Progressive Revelation

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?