was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[Retro Rob]

Interesting yet still odd.

All 4 gospels were written anonymously. It really isn't until after the fact that they are attributed to people by the early church.

Yet when scholars look at them today they see multiple authors and redaction. What boggles my mind is why can the super religious not be fine with this? When we write books today we have editors and they go through several drafts. Yet with the Bible it is divine and the word of god. Regardless of how absurd it is it's still divine and the word of god.

Most believe that there was another source. A q gospel. Makes sense considering that you can see plagiarism in 2 of the gospels. These books that you are reading today are not the word of god.

You're free to have faith. Especially if you can pull great value from the books. However your belief in divinity in the bible is really no different that worshiping the word of Harry Potter.

I would admit that everything you say is true *IF* it truly doesn't matter who wrote the Gospels, or where they got their information, or if its true they borrowed from other sources.

In my opinion, "faith" (in the Biblical sense) isn't belief absent of evidence of who the Bible says are the Gospel writers, truly are the Gospel writers.

Christianity *shouldn't* be about credulity or gullibility...it MUST be based on sound evidence.

I normally am in agreement with DSF in general and on a number of points, but I cannot on his previous post, and if John is not the author of the book that carries his name, and if Matthew and Luke stole material from Mark, then I am intellectually honest enough to admit that I cannot believe anything written in the Bible -- I'd have no reason to trust the information.

I don't think you are right, but theoretically, if you are, then I can no longer be called "Christian" because the term itself is derived from Jesus...and if they did lie about his life and origins, then I don't know exactly who or what kind of person I am professing to follow.

 

[Tweak155]

Total nonsense. I don't care if a person can make a reasonable claim about busses or cars or television programs. If he begins to make claims about supernatural miracles, he has sacrificed the legitimacy of he inferences like I just explained. Are you sure you even understand my argument? That is not an insult but a legitimate question, because this rebuttal of yours is so widely off the mark that it gives me the impression that you don't.

The legitimacy of his / her inferences is irrelevant if what he or she says is true. The person being unreasonable has no weight on the fact of something being true or false. This is not hard. Do you agree with this? If not you cannot be helped.

This has nothing to do with a particular person. This isn't an issue about general credibility. This is an issue of epistemology like I've already said before.

Ok? I don't disagree with your statements here, just where you're focusing the argument. You're taking my argument and trying spin it off into your own.

But as I've already explained a person making claims about supernatural miracles cannot say whether or not something is true. He can't tell the difference between water actually turning to wine or photons magically changing their frequencies on the way to his eyeballs or his memory being magically altered after the fact. If he chooses to believe the first or the second or the third, he is doing so arbitrarily because he cannot rule out the other conceivable scenarios that can also account for his sensory input.

Can they tell that 2 times 2 is 4?

My argument has clearly gone over your head.

Your arrogance has gone over everyone's head.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I would respectfully disagree, vehemently. It means a lot because to accept the "Q" (source) document, we'd have to admit that the Gospel writers were plagiarists and myth-makers at the least and at the most, they didn't really exist.

And if Matthew and Luke helped write "Q" along with other disciples/people who were eyewitnesses to these teachings...would you still feel the same way? If so, do you believe there was collusion to deceive? On what basis would one arrive at such a conclusion?

If John is attributed as being the writer of his Gospel, but it was actually Lazarus or some unknown author, then that means that the basis of Christian faith (and the life and ministry of Jesus) is a lie, fabrication, idealistic account, falsehood.

I personally think John and/or his close followers authored the gospel of John based on his direct teachings. The Lazarus theory is 'off the wall' as far as I'm concerned and I would be concerned about the reliability of this particular book if that were ever, in fact, proven (highly doubtful imo). But it would in no way affect my faith.

Imagine someone pretending to be you wrote a letter to your mother supposedly conveying your thoughts and actions, but to her dismay, you weren't the author of it. How would she feel? Would she have reason to believe ANYTHING in that letter?

What it you had written 27 letters to your mother and 1 was found to be a forgery written by a well-intentioned friend? Should she now disregard the other 26 letters as forgeries as well?

It does matter who wrote what, because if our faith is based on a lie, then what do we have faith in?

Rob...you have to understand the time. There was a huge amount of apocrypha written within the first couple of hundred years after the crucifixion which twisted the gospel to support variant ideologies. The reason for the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was to to attain consensus in the church regarding doctrine. The establishment of the New Testament canon was a gradual process that started well before Nicaea (before 200 AD) and wasn't fully established until the 5th century. My point being is that it may be possible that the Church Fathers made a false attribution in error on one of the books that wasn't caught several hundred years later. If this is the case, does this destroy your faith? If so, I would question such a faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

 

[schmuckley]

What origin of the universe?


What fine tuning of the universe?


What objective moral values and duties?


What historical facts?


What god?

If you believe god for any of the reasons above, you're plainly an idiot.

Because some random mass of amino acids in a "cosmic soup" (snicker) formed into human beings over millions of years, right?

I have a "historical" question for you:When did time start getting counted? :sneaky:

Why is the human body so complex?Why are humans so smart?

Where is the "missing link"?

Why does the Grand Canyon look like a flood washout?

Why do Native Americans have history of a white man in a white robe performing miracles around 100 AD?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The legitimacy of his / her inferences is irrelevant if what he or she says is true.

We're talking about epistemology with regard to a posteriori reality, i.e. facts of the world. "True" and "false" don't apply here. Truth values are the result of deduction, not induction.

The person being unreasonable has no weight on the fact of something being true or false.

Facts of the world are not true or false, as they are known strictly by inference. My point has nothing to do with the knower, nor does it depend on what is allegedly known. This is strictly about the connection between the two.

This is not hard. Do you agree with this? If not you cannot be helped.

Look, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but with your continued inability to come anywhere near comprehension of my argument I'm very soon going to go back just to pointing out how stupid you are.



{snip}

Can they tell that 2 times 2 is 4?

Will you please go teach yourself about the difference between a priori vs. a posteriori, and deduction vs. induction. Your question here betrays a stark ignorance of these distinctions and their significance.

And, lest you think I'm dodging your question, the answer is "yes," because mathematical facts are true by definition, and not because of any condition of the world. I'm talking about conditions of the world and how a person knows them, which makes your question entirely purposeless. That's how I can tell you're in over your head.

Your arrogance has gone over everyone's head.

I'm comfortable with that. I've earned it.

 

[Retro Rob]

And if Matthew and Luke helped write "Q" along with other disciples/people who were eyewitnesses to these teachings...would you still feel the same way? If so, do you believe there was collusion to deceive? On what basis would one arrive at such a conclusion?

I don't believe there was a Q to being with -- this is only a hypothesis.

I personally think John and/or his close followers authored the gospel of John based on his direct teachings. The Lazarus theory is 'off the wall' as far as I'm concerned and I would be concerned about the reliability of this particular book if that were in fact proven. But it would in no way affect my faith.

I also dismiss the Lazarus theory as pseudo-logic, but there is no indication anyone other then John wrote his Gospel. I guess what I mean is that if John wasn't the sole writer, then we can question if his account of Jesus' life is reliable because the credibility of his account could rightfully be called into question.

The whole point of silly theories like the Documentary Theory is to call into question the reliability of the entire Bible.

What it you had written 27 letters to your mother and 1 was found to be a forgery written by a well-intentioned friend? Should she now disregard the other 26 letters as forgeries as well?

No, not automatically, but she could legitimately call into question the last 26.

You have to remember, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, written by the people who are credited with writing it. I am just throwing a hypothetical out there demonstrating why the Bible will and must hold up under intense scrutiny.

Rob...you have to understand the time. There was a huge amount of apocrypha written within the first couple of hundred years after the crucifixion which twisted the gospel to support variant ideologies

.

Yes, this I am well aware of my friend.

The reason for the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was to to attain consensus in the church regarding doctrine. The establishment of the New Testament canon was a gradual process that started well before Nicaea and wasn't fully established until the 5th century. My point being is that it may be possible that the Church Fathers made a false attribution in error that wasn't caught several hundred years later. If this is the case, does this destroy your faith? If so, I would question such a faith.

Then Cerpin Taxt is right, they were mistaken. So who's to say that we can trust what was so-called reported by Luke as regards Jesus life? Remember, he wasn't an eye witness, so he could have made a "false attribution" as well, and so could Paul, who also wasn't an eye-witness to Jesus life before he [Jesus] died.

Secondly, if it took 500 years compile the Bible, then we can logically assume that it was carefully placed together, stories edited out, accounts removed to established a pseudo-Christian faith....or indeed, a MAN-MADE religion.

And your faith isn't shaken? It should be, because you would not understand the foundation it was built upon.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because some random mass of amino acids in a "cosmic soup" (snicker) formed into human beings over millions of years, right?

I don't know of any so-called "cosmic soup," but it is a fact that biological life evolved into the diversity of organisms on the planet today.

I have a "historical" question for you:When did time start getting counted? :sneaky:

Counted by whom? And what difference would that make?

Why is the human body so complex?Why are humans so smart?

Why shouldn't they be?

Where is the "missing link"?

Link between what?

Why does the Grand Canyon look like a flood washout?

It doesn't. Clearly you don't know what a flood washout looks like, what the Grand Canyon looks like, or more likely, both.

Why do Native Americans have history of a white man in a white robe performing miracles around 100 AD?

You do understand that Jesus wasn't white, right?

 

[child of wonder]

Why do Native Americans have history of a white man in a white robe performing miracles around 100 AD?

Oh fuck... a Mormon. Someone who believes an obviously man made and false religion that can be positively proven as such.

 

[OverVolt]

I would respectfully disagree, vehemently. It means a lot because to accept the "Q" (source) document, we'd have to admit that the Gospel writers were plagiarists and myth-makers at the least and at the most, they didn't really exist.

If John is attributed as being the writer of his Gospel, but it was actually Lazarus or some unknown author, then that means that the basis of Christian faith (and the life and ministry of Jesus) is a lie, fabrication, idealistic account, falsehood.

Imagine someone pretending to be you wrote a letter to your mother supposedly conveying your thoughts and actions, but to her dismay, you weren't the author of it. How would she feel? Would she have reason to believe ANYTHING in that letter?

It does matter who wrote what, because if our faith is based on a lie, then what do we have faith in?

Lol, really?

Did you learn nothing about the bibles origins and then when you ran across some controversy about it, then your mind was blown? Like who is this John guy? No one really knows for sure? Oh no!

They covered this type of stuff in bible study. To me there obviously was a guy named Jesus who had a profound impact.

Romans heavily persecuted the early Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire It ended up being their official religion by 380 AD. John is probably my favorite book. Meh. To me you are making an issue out of nothing. Its like you grew up thinking Jesus wrote the bible himself or something.

 

[OverVolt]

I would admit that everything you say is true *IF* it truly doesn't matter who wrote the Gospels, or where they got their information, or if its true they borrowed from other sources.

In my opinion, "faith" (in the Biblical sense) isn't belief absent of evidence of who the Bible says are the Gospel writers, truly are the Gospel writers.

Christianity *shouldn't* be about credulity or gullibility...it MUST be based on sound evidence.

I normally am in agreement with DSF in general and on a number of points, but I cannot on his previous post, and if John is not the author of the book that carries his name, and if Matthew and Luke stole material from Mark, then I am intellectually honest enough to admit that I cannot believe anything written in the Bible -- I'd have no reason to trust the information.

I don't think you are right, but theoretically, if you are, then I can no longer be called "Christian" because the term itself is derived from Jesus...and if they did lie about his life and origins, then I don't know exactly who or what kind of person I am professing to follow.

It was 2000 years ago a book was about as solid of evidence as it got...you're ridiculous.

 

[Fern]

I would respectfully disagree, vehemently. It means a lot because to accept the "Q" (source) document, we'd have to admit that the Gospel writers were plagiarists and myth-makers at the least and at the most, they didn't really exist.

If John is attributed as being the writer of his Gospel, but it was actually Lazarus or some unknown author, then that means that the basis of Christian faith (and the life and ministry of Jesus) is a lie, fabrication, idealistic account, falsehood.
-snip-

I disagree.

When John et al went around preaching to the new Christian churches I don't think it matters much who put pen to paper. What matters is that whoever did so did it accurately and wrote down what these guys were teaching. E.g., if some guy sitting in church while John was there talking transcribed his words accurately, that's good enough for me. Put another way - I've never read any original manuscripts, I couldn't understand them if I tried (wrong language). Instead I must rely on someone's translation, similarly that's good enough for me as long as they are accurate.

Fern

 

[Retro Rob]

Lol, really?

Did you learn nothing about the bibles origins and then when you ran across some controversy about it, then your mind was blown? Like who is this John guy? No one really knows for sure? Oh no!

Might be my reading comprehension skills. What exactly are you objecting to?

They covered this type of stuff in bible study. To me there obviously was a guy named Jesus who had a profound impact.

Of course there was, and I believe it myself. My contention is that if I am to believe that the Bible isn't being honest about who wrote said book, then we can ask "what else it is lying about?".

You open a door of doubt as a consequence, is what I am saying.

Romans heavily persecuted the early Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire It ended up being their official religion by 380 AD. John is probably my favorite book. Meh. To me you are making an issue out of nothing. Its like you grew up thinking Jesus wrote the bible himself or something.

I don't think it's "nothing" if the bible wasn't written by who it says wrote [insert book here].

But each to their own.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would respectfully disagree, vehemently. It means a lot because to accept the "Q" (source) document, we'd have to admit that the Gospel writers were plagiarists and myth-makers at the least and at the most, they didn't really exist.

If John is attributed as being the writer of his Gospel, but it was actually Lazarus or some unknown author, then that means that the basis of Christian faith (and the life and ministry of Jesus) is a lie, fabrication, idealistic account, falsehood.

Ya gotta love this line of argument. "If X is true, then all these other undesirable things must be true. Therfore X is false." It seems to frequently be an evident distinction between the credulous faithful and open-minded seekers. The former filters for things that will support his preexisting beliefs while the other will constantly and fearlessly test things for reasons to believe that they're false.

 

[Retro Rob]

I disagree.

When John et al went around preaching to the new Christian churches I don't think it matters much who put pen to paper.

I think you're missing my point. I can agree, the message matters most, but if we don't know the author, then we can't trust if the contents are true...unless you're willing to admit you're (generic) are credulous.

I may need to do more research, but I don't think the Bible indicates John used a scribe, or even alluded to it.

Like I mention to DSF, how can you trust that a letter reflects truth, when you find out you were lied to about who authored it?

What matters is that whoever did so did it accurately and wrote down what these guys were teaching. E.g., if some guy sitting in church while John was there talking transcribed his words accurately, that's good enough for me.

Ok -- what if the Bible clearly indicated John personally wrote his books, but you find out later he didn't...would you believe what's written in it?

If so, why?

Put another way - I've never read any original manuscripts, I couldn't understand them if I tried (wrong language). Instead I must rely on someone's translation, similarly that's good enough for me as long as they are accurate.

Often, when something is translated, you know before-hand...so you'd know what to expect. I think that's different than being told someone wrote something, and finding out they didn't.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ya gotta love this line of argument. "If X is true, then all these other undesirable things must be true. Therfore X is false." It seems to frequently be an evident distinction between the credulous faithful and open-minded seekers. The former filters for things that will support his preexisting beliefs while the other will constantly and fearlessly test things for reasons to believe that they're false.

I'm simply saying that if X is true (that John didn't write the book(s) that's attributed to him), then you can rationally and legitimately question the rest...not assume it's false.

That's the overriding point I wanted to make.

OTOH, if you find that what you've studied is true, then one can rationally assume and expect more of it to be true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It seems to frequently be an evident distinction between the credulous faithful and open-minded seekers. The former filters for things that will support his preexisting beliefs while the other will constantly and fearlessly test things for reasons to believe that they're false.

OTOH, if you find that what you've studied is true, then one can rationally assume and expect more of it to be true.

I rest my case.

 

[Retro Rob]

I rest my case.

Good, then you have no further reason to post.

:thumbsup:

 

[Exophase]

I may need to do more research, but I don't think the Bible indicates John used a scribe, or even alluded to it.

I think you do need to do that research because the Bible never indicates John wrote anything. None of the gospels name an author, nor do several other books of the New Testament.

This was just being discussed in this thread almost immediately before you started posting this >_>

 

[OverVolt]

I'm simply saying that if X is true (that John didn't write the book(s) that's attributed to him), then you can rationally and legitimately question the rest...not assume it's false.

That's the overriding point I wanted to make.

OTOH, if you find that what you've studied is true, then one can rationally assume and expect more of it to be true.

Good thing there are 3 other books?

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you do need to do that research because the Bible never indicates John wrote anything. None of the gospels name an author, nor do several other books of the New Testament.

This was just being discussed in this thread almost immediately before you started posting this >_>

The Gospels are authored by whose name they bear.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Good, then you have no further reason to post.

:thumbsup:

Oh it's only a matter of time before you say something completely stupid again that needs correction.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh it's only a matter of time before you say something completely stupid again that needs correction.

Then that means I have more to learn, obviously.

:thumbsup:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...that's good enough for me as long as they are accurate.

Your faith is not quite as precarious and fragile as Rob's, apparently.

 

[rudeguy]

The Gospels are authored by whose name they bear.

Define authored.

 

[Retro Rob]

Define authored.

Ok...writers then, though God authored them -- the writers can been looked at as secretaries.