1. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 15:082 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Matthew wasn't written by Matthew. It was written by someone else and attributed to Matthew. Mark and Luke were also not written by Mark or Luke. They were written by someone else and attributed to Mark and Luke. John may have been written by someone named John, but not John the apostle. In other words, the gospels were all written anonymously and were late least about the formation of the bible are the very ones who claim to believe in it the most.
    This is some grandstanding unilateral high criticism you're putting out there.

    Let's just take your first sentence "Matthew wasn't written by Matthew."

    I have excellent reasons to believe that Matthew the disciple did write the book called after his name.

    I understand that you have decided to put your confidence in some people who told you that the four gospels are unreliable witnesses.

    My suspition is that this is a rational you leaned towards and embraced based on your personal reactions to some of the sayings and teachings of the gospel.

    I think that this is your rationalization to avoid confrontation between your personal conscience and some of the sayings of Christ.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 15:20
    Originally posted by jaywill
    This is some grandstanding unilateral high criticism you're putting out there.

    Let's just take your first sentence "Matthew wasn't written by Matthew."

    I have excellent reasons to believe that Matthew the disciple did write the book called after his name.

    I understand that you have decided to put your confidence in some people who told you that ...[text shortened]... on to avoid confrontation between your person conscience and some of the sayings of Christ.
    My critique of the authorship of he gospels has nothing to do with my belief in their content. It is, as I say, based on very standard biblical analysis. The (largely) non-partisan site, Wikipedia, for example, lists the authorship of all four gospels as being anonymous:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship_and_Provenance

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_Matthew#Authorship

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_Luke#Authorship_and_audience

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

    So if you'd read something other than the bible for a change, you might actually learn a thing or two.
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 15:241 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    My critique of the authorship of he gospels has nothing to do with my belief in their content. It is, as I say, based on very standard biblical analysis. The (largely) non-partisan site, Wikipedia, for example, lists the authorship of all four gospels as being anonymous:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship_and_Provenance

    http://en.w ...[text shortened]... ou'd read something other than the bible for a change, you might actually learn a thing or two.
    Let's not throw links at each other.

    I said you put your confidence in some people who told you the four gospels were not reliable. Of course such people would have documented their discussions.

    Let me ask you this. Do you think that any saying in the gospel of John could be authentically relied on as being something Jesus said?

    If so which section or passage?
  4. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 15:54
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Let's not throw links at each other.

    I said you put your confidence in some people who told you the four gospels were not reliable. Of course such people would have documented their discussions.

    Let me ask you this. Do you think that any saying in the gospel of John could be authentically relied on as being something Jesus said?

    If so which section or passage?
    Obviously there may be something of authenticity within the gospels. Jesus must have said some of those things, or something closely approximating them. But it is impossible to know for certain which things. The theory is that if you can get as close to the original source as possible and strip away all the later stuff people tacked on, you may be able to reconstruct what Jesus had in mind. There is much scholarly work being done in this field. Sorry for more links, but it's inevitable:

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 16:023 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Obviously there may be something of authenticity within the gospels. Jesus must have said some of those things, or something closely approximating them. But it is impossible to know for certain which things. The theory is that if you can get as close to the original source as possible and strip away all the later stuff people tacked on, you may be able to r
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_source_hypothesis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
    Can you give us a clear example of an original saying and a tacked on saying?

    Let's take the fifth chapter of John or the fifth chapter of Matthew. Verse by verse place a O for original and a T for tacked on.

    All I need is number of verse and an accompanying letter O or T.

    Matthew 5 has 48.
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 16:25
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Can you give us a clear example of an original saying and a tacked on saying?

    Let's take the fifth chapter of John or the fifth chapter of Matthew. Verse by verse place a O for original and a T for tacked on.

    All I need is number of verse and an accompanying letter O or T.

    Matthew 5 has 48.
    That is more work than I'm willing to do on your behalf. You're simply going to have to do some reading on your own, I'm afraid. And if you really wanted to know the truth on these matters, you would necessarily want to read what some of the critics have to say. So I'll recommend what I consider to be an excellent book on the subject:

    Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
    by Bart D. Ehrman

    Ehrman isn't some wild-eyed atheist with an axe to grind. He's a former evengelical christian whose studies into the bible caused him to rethink some of his basic assumptions. The book gives some very specific examples of things that were changed along the way. You owe it to yourself to read it.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 16:34
    Originally posted by rwingett
    That is more work than I'm willing to do on your behalf. You're simply going to have to do some reading on your own, I'm afraid. And if you really wanted to know the truth on these matters, you would necessarily want to read what some of the critics have to say. So I'll recommend what I consider to be an excellent book on the subject:

    [b]Misquoting Jesus ...[text shortened]... fic examples of things that were changed along the way. You owe it to yourself to read it.
    Okay. IF this is too much work, how about this?

    Just take John chapters 14 through 17. Indicate one verse which you regard as authentically spoken by Jesus.

    Surely, in your verification of this thesis you must have in your study Bible a few passages marked out with pen or pencil as being the real thing amidst the latter additions.

    Give us just ONE VERSE in the section of John chapter 14 through 17 which you believe was really said by Jesus.

    One Verse !
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 16:39
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Okay. IF this is too much work, how about this?

    Just take John chapters 14 through 17. Indicate one verse which you regard as authentically spoken by Jesus.

    Surely, in your verification of this thesis you must have in your study Bible a few passages marked out with pen or pencil as being the real thing amidst the latter additions.

    Give us just ON ...[text shortened]... ection of John chapter 14 through 17 which you believe was really said by Jesus.

    One Verse !
    It is impossible to know which verses (if any) are authentic. The topic is hotly debated.

    If you go to Amazon.com you can read, online, the introduction to the book I recommended.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148567
    23 Sep '06 16:481 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    It is impossible to know which verses (if any) are authentic. The topic is hotly debated.

    If you go to Amazon.com you can read, online, the introduction to the book I recommended.
    If you don't know which is authenitc or not, do you think anyone else
    can either, or do you think we just have to believe and take it on faith?
    I'm sure those that are denoucing evrything from the authorship to the
    text have faith in their views, It is true or not, believe it or not, that is
    all you have in the end, where are you putting your faith, or in whom?
    Kelly
  10. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 17:22
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    If you don't know which is authenitc or not, do you think anyone else
    can either, or do you think we just have to believe and take it on faith?
    I'm sure those that are denoucing evrything from the authorship to the
    text have faith in their views, It is true or not, believe it or not, that is
    all you have in the end, where are you putting your faith, or in whom?
    Kelly
    Faith, faith, faith. Whether you're equivocating or not, everything comes back to faith for you doesn't it?

    I think Mr. Ehrman makes a convincing case in his book I mentioned earlier. His argument is very cogent and well researched. Plus his background as a former evangelical christian removes any possible charge of bias from his research. He is, as they say, an impartial source. So if you want to doggedly claim that I'm putting my "faith" in him, then go ahead. Even though you're blantantly equivocating with the term "faith" it simply isn't worth my while to have another go around on the topic with you.
  11. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 17:341 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    It is impossible to know which verses (if any) are authentic. The topic is hotly debated.

    If you go to Amazon.com you can read, online, the introduction to the book I recommended.
    Can you give us one group of words in one verse ANYWHERE in the New Testament that you are confident that was spoken by Jesus?

    How can you possibly accuse Paul of messing up the teaching of Jesus if you can't produce even one so called authentic verse from one non authentic verse?
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 17:391 edit
    Rwingett,

    PLEASE tell me WHICH teaching of Jesus was distorted by the Apostle Paul.

    Show me the original teaching of Jesus and then show me the distortion as taught by the Apostle Paul.

    How can you expect us to separate authentic from the latter Pauline distortions if you can't stand by passages which you genuinely attribute to Jesus Christ?

    This accusation of yours seems like a kangaroo court tactic.
  13. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 17:43
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Can you give us one group of words in one verse ANYWHERE in the New Testament that you are confident that was spoken by Jesus?

    How can you possibly accuse Paul of messing up the teaching of Jesus if you can't produce even one so called authentic verse from one non authentic verse?
    *Yawn*

    You're becoming a bore, jaywill.

    I am not a biblical scholar. I don't keep this information at my fingertips. I would have to do a fair amount of research to satisfy your demands. With the Michigan / Wisconsin game on TV I am disinclined to do any research at all on your behalf. I've told you where to find the information you seek on your own. If you wish to perpetually wallow in ignorance then that is your prerogative.
  14. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 17:551 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    *Yawn*

    You're becoming a bore, jaywill.

    I am not a biblical scholar. I don't keep this information at my fingertips. I would have to do a fair amount of research to satisfy your demands. With the Michigan / Wisconsin game on TV I am disinclined to do any research at all on your behalf. I've told you where to find the information you seek on your own. If you wish to perpetually wallow in ignorance then that is your prerogative.
    Don't hide behind "Yawn".


    If you're the gullible type who took in hook, line, and sinker, that the New Testament is not a trustworthy representation of the teaching of Jesus, and you can't prove it with the simpliest test, then why hide behind "Yawn"?

    If you cannot give me and example of an authentic verse parelleled with a non authentic verse then I'll make a simplier request.

    Show me a teaching put forth by Paul and indicate what you think was his possible motive for conconcting such a teaching.

    Let's assume that his epistles are filled with his concoctions which are not what Jesus taught. Show me one tenet of his teaching and suggest WHY he concocted it and attributed it to Jesus.

    That should be easier. Wake Up !!! Give it a try.
  15. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 18:01
    Rwingett is occupied with his basket ball or football game.

    Can anyone help him out?


    Someone show me a teaching of Paul and tell me what was his motive is concocting it and attributing it to Jesus Christ. What was he to gain? Why did he do it?

    Why do you even THINK he would do it?
Back to Top