were formally trained in NT scholarship. (I'm afraid that last requirement will make your job arduous).
[ QUOTE ]
If you agree I will be happy to meet you there. I appreciate your statement that you are not attacking the truth claims or theology of the New Testament. I agree, and say quite often when discussing this subject, that it is a different question. However, the answer to the reliability question does have influence with the other, as you know.
Please take the time you need to prepare, stretch, warm-up, or whatever you need to do. Consider this my electronic handshake, and I'll meet you in the Tree Free ring.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to start a thread there, please do so. I may or may not join the discussion depending on what you have to say.
[ QUOTE ]
Glenn, while I am trying to find my copy of Dawkin's book, do you care to address my critique directly? Where am I wrong? I did mention that I was paraphrasing Plantiga, but I also included my own statements from what I had read of Dawkin's book. While you may not like them and choose to characterize them in a certain manner, you could make a substantive critique of them. Perhaps later.
[/ QUOTE ]
As the one who slandered Dawkins' views on religion and philosophy as childish, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claim. It's difficult for me to critique your reasons for thinking Dawkins' has childish views when you didn't present any reasons. You didn't quote anything Dawkins has said or written. So to say where you're wrong is easy. You're claiming Dawkins' views on religion and philosophy are childish, yet you present no evidence when asked. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
At least you honorably admit to only having read a portion of one of his books.
And why do you keep misspelling Plantinga's name? Are we talking about the same critic?
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, my statements stand until proven incorrect otherwise. You may not like them, but please make an argument against them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding me? You really believe you can belittle Dawkins' work, provide no evidence for your claim, and continue to insist that your statements stand. This is not how argumentation works. If you wish to persuade me that Dawkins' views on religion are juvenile, you'll have to specify those views and make a direct critique. I haven't made any claim, I've only denied yours.
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding you statements about New Testament authorship, you made a conclusion. Please give us an argument on why you think this and why we should share your conclusions. Please also let us know which scholars you are primarily utilizing to draw your conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct. I only shared a conclusion, a conclusion that has been reached by an overwhelming number of New Testament scholars. The only dissenters are a handful of conservative evangelicals who will not, who cannot, conclude that the evidence conflicts with their a priori theological views, regardless of what that evidence might be.
We can go through the canon book by book if you insist, but I hope that's not necessary to make my point. I'll start with the earliest canonical gospel, The Gospel According to Mark. The idea that most of the NT authors are unknown to us is not some idiosyncratic idea I woke up with yesterday while toppling off the turnip truck. It's the prevailing view of well-researched, well-reasoned scholarship.
Brown, Raymond E., An Introduction to the New Testament
From p. 127.
Author Detectable From Contents: A Greek-speaker who was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry and made inexact statements about Palestinian geography. He drew on preshaped traditions about Jesus (oral and probably written) and addressed himself to a community that had undergone persecution and failure.
Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
p. 67.
We do not know who the author was, only that he was a Greek-speaking Christian, presumably living outside Palestine, who had heard a number of stories about Jesus.
Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Authors of the Bible Are Not Who We Think They Are
(I can't give you a page number here because I have the book on my iPad.)
Chapter 7. (Writing about the four canonical gospels)
For my purposes here it is enough to reemphasize that the books do not claim to be written by these people and early on they were not assumed to be written by these people. The authors of these books never speak in the first person (The First Gospel never says, "One day, Jesus and I went to Jerusalem..."). They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous. At the same time, later Christians had very good reason to assign the books to people who had not written them. As a result, the authors of these books are not themselves making false authorial claims. Later readers are making these claims about them. They are therefore not forgeries, but false attributions.
Obviously, I cannot delve into word count, writing style, contextual credibility, and every other criteria that NT scholars use to determine authorship. I hope I've provided a taste of the scholarship that's accessible to us, but you'll have to do your own homework and actually read the relevant literature yourself.
Other sources that may be helpful.
Metzger, Bruce M., "Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha," Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 15-16.
The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles This is now a free Google e-book that shows scholars have been aware of these authorship problems for decades.
Levine, Amy-Jill., The Jewish Annotated New Testament
I hope you will explore the links I've provided and maybe even read one of the books. Thomas Paine was a great thinker and you have unfairly and incorrectly maligned his views.
*Please don't bother to extoll the "we passages" in Luke/Acts. I know what the traditional explanation is and I find it problematic. The Luke/Acts author makes so many mistakes about Paul's life and teachings that it's far-fetched to claim close companionship. Furthermore don't tell me there was early attestation for the traditional Gospel titles. Justin Martyr quotes the Gospels after 150 CE but does not indicate the Gospels were attributed to anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Please don't link to church web sites written by some internet junkies, instead provide some references to genuine NT scholarship, preferably scholars who were not fundamentalist, evangelicals before they were formally trained in NT scholarship. (I'm afraid that last requirement will make your job arduous).
[ QUOTE ]
If you agree I will be happy to meet you there. I appreciate your statement that you are not attacking the truth claims or theology of the New Testament. I agree, and say quite often when discussing this subject, that it is a different question. However, the answer to the reliability question does have influence with the other, as you know.
Please take the time you need to prepare, stretch, warm-up, or whatever you need to do. Consider this my electronic handshake, and I'll meet you in the Tree Free ring.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to start a thread there, please do so. I may or may not join the discussion depending on what you have to say.
- Location
- California
OK, last post here as we've drifted way too far from the original idea. The rest of my comments will be on a new thread in the near future. Sorry for the quote marks, I haven't quite figured out how to do a multiple quote yet.
"You are correct. I only shared a conclusion, a conclusion that has been reached by an overwhelming number of New Testament scholars. The only dissenters are a handful of conservative evangelicals who will not, who cannot, conclude that the evidence conflicts with their a priori theological views, regardless of what that evidence might be."
Now, Glenn, this is not a good way to start. The number "overwhelming" is not so big unless you only count secular scholars. And there is no need to go ad homonym on the scholars you don't like. The sword cuts your way as well. "The only dissenters are a handful of liberal ideologues who will not, who cannot, conclude that the evidence conflicts with their a priori theological views, regardless of what that evidence might be." The scholars you are impugning disagree, and provide evidence and arguments refuting their opponents claims and demonstrating theirs is a better alternative.
"The idea that most of the NT authors are unknown to us is not some idiosyncratic idea I woke up with yesterday while toppling off the turnip truck. It's the prevailing view of well-researched, well-reasoned scholarship."
Yes, I know. I believe once again you are limiting the number of scholars to those you agree with, and implying the others are not well-researched or reasoned. That would come as quite a surprise to the scholars who disagree with them. They would not go so far as to accuse them of that.
"I hope I've provided a taste of the scholarship that's accessible to us, but you'll have to do your own homework and actually read the relevant literature yourself."
I have read Brown, Ehrman, et al, which I believe meets your reading list criteria.
"Thomas Paine was a great thinker and you have unfairly and incorrectly maligned his views."
I have several times now said I have agreed with Paine on many points and like most of his views. I have pointed out where he was wrong. Staying with the original post on this thread, I commented and argued that he was wrong for reasons which I gave. It was neither unfair nor incorrect. It is my opinion, but I do not think it is wrong, and I have seen it before with other very intelligent people. I run into them quite often in the halls and in public. If there are writings of Paine arguing religion with contemporary religious scholars of his time, I will be happy to modify my remarks, depending on his comments. As I have said, I have not read all his works, but if this was representative then my comments stand. It does not mean that he didn't write many great things and have many great ideas, as his other books (also mentioned in posts here) demonstrate.
"*Please don't bother to extoll the "we passages" in Luke/Acts. I know what the traditional explanation is and I find it problematic. The Luke/Acts author makes so many mistakes about Paul's life and teachings that it's far-fetched to claim close companionship. Furthermore don't tell me there was early attestation for the traditional Gospel titles. Justin Martyr quotes the Gospels after 150 CE but does not indicate the Gospels were attributed to anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
Well, I may just have to dig a little deeper...
"Please don't link to church web sites written by some internet junkies, instead provide some references to genuine NT scholarship, preferably scholars who were not fundamentalist, evangelicals before they were formally trained in NT scholarship. (I'm afraid that last requirement will make your job arduous)."
Once again, your limitations are indicating a strong ad homonym bias, and a close minded approach. Call them fundamentalist if you'd like, but there are many evangelical scholars who are highly respected by your limited list of pre-approvals. Their specific religious beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. It's there arguments that stand or fall regardless of who's name is behind them. It's way too easy to get into a "My scholar can beat up you scholar" p***ing match, and does nothing for what they have said or written.
"If you want to start a thread there, please do so. I may or may not join the discussion depending on what you have to say."
No pressure, just offering. OK, now back to the regularly scheduled thread.
"You are correct. I only shared a conclusion, a conclusion that has been reached by an overwhelming number of New Testament scholars. The only dissenters are a handful of conservative evangelicals who will not, who cannot, conclude that the evidence conflicts with their a priori theological views, regardless of what that evidence might be."
Now, Glenn, this is not a good way to start. The number "overwhelming" is not so big unless you only count secular scholars. And there is no need to go ad homonym on the scholars you don't like. The sword cuts your way as well. "The only dissenters are a handful of liberal ideologues who will not, who cannot, conclude that the evidence conflicts with their a priori theological views, regardless of what that evidence might be." The scholars you are impugning disagree, and provide evidence and arguments refuting their opponents claims and demonstrating theirs is a better alternative.
"The idea that most of the NT authors are unknown to us is not some idiosyncratic idea I woke up with yesterday while toppling off the turnip truck. It's the prevailing view of well-researched, well-reasoned scholarship."
Yes, I know. I believe once again you are limiting the number of scholars to those you agree with, and implying the others are not well-researched or reasoned. That would come as quite a surprise to the scholars who disagree with them. They would not go so far as to accuse them of that.
"I hope I've provided a taste of the scholarship that's accessible to us, but you'll have to do your own homework and actually read the relevant literature yourself."
I have read Brown, Ehrman, et al, which I believe meets your reading list criteria.
"Thomas Paine was a great thinker and you have unfairly and incorrectly maligned his views."
I have several times now said I have agreed with Paine on many points and like most of his views. I have pointed out where he was wrong. Staying with the original post on this thread, I commented and argued that he was wrong for reasons which I gave. It was neither unfair nor incorrect. It is my opinion, but I do not think it is wrong, and I have seen it before with other very intelligent people. I run into them quite often in the halls and in public. If there are writings of Paine arguing religion with contemporary religious scholars of his time, I will be happy to modify my remarks, depending on his comments. As I have said, I have not read all his works, but if this was representative then my comments stand. It does not mean that he didn't write many great things and have many great ideas, as his other books (also mentioned in posts here) demonstrate.
"*Please don't bother to extoll the "we passages" in Luke/Acts. I know what the traditional explanation is and I find it problematic. The Luke/Acts author makes so many mistakes about Paul's life and teachings that it's far-fetched to claim close companionship. Furthermore don't tell me there was early attestation for the traditional Gospel titles. Justin Martyr quotes the Gospels after 150 CE but does not indicate the Gospels were attributed to anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
Well, I may just have to dig a little deeper...
"Please don't link to church web sites written by some internet junkies, instead provide some references to genuine NT scholarship, preferably scholars who were not fundamentalist, evangelicals before they were formally trained in NT scholarship. (I'm afraid that last requirement will make your job arduous)."
Once again, your limitations are indicating a strong ad homonym bias, and a close minded approach. Call them fundamentalist if you'd like, but there are many evangelical scholars who are highly respected by your limited list of pre-approvals. Their specific religious beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. It's there arguments that stand or fall regardless of who's name is behind them. It's way too easy to get into a "My scholar can beat up you scholar" p***ing match, and does nothing for what they have said or written.
"If you want to start a thread there, please do so. I may or may not join the discussion depending on what you have to say."
No pressure, just offering. OK, now back to the regularly scheduled thread.
GlennButler
New member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain
[ QUOTE ]
The number "overwhelming" is not so big unless you only count secular scholars.
[/ QUOTE ]
Claiming that you know who wrote the Gospels places you in the underwhelming minority no matter how you classify formally trained New Testament scholars.
[ QUOTE ]
I have several times now said I have agreed with Paine on many points and like most of his views. I have pointed out where he was wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have not pointed out where Paine was wrong. You claim that his views on NT authorship are incorrect, yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim that we know who wrote the Gospels.
Where are the original or early first century manuscripts that demonstrate authorship by the traditional authors? Don't bother looking, we don't have any. When early second century Christians quoted the text of the Gospels, they didn't reference the texts as being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The number "overwhelming" is not so big unless you only count secular scholars.
[/ QUOTE ]
Claiming that you know who wrote the Gospels places you in the underwhelming minority no matter how you classify formally trained New Testament scholars.
[ QUOTE ]
I have several times now said I have agreed with Paine on many points and like most of his views. I have pointed out where he was wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have not pointed out where Paine was wrong. You claim that his views on NT authorship are incorrect, yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim that we know who wrote the Gospels.
Where are the original or early first century manuscripts that demonstrate authorship by the traditional authors? Don't bother looking, we don't have any. When early second century Christians quoted the text of the Gospels, they didn't reference the texts as being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
There is archaeological evidence at least somewhat supportive of Old and New Testament bibles being genuine though not necessarily accurate in every detail or as you say Glenn authorship.
This however can't be said of the Book of Mormon that has been shall we say "debunked" by the Smithsonian Institute quite thoroughly in my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
SIL-76
1988
[end quote]
There is an online open source website run reputable Old and New Testament scholars who have gathered the oldest Greek and Aramaic books of the bible from diverse locales from around the world to be translated into various languages and posted freely on their website. It's called the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It has documented over 1K errors in today's modern bibles. Whether these errors are translational errors or intentional errors is a matter of speculation.
I personally find these biblical experts findings very interesting and enlightening as they shed new light on how today's bibles are quite literally riddled with errors both large and small. People interested in their findings can see them freely here.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
Good unbiased research in my opinion.
jomoco
This however can't be said of the Book of Mormon that has been shall we say "debunked" by the Smithsonian Institute quite thoroughly in my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
SIL-76
1988
[end quote]
There is an online open source website run reputable Old and New Testament scholars who have gathered the oldest Greek and Aramaic books of the bible from diverse locales from around the world to be translated into various languages and posted freely on their website. It's called the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It has documented over 1K errors in today's modern bibles. Whether these errors are translational errors or intentional errors is a matter of speculation.
I personally find these biblical experts findings very interesting and enlightening as they shed new light on how today's bibles are quite literally riddled with errors both large and small. People interested in their findings can see them freely here.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
Good unbiased research in my opinion.
jomoco
GlennButler
New member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain
[ QUOTE ]
There is archaeological evidence at least somewhat supportive of Old and New Testament bibles being genuine though not necessarily accurate in every detail or as you say Glenn authorship.
[/ QUOTE ]
Authorship of the New Testament books is my only interest here. tcsafety claims Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, John (the books) were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the men). tcsafety claims Thomas Paine was mistaken about NT authorship.
Paine writes,
[ QUOTE ]
the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament
[/ QUOTE ]
tcsafety says,
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically regarding his [Paine's] opinion of the source of the New Testament, I was charitable to him as we did not have as much evidence in the 18th-19th centuries that we have today that show they were written by whom tradition has held them to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
tcsafety is wrong. They were written by well-educated Greek speaking Christians. It's blindingly obvious that they were not written by illiterate Aramaic speaking companions of the historical Jesus.
The well-educated, Greek-speaking, non-Palestinian author of Luke/Acts tells us;
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.
We simply don't know who wrote most of books that make up the NT canon.
There is archaeological evidence at least somewhat supportive of Old and New Testament bibles being genuine though not necessarily accurate in every detail or as you say Glenn authorship.
[/ QUOTE ]
Authorship of the New Testament books is my only interest here. tcsafety claims Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, John (the books) were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the men). tcsafety claims Thomas Paine was mistaken about NT authorship.
Paine writes,
[ QUOTE ]
the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament
[/ QUOTE ]
tcsafety says,
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically regarding his [Paine's] opinion of the source of the New Testament, I was charitable to him as we did not have as much evidence in the 18th-19th centuries that we have today that show they were written by whom tradition has held them to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
tcsafety is wrong. They were written by well-educated Greek speaking Christians. It's blindingly obvious that they were not written by illiterate Aramaic speaking companions of the historical Jesus.
The well-educated, Greek-speaking, non-Palestinian author of Luke/Acts tells us;
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.
We simply don't know who wrote most of books that make up the NT canon.
Most of the authors of the New Testament are know, with only a few with no attribution. This is not uncommon (author uncertain) with old Greek and Roman texts also. Modern day secular scholars may postulate as to the authorship of the Gospels, but there is no compelling reason to believe that historians very close in time to the origins of the written texts, had the attribution wrong.
What is of prime importance is the Gospel message, which remains intact, supported through time by the Old Testament which was often quoted by Jesus.
This message continues to amaze then as now.
What is of prime importance is the Gospel message, which remains intact, supported through time by the Old Testament which was often quoted by Jesus.
This message continues to amaze then as now.
GlennButler
New member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the authors of the New Testament are know,
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. None of the writers of the Gospels was an eyewitness, and more importantly, if you actually read the text, you will see they don't claim to be. The fourth Gospel explicitly claims not to be written by an eyewitness, yet it was attributed to John anyway, one of Jesus' closest disciples. Only eight of twenty-seven NT books are written by the authors whose names they bear.
[ QUOTE ]
but there is no compelling reason to believe that historians very close in time to the origins of the written texts, had the attribution wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Historians? Who are you referring to? Eusebius? in the 4th century?
When you attribute well-written Greek texts to illiterate Aramaic-speaking, lower class peasants, you're probably getting it wrong. Nevermind the fact that the authors of the Gospels are ignorant of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs. This suggests to the critical reader that they weren't residents of Palestine and they composed the Gospels elsewhere in the Roman Empire.
[ QUOTE ]
What is of prime importance is the Gospel message, which remains intact, supported through time by the Old Testament which was often quoted by Jesus.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's great. And it has nothing to do with Thomas Paine and the fact that he was correct in his assessment of NT authorship.
Most of the authors of the New Testament are know,
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. None of the writers of the Gospels was an eyewitness, and more importantly, if you actually read the text, you will see they don't claim to be. The fourth Gospel explicitly claims not to be written by an eyewitness, yet it was attributed to John anyway, one of Jesus' closest disciples. Only eight of twenty-seven NT books are written by the authors whose names they bear.
[ QUOTE ]
but there is no compelling reason to believe that historians very close in time to the origins of the written texts, had the attribution wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Historians? Who are you referring to? Eusebius? in the 4th century?
When you attribute well-written Greek texts to illiterate Aramaic-speaking, lower class peasants, you're probably getting it wrong. Nevermind the fact that the authors of the Gospels are ignorant of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs. This suggests to the critical reader that they weren't residents of Palestine and they composed the Gospels elsewhere in the Roman Empire.
[ QUOTE ]
What is of prime importance is the Gospel message, which remains intact, supported through time by the Old Testament which was often quoted by Jesus.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's great. And it has nothing to do with Thomas Paine and the fact that he was correct in his assessment of NT authorship.
- Location
- Sunshine State
[ QUOTE ]
That's great. And it has nothing to do with Thomas Paine and the fact that he was correct in his assessment of NT authorship.
[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to have lost my way in the midst of all the arguments. Why is this relevant?
GOD is the Author of Sacred Scripture.
That's great. And it has nothing to do with Thomas Paine and the fact that he was correct in his assessment of NT authorship.
[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to have lost my way in the midst of all the arguments. Why is this relevant?
GOD is the Author of Sacred Scripture.
GlennButler
New member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain
Would it be impolite of me to ask you to read the thread?
Here's the Cliff Notes.
1. Guy's initial post was a quote from Thomas Paine.
2. tcsafety criticized a portion of the quote and Paine's view on NT authorship.
3. I'm defending Paine's view.
Here's the Cliff Notes.
1. Guy's initial post was a quote from Thomas Paine.
2. tcsafety criticized a portion of the quote and Paine's view on NT authorship.
3. I'm defending Paine's view.
- Location
- Sunshine State
There now, that wasn't so difficult, was it? Sure beats wading through lengthy diatribes waxing eloquent about God only knows what. Thanks, you're a gem! I'm up to snuff.
