RE: If Only The Romans
January 1, 2015 at 2:08 pm
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2015 at 2:08 pm by Lek.)
(January 1, 2015 at 12:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: Tradition as a source...for what? I'm sorry, you've essentially stated that those who agree with the mythology of the medieval christian tradition- are more likely to agree with the mythology of the medieval christian tradition. Granted...and?
I'm speaking of considering the process of tradition in general that carried along the knowledge of the writers of the bible.
Quote:Is there anyone in particular, that you'd like to cite - or are you shitting in my earholes? I'd really like to see where you got the idea that a Peter, John or James, was written by a Peter, John...or fucking James. Or that those books, specifically, represent the core of even what sympathetic scholars consider to be a narrative of the life of some christ, or even a Jesus - or writings from some contemporary of a jesus.........relative to other offerings on the table.
In the commentaries for the books of Peter, John and James in the New International Version (1984) and the New American Bible (1987), the various opinions and conclusions of modern bible scholars were discussed. These bible translations were completed by teams of experts in the field, including reputable bible scholars. The NIV commentaries favored the traditional authors--the apostles Peter and John and James, the brother of Jesus. The commentaries from the NAB just presented the various opinions and conclusions without taking a position. There is no general consensus among scholars on the subject.
