Jason Bourne: Ask away

[_Jason Bourne]

Are you saying that because you wish to get back to me later that I shouldn't continue to reply to your standing posts? Seriously....

No

I was pointing out that I was planning on replying you commented that I only had a three liner. Are you always so difficult?

[_Jason Bourne]

Who wrote the books of the New Testament? Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them? If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with? If the authors were forgers and using others names why do you trust them? How reliable is the Bible? If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant? Do you believe it is innerant?

I took no "jabs" about feelings, Jason. I told you that I would likely not tell you what I feel but what I think. Feeling and thinking are two very different things. I'll list your questions and my answers to them.

Sure you did. It was a jab about LDS testimony and feelings.

1. Who wrote the books of the New Testament?

I don't know who wrote all of the New Testament. Some of the New Testament was written by Paul though not all of the Epistles that are attributed to him.

Ok. You may want to look into this. Many of Paul's epistles, one of Peter's were not written by him. Mark may not have been written by him. Matthew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew or John but by someone who is pretending to be them.

2. Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them?

If you are asking me only about the New Testament, then here goes. I think that if the author states they are "John" (in the salutation line, for example) then the author named was probably "John". In the case of "John", we don't know who that is. Example: If the Gospel of John and The Revelation were written by "John", we don't know if it is the same "John" or who that "John" really was.

I guess the person may have been named John, but the point is that the person writing John was forging it as if he were John the Beloved.

If this is the case does it impune the integrity of the text. Does it make it less reliable in your view?

3. If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with?

I'm not certain why you think assuming that a salutation from "John" (I'll just use John most of the way here) was written by a man named John has any adverse impact on one's integrity.

The book was supposed to have been written by John the apostle as an eye witness account of Jesus life and ministry. Does the fact that it was not written by John the apostle when it claimed to be make it less reliable. Keep in mind that conservative Christians rely on the Bible as the innerant word of Gof and the only word of God that all religious truth about God is to be determined by.

Now, if you are thinking about the Epistles, then I would agree that someone pawned a few of them off as being written by Paul. In that case, I wouldn't be as much concerned with the integrity (or lack of) of the forger, but with the integrity of those persons who approved the canon.

Some epistles were forgeries. If Paul did not really write them why should we trust them? Why would you be more concerned about the integrity of the persons who approved them when they had copies of copies 200 years after Paul was alleged to have written them?

4. If the authors were forgers and using others names why do you trust them?

Why do you assume that I trust them? You see, Jason, in your questions you reveal assumptions that have nothing to do with anything I've ever stated on this board.

Well excuse me. You could have answered that you do or do not trust them. So do you trust the New Testament texts?

5. How reliable is the Bible?

I have to ask, reliable in what way? Historically? Culturally? Theologically? Doctrinally? Table of tribes? Creation story? What? Are you thinking in terms of reliable authorship? For example, the Old Testament books attributed to Moses could not have all been written by Moses. To think so, is foolish.

What I think does not matter for this discussion. What you think does. Reliable means is the Bible the word of God that Trump's all other religous texts and teachings. Is it the sole authority for finding out truth about God, the measuring stick, doctrinally and theologically, the way a conservative fundamentalist Christian defines it? Do you agree with that view? If not what is your view of the Bible?

6. If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant?

I haven't asserted that the Bible is inerrant. If the authors "lied" about who they were, I'm not sure that effects the content. They could have been using "pen names" to protect themselves, were who they said they were, or they were liars in every possible way.

So you do not believe in innerancy as defined by the Chicago Statement on the subject? The one conservative Christains adopt?

Do you think that God inspired the authors that claimed to be someone they were not with GOd breathed truth? Are the forgers texts valid revelation from God?

7. Do you believe it is innerant?

You don't say what you mean by inerrant and I wish that people wouldn't throw that term out without being specific. It's a sloppy form of questioning/argument/debate/discussion.

I think you knew already what I meant by inerrant. If not I hope I have clarified and maybe you could tell us exactly what you think of the Bible.

[_keene]

The book was supposed to have been written by John the apostle as an eye witness account of Jesus life and ministry. Does the fact that it was not written by John the apostle when it claimed to be make it less reliable. Keep in mind that conservative Christians rely on the Bible as the innerant word of Gof and the only word of God that all religious truth about God is to be determined by.

Since this is Jersey Girl's thread, I'll keep my response brief.

Since the earilest book in the New Testament was written some 60 years after the death of Christ, during a day and age where the life expectancy was around 40, I hardly think "eyewitness" was EVER what the gospels were about.

Ok. You may want to look into this. Many of Paul's epistles, one of Peter's were not written by him. Mark may not have been written by him. Matthew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew or John but by someone who is pretending to be them.

I just wanted to clarify on this -- were Matthew and John written by the /same/ someone, or a different someone for each? It seems silly that they would be the same someone, given how different John is from the other three gospels.

[_Jason Bourne]

The book was supposed to have been written by John the apostle as an eye witness account of Jesus life and ministry. Does the fact that it was not written by John the apostle when it claimed to be make it less reliable. Keep in mind that conservative Christians rely on the Bible as the innerant word of Gof and the only word of God that all religious truth about God is to be determined by.

Since this is Jersey Girl's thread, I'll keep my response brief.

Since the earilest book in the New Testament was written some 60 years after the death of Christ, during a day and age where the life expectancy was around 40, I hardly think "eyewitness" was EVER what the gospels were about.

Actually the gospel of Mark was writtne about 20-30 years after Jesus death. Some of Paul's epistles date earlier. The rest off the New Testament was written between then and about 100-110 AD with Revelation being the latest.

Ok. You may want to look into this. Many of Paul's epistles, one of Peter's were not written by him. Mark may not have been written by him. Matthew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew or John but by someone who is pretending to be them.

I just wanted to clarify on this -- were Matthew and John written by the /same/ someone, or a different someone for each? It seems silly that they would be the same someone, given how different John is from the other three gospels.

No not the same. Someone different wrote each but more likely then not neither were written by Matthew or John the apostles.

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you saying that because you wish to get back to me later that I shouldn't continue to reply to your standing posts? Seriously....

No

I was pointing out that I was planning on replying you commented that I only had a three liner. Are you always so difficult?

If keene would put me on a threaded view, I think I could muster up "difficult".

[_Jersey Girl]

Since keene won't let me have a threaded view ;-), I'll intersperse my comments to you in bold text.

Who wrote the books of the New Testament? Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them? If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with? If the authors were forgers and using others names why do you trust them? How reliable is the Bible? If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant? Do you believe it is innerant?

I took no "jabs" about feelings, Jason. I told you that I would likely not tell you what I feel but what I think. Feeling and thinking are two very different things. I'll list your questions and my answers to them.

Sure you did. It was a jab about LDS testimony and feelings.

Jersey Girl: No, it wasn't. It was a response to the first question that you posed to me when you attempted to engage me on the other thread ("Origins of the Book of Mormon") as follows : "Can you tell me how you feel about inerrancy and who actually wrote the Bible?" And I told you, I wouldn't tell you what I "feel", but what I think. There was no "jab" at LDS.

1. Who wrote the books of the New Testament?

I don't know who wrote all of the New Testament. Some of the New Testament was written by Paul though not all of the Epistles that are attributed to him.

Ok. You may want to look into this. Many of Paul's epistles, one of Peter's were not written by him. Mark may not have been written by him. Matthew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew or John but by someone who is pretending to be them.

[b]Jersey Girl: Yes, I know. If you look at my comment to which you are replying I respond affirmative to only some of the Episitles attributed to Paul. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Matthew" and "John" were pretending to be the apostles, Jason. That many believers assume they were the apolostles does in no way prove that the authors were "pretending". It is evidence that believers assume authorship without proof. Matthew and John were common names. Still are.

2. Are they really written by who the books claim wrote them?

If you are asking me only about the New Testament, then here goes. I think that if the author states they are "John" (in the salutation line, for example) then the author named was probably "John". In the case of "John", we don't know who that is. Example: If the Gospel of John and The Revelation were written by "John", we don't know if it is the same "John" or who that "John" really was.

I guess the person may have been named John, but the point is that the person writing John was forging it as if he were John the Beloved.

Jersey Girl: I see no evidence in the material attributed to the author "John" that "he" is presenting himself as John the Beloved. That is merely yet another assumption. If you disagree, I'd like to see evidence of that in the form of scripture quotes.

If this is the case does it impune the integrity of the text. Does it make it less reliable in your view?

Jersey Girl: Reliable with regards to what?

3. If not what does that say for their integrity to begin with?

I'm not certain why you think assuming that a salutation from "John" (I'll just use John most of the way here) was written by a man named John has any adverse impact on one's integrity.

The book was supposed to have been written by John the apostle as an eye witness account of Jesus life and ministry. Does the fact that it was not written by John the apostle when it claimed to be make it less reliable. Keep in mind that conservative Christians rely on the Bible as the innerant word of Gof and the only word of God that all religious truth about God is to be determined by.

Jersey Girl: Supposed to have been written by John the apostle according to whom, Jason? It is not a "fact" that it was not written by John the apostle. We don't know who the author is. Are you asking me to take up the position of a conservative Christian or supply my own answers to your questions? Conservative Christians are irrelevant to your posing questions to me.

Now, if you are thinking about the Epistles, then I would agree that someone pawned a few of them off as being written by Paul. In that case, I wouldn't be as much concerned with the integrity (or lack of) of the forger, but with the integrity of those persons who approved the canon.

Some epistles were forgeries. If Paul did not really write them why should we trust them? Why would you be more concerned about the integrity of the persons who approved them when they had copies of copies 200 years after Paul was alleged to have written them?

Jersey Girl: You ask me, if Paul didn't write all of the Epistles then why should we trust them? You don't say on what basis of trust you're thinking of. My question to you would be, why should we trust those even attributed to him? Paul appears to be speaking to a Christ that he never knew. I would be more concerned about the integrity of the persons who approved them because they presumably were speaking for God himself.

4. If the authors were forgers and using others names why do you trust them?

Why do you assume that I trust them? You see, Jason, in your questions you reveal assumptions that have nothing to do with anything I've ever stated on this board.

Well excuse me. You could have answered that you do or do not trust them. So do you trust the New Testament texts?

Jersey Girl: Trust them on what basis? In what way? If you clarify your question, I'll be glad to answer it.

5. How reliable is the Bible?

I have to ask, reliable in what way? Historically? Culturally? Theologically? Doctrinally? Table of tribes? Creation story? What? Are you thinking in terms of reliable authorship? For example, the Old Testament books attributed to Moses could not have all been written by Moses. To think so, is foolish.

What I think does not matter for this discussion. What you think does. Reliable means is the Bible the word of God that Trump's all other religous texts and teachings. Is it the sole authority for finding out truth about God, the measuring stick, doctrinally and theologically, the way a conservative fundamentalist Christian defines it? Do you agree with that view? If not what is your view of the Bible?

Jersey Girl: I don't know why you continue to frame your questions within the confines of "conservative fundamentalist Christian". My view of the Bible is that it is many things. It is historical, cultural, legal, allegory, poetry, prophecy, wisdom and an account of man's perceived encounters with God. I also think that there is no real way that we, in the year 2007, can fully undestand the meaning it's authors wished to convey throughout the body of work that constitutes "The Bible".

6. If the author lied about who they were how can the Bible be inerrant?

I haven't asserted that the Bible is inerrant. If the authors "lied" about who they were, I'm not sure that effects the content. They could have been using "pen names" to protect themselves, were who they said they were, or they were liars in every possible way.

So you do not believe in innerancy as defined by the Chicago Statement on the subject? The one conservative Christains adopt?

Jersey Girl: Jason, just one caution here. You are asking me about "the Chicago Statement" without quoting it. I would like you to quote it before I answer your question. I do think I touched on inerrancy further down here, I'll take a look as I go along.

Do you think that God inspired the authors that claimed to be someone they were not with GOd breathed truth? Are the forgers texts valid revelation from God?

Jersey Girl: Oh shoot. Is that whatt you were asking me all along? I don't know for a fact that the text are valid revelation from God. I do think that human authors injected their political views within the text(s) and that this is especially and glaringly evident in the Old Testament.

7. Do you believe it is innerant?

You don't say what you mean by inerrant and I wish that people wouldn't throw that term out without being specific. It's a sloppy form of questioning/argument/debate/discussion.

I think you knew already what I meant by inerrant. If not I hope I have clarified and maybe you could tell us exactly what you think of the Bible.

Jersey Girl: I think I've told you exactly what I think of and about the Bible based on the questions that you have asked. I'm still not clear about the inerrancy issue, but if I failed to address it, feel free to try me again.

[_Jersey Girl]

I didn't originally plan to continue responding to anyone else besides Jason, but I do want to comment on this, keene. Bold text reply again.

The book was supposed to have been written by John the apostle as an eye witness account of Jesus life and ministry. Does the fact that it was not written by John the apostle when it claimed to be make it less reliable. Keep in mind that conservative Christians rely on the Bible as the innerant word of Gof and the only word of God that all religious truth about God is to be determined by.

Since this is Jersey Girl's thread, I'll keep my response brief.

Since the earilest book in the New Testament was written some 60 years after the death of Christ, during a day and age where the life expectancy was around 40, I hardly think "eyewitness" was EVER what the gospels were about.

Jersey Girl: That's not true, keene. The only truth is that we don't know when the New Testament was written. We can assume that those books attributed to Paul were written prior to his death on or around 60-68 AD, but there is no possible way to date the remaining books.

Ok. You may want to look into this. Many of Paul's epistles, one of Peter's were not written by him. Mark may not have been written by him. Matthew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew or John but by someone who is pretending to be them.

I just wanted to clarify on this -- were Matthew and John written by the /same/ someone, or a different someone for each? It seems silly that they would be the same someone, given how different John is from the other three gospels.

Jersey Girl: When I do this, I get called difficult or charged with dancing around answering a question. Why is that, I wonder? ;-) I think that it's a good thing to request clarification as you've done here. I don't think that Jason meant to imply that they were both written by the same person. I think he was just writing quickly.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sticking my nose into this. Bold text reply again.

The book was supposed to have been written by John the apostle as an eye witness account of Jesus life and ministry. Does the fact that it was not written by John the apostle when it claimed to be make it less reliable. Keep in mind that conservative Christians rely on the Bible as the innerant word of Gof and the only word of God that all religious truth about God is to be determined by.

Since this is Jersey Girl's thread, I'll keep my response brief.

Since the earilest book in the New Testament was written some 60 years after the death of Christ, during a day and age where the life expectancy was around 40, I hardly think "eyewitness" was EVER what the gospels were about.

Actually the gospel of Mark was writtne about 20-30 years after Jesus death. Some of Paul's epistles date earlier. The rest off the New Testament was written between then and about 100-110 AD with Revelation being the latest.

Jersey Girl: What proof do you have to offer to support your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written about 20-30 years after Jesus death? I see no possible way for that claim to stand.

Ok. You may want to look into this. Many of Paul's epistles, one of Peter's were not written by him. Mark may not have been written by him. Matthew and John were not written by the apostles Matthew or John but by someone who is pretending to be them.

I just wanted to clarify on this -- were Matthew and John written by the /same/ someone, or a different someone for each? It seems silly that they would be the same someone, given how different John is from the other three gospels.

No not the same. Someone different wrote each but more likely then not neither were written by Matthew or John the apostles.

Jersey Girl: Why do you think they likely weren't written by Matthew or John the Apostles?

[_huckelberry]

"forgery"

I had some feeling that this thread was a bit of a personal jostle and Jersey Girl is capable of handling the question.

But the question is interesting anyway and is one I have seen over and over again, tradational Christians are quick to criticize but ignore their own problems. Sometimes it works that way. On the other hand there are traditional Christians who are very aware of difficulties or puzzles

Jersey Girl hit the center of the problem, forgery. The word is a project based upon misunderstanding.

I think sometimes people miss that fact that the primary witness to the New Testament and the story of Jesus is the entire body of early believers who kept track of which writings preserved that witness. The writing of the new Testament were selected on the basis of which writing preserved the teaching which came from the apostles. It is not necessary that the editing of the traditions into a Gospel be done by an individual who was an eyewitness. The one by a person with a name, Luke, clearly states that he gathered the material.

One could observe that it is unlikely that none of the four gospels were written by a different proceedure. I do not see that making them any less relaible. They are reporting shaped by the desire to present a message.

there are letters clearly by Paul. We even know a bit about Paul. There are other wiritng, like Hebews where it can only be said it was writen by the author of Hebrews, whoever that was. I do not see how it would be possible to make any distinction between who is more reliable Paul or the author of Hebrews. What would be the basis?

There are a couple of examples of writing claiming Pauline authorship and likely not by him. Timothy. I may not care as much for these two letters, I might experience a bit of mistrust, yet I am not all that shocked that somebody put their understanding of Pauls legacy and teaching into writing useing the vehicle of fictive letter. It is one way of presenting ideas.

The distinction the second century church had to make and did was between writing based upon the orginal first centuiry teaching and those based upon expanded diverse speculation. It is true those early Christians sometimes used the word forgery for some of these later writings. The reason is not simply they came out in the name of an apostle. Instead the problem was the presentation of new speculation which the church saw as not the received tradtion. The writers of those rejected works may well have believed they were present tradition and were thus not forgers. Perhaps that is true. But the distinction intended by the church was validity of tradition not the name attatched at the top of the writing.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason

The problem is I was not defending anything. I was making sure the attacker was not the typical disingenuous Christian who attacks the LDS faith with one set of standards but refuses to apply them to their own faith. I readily agree that an attack and critique of Christianity will not help the Mormon position. On the other hand I have no use for Christians that attack LDSers but refuse to consider that their own faith it fraught with problems.

If you cannot see the difference, or refuse to, I cannot help you.

Okay, let's try this one again. You will have to decide for yourself, Jason, whether or not I employ double standards or have considered that Christianity is fraught with problems. I can't do more than answer your questions.