Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I do think that the majority of the NT is nonsense. I think what came out of it is mostly Paul's religion and not Jesus'. I think Christianity went from being Jesus' program of social transformation to Paul's cult of the personhood of Jesus. The 'Kingdom of God' was supposed to be built in the here and now. Private property was the original sin which l ...[text shortened]... ory correct? Who knows? But I think it is compelling enough to warrant investigation.

His message existed solely as oral tradition for decades before people began to write down what they thought he had said. By then the damage had been done.

The NT was written by Christ's disciples, those who lived with him for years and were intimately familiar with his message. The result being that the NT is not something that was handed down from generation to generation through an oral tradition, but was recorded in a single generation. Furthermore, in the book of Acts, which you say is clearly not a forgery, the apostles received the infilling of the Holy Spirit which Christ had promised them, and it is the Holy Spirit who gave them the authority to write about the significance of Jesus Christ (coupled, of course, with their own eye-witness accounts). Paul himself labored along with the apostles after his conversion (also in the book of Acts). The idea that his was a 'cult of the personhood of Jesus' is a humorous idea. Of course! Christ himself taught this:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-29).

"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24).

"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37).

--------------------------------

The entire bible, OT to the NT, is about Jesus Christ! Paul is not the forerunner of the 'cult' of Jesus Christ by any means. He was spoken of as far back as Genesis, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her Offspring; He will bruise and tread your head underfoot, and you will lie in wait and bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). And Psalms, "For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet" (Psalm 22:16), and onwards to Zechariah, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn" (Zechariah 12:10).

Most dramatically, Isaiah 53:10-12:

But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
he will be satisfied.
And because of his experience,
my righteous servant will make it possible
for many to be counted righteous,
for he will bear all their sins.
I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier,
because he exposed himself to death.
He was counted among the rebels.
He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]His message existed solely as oral tradition for decades before people began to write down what they thought he had said. By then the damage had been done.

The NT was written by Christ's disciples, those who lived with him for years and were intimately familiar with his message. The result being that the NT is not something that was handed dow ...[text shortened]... mong the rebels.
He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels."[/b]

I didn't say that the Book of Acts was authentic. I said those two passages I quoted from the Book of Acts were authentic. No book of the bible is authentic is its entirety. Some are wholesale forgeries, while others have been corrupted through time.

You reveal yourself to have a very limited understanding of the history of the bible. None of the Gospels were written by Christ's disciples. Their authorship is entirely unknown. Later generations attributed them to the disciples to give the illusion of 'apostolic succession.'

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

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

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

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

The letters of Paul were, of course, written by Paul, but as we all know...Paul never met Jesus!

Originally posted by rwingett
I didn't say that the Book of Acts was authentic. I said those two passages I quoted from the Book of Acts were authentic. No book of the bible is authentic is its entirety. Some are wholesale forgeries, while others have been corrupted through time.

You reveal yourself to have a very limited understanding of the history of the bible. None of the Gospel ...[text shortened]... of Paul were, of course, written by Paul, but as we all know...[b]Paul never met Jesus![/b]

Anybody can contribute to Wikipedia, easily skewing the content according to their particular leaning on the subject. No doubt a few scholars have argued that Matthew is not the author, but that's quite a bit different than suggesting that it is the prevailing view. The evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of the disciple Matthew's authorship, regardless of what a few scholars have to say. Wikipedia gives greater place and lends more weight to their position than is the actual case.

I don't see how I can argue with someone about the significance of God's word who himself doesn't believe the NT is authentic... You are able to justify any position you like under the premise that the NT is bogus. Have at it.

Originally posted by rwingett
I didn't say that the Book of Acts was authentic. I said those two passages I quoted from the Book of Acts were authentic. No book of the bible is authentic is its entirety. Some are wholesale forgeries, while others have been corrupted through time.

You reveal yourself to have a very limited understanding of the history of the bible. None of the Gospel of Paul were, of course, written by Paul, but as we all know...[b]Paul never met Jesus![/b]

The letters of Paul were, of course, written by Paul, but as we all know...Paul never met Jesus!

I assume, given your self-ascribed liberty to pick and choose which scriptures are authentic, that you will discount Paul's run-in with Jesus in the book of Acts as being bogus, so I won't bring it up... However, I will say that I have met Jesus. After I gave my life to Jesus Christ he filled me with his Holy Spirit. It was no different for Paul (as well as the apostles). "I will send you the Advocate—the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me. And you must also testify about me because you have been with me from the beginning of my ministry" (John 15:26-27). All believers receive the Holy Spirit, the same spirit which descended like a dove and lighted upon Jesus (Matthew 3:16). It is the Holy Spirit which testifies about Jesus Christ and imparts "the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). It is the Holy Spirit which gives the apostle's testimony its authority. I believe the reason certain scholars have trouble believing these books were written by the said authors is because of the unearthly knowledge displayed therein; surely it would have to have been accomplished by a collective, but really the scriptures resound to the glory of Jesus Christ's infinite intelligence and wisdom.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Anybody can contribute to Wikipedia, easily skewing the content according to their particular leaning on the subject. No doubt a few scholars have argued that Matthew is not the author, but that's quite a bit different than suggesting that it is the prevailing view. The evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of the disciple Matthew's authorship, reg ...[text shortened]... able to justify any position you like under the premise that the NT is bogus. Have at it.

Do a google search on "authorship of Matthew" and see what you come up with. There are a host of sites out there that address this question and come to the same conclusion I have. Here is a quote from the "Christian Research Institute":

Author - Who wrote Matthew?

As far as we know the original copy of Matthew had no indication of who the author was. Sometime during the second century AD the ascription, "According to Matthew," began to appear at the beginning of the gospel. However, nothing in the body of the gospel tells us who the author was.

The earliest reported claim that Matthew was an author was that of Papias, an early church leader who died around AD 130. We do not have the writings of Papias, but the church Eusebius from the fourth century quotes Papias. This quotation states that Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and everyone translated them as best they could. Whether the "sayings" Papias was talking about were the gospel of Matthew as we now know it is debated. Some scholars believe that Papias’ "sayings" were a collection of teaching by Jesus that were used by the author of the first gospel.

The bottom line is that we do know for certain that Matthew, the tax collector who became a disciple, was the author of the first gospel...

http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbmatt1.html

It is widely accepted that Matthew was not the author of the gospel bearing his name, both within christian circles and without. The same is true for the other gospels as well.

So, yes, I am free to try to justify any position I like, and that is precisely what I am doing. Bear in mind, I am not claiming that my entire theory is true. Much of it is, but many of the conclusions I draw are admittedly tenuous. My point is that this line of argument deserves a much fuller examination before its merits can be concluded. Toward that purpose, I have just today ordered a book about Thomas Meunzer online. Thomas Muntzer: A Tragedy of Errors. From the title it doesn't seem as though it will be an entirely sympathetic study, but we shall see.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The letters of Paul were, of course, written by Paul, but as we all know...Paul never met Jesus!

I assume, given your self-ascribed liberty to pick and choose which scriptures are authentic, that you will discount Paul's run-in with Jesus in the book of Acts as being bogus, so I won't bring it up... However, I will say that I have met J ...[text shortened]... the scriptures resound to the glory of Jesus Christ's infinite intelligence and wisdom.[/b]

I freely admit to cherry-picking the bible at this time by isolating quotes I like and dismissing the ones I don't. Do I have any basis for accepting the former as "authentic" while dismissing the latter as "forgeries?" Perhaps a little, but I admit that much of it at this stage amounts to little more than forcing the available evidence to conform to my desired conclusions.

Originally posted by rwingett
I freely admit to cherry-picking the bible at this time by isolating quotes I like and dismissing the ones I don't. Do I have any basis for accepting the former as "authentic" while dismissing the latter as "forgeries?" Perhaps a little, but I admit that much of it at this stage amounts to little more than forcing the available evidence to conform to my desired conclusions.

If you stay honest with yourself, as you are now, I'm confident you'll discover the truth. Here's to a fruitful search...

Peace.

Originally posted by rwingett
There are plenty of verses that support my position. Such as:

Acts 2:44-45:
(44) And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; (45) And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-35:
(34) Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or h ...[text shortened]... originals, while your verse from John (the last of the gospels written) is clearly a forgery.

.... and we hear just another fundamentalist preaching, using the same methods as they all do .... ignoring the facts which do not fit in their one-dimensional perception of things .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... and we hear just another fundamentalist preaching, using the same methods as they all do .... ignoring the facts which do not fit in their one-dimensional perception of things .....

I didn't make up Meunzer's interpretation of scripture. There are plenty of people who have been appalled at the corruption of the Roman Church and who have arrived at the same conclusion as he. I was doing some reading today on John Ball, who was a 14th century itinerant English priest that took part in Wat Tyler's Peasant Revolt of 1381. Like Meunzer, he preached an egalitarian, socialist version of Christianity whereby the people should rid themselves of the church hierarchy and hold all possessions in common. What's interesting about Ball is that he preceded Meunzer by roughly 140 years. So we see these anticlerical and communal strivings springing up repeatedly within Christendom.

But the John Balls and Thomas Meunzers of that era did not have the modern science of biblical, textual criticism at their disposal. What I'm trying to do, I suppose, is marry the recurring Christian Socialist impulse with the biblical textual criticism of someone like Bart Ehrman, along with ongoing research into the hypothetical Q gospel, to arrive at a radical reconfiguration of Jesus. Quite possibly a truer configuration, unblemished by Pauline deviations.

Where you and I differ, Ivanhoe, is that I freely admit that my research is largely conjectural at this point. As I am neither a biblical scholar nor a professional historian, I offer this line of research as an intriguing possibility and not as the absolute truth.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... and we hear just another fundamentalist preaching, using the same methods as they all do .... ignoring the facts which do not fit in their one-dimensional perception of things .....

Here, for your consideration, is a speech made by John Ball, in 1371:

Why are those whom we call lords, masters over us? How have they deserved it? By what right do they keep us enslaved? We are all descended from our first parents, Adam and Eve; how then can they say that they are better than us... At the beginning we were all created equal. If God willed that there should be serfs, he would have said so at the beginning of the world. We are formed in Christ's likeness, and they treat us like animals... They are dressed in velvet and furs, while we wear only cloth. They have wine, and spices and good bread, while we have rye bread and water. They have fine houses and manors, and we have to brave the wind and rain as we toil in the fields. It is by the sweat of our brows that they maintain their high state. We are called serfs, and we are beaten if we do not perform our task... Let us go to see King Richard. He is young, and we will show him our miserable slavery, we will tell him it must be changed, or else we will provide the remedy ourselves. When the King sees us, either he will listen to us, or we will help ourselves. When we are ready to march on London I will send you a secret message. The message is "Now is the time. Stand together in God's name."