(September 24, 2015 at 8:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: All authors are "alleged authors". Of all, only 7 are considered to have actually been written by the "alleged authors".

That's not correct. 7 of Paul's Epistles are clearly attributed to Paul without any doubt among scholars. An 8th is considered likely to have been written by him, however it's disputed (2 Thessalonians) and there's no clear consensus on it. In one respect it doesn't really matter too much because it's largely a duplication of what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians. If 1 Thessalonians didn't exist then the authorship of 2 Thessalonians wouldn't be disputed.

The pastoral epistles are considered unlikely to have been written by Paul because most scholars don't think Paul could have been released from Roman-custody only to be re-arrested a couple of years later. Even if that possibility is accepted, there is no external evidence for these trips - however that's because Acts ends in 61AD and the three pastorals would have been written between 62-67 AD. Also Acts 20:25 makes it clear Paul doesn't expect to be released "And now I know that none of you, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, will ever see my face again."... but then that assumes accuracy for Acts of the Apostles. Also Acts ends in 61AD - before Paul is either released or executed, so it could well be that Luke felt that Paul was not going to be released when he wrote Acts, but something unexpected happened a year later. Many scholars argue that 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-14 on the question of whether women can teach in churches; if it was written by Paul he had to have changed his mind. The external evidence however shows that women were given roles to have in the early church and faced criticisms from non-Christians for it; therefore it seems unlikely that the first or second century church was following this teaching. Furthermore the pastorals are the last of the Pauline epistles to be canonised.

However most agree they do still reflect the theology that Paul taught and followed (except of course for the restrictive roles of women) meaning that they were likely written by someone devoted to Paul's flavour of Christianity. It is possible that Paul wrote them. None of the above points prove absolutely that he didn't, but they lend evidence that supports the view that he did not, therefore making the conclusion that he "most likely didn't write them" the one that most scholars hold. It's held with a level of conviction of course, but it's not absolute - and it's not as strong as the conviction that Paul did write the 7 "undisputed" Epistles.

The Epistles of Peter are considered pseudonymous.

The Epistles of James and Jude aren't; however scholars note that since each author only wrote one letter that survives today it can't be authenticated by their other writings, as can be done with Paul's. Therefore it's impossible to conclude on the evidence alone whether they are genuine or not. Regardless they are not "alleged" authors, the texts claim authorship to James and Jude it isn't "alleged". If they are indeed forgeries they are the earliest forgeries in the Bible and that itself is a problem, because as I explained before the Church doesn't get targeted for persecution until 64 AD; and both James and Jude are alive and well and in Jerusalem until at least 61 AD. So one needs to come up with an explanation of how someone is going to create a forgery while they are still alive and are active in the church leadership, and why they would it.

Scholars generally agree that Jude was written by a person named Judas. They also agree it wasn't Judas Iscariot (the Judas that betrays Jesus). The author himself says he is the brother of James, which indicates he's not the other Apostle Jude.

The Epistle of James is more interesting. There are four main views: 1. It was written by James before or during the period that Paul was writing, 2. It was written by James shortly after Paul's epistles, 3. James wrote an epistle and somebody else reworked it into the Epistle of James, 4. It is pseudonymous. Interestingly no one in scholarly circles holds the view that it was written by some "mystery James". The author doesn't seem to need to explain his identity - just like Paul doesn't need to explain his.

The internal evidence that James the Just is the author is extremely strong. In particular, the teachings in the short Epistle are much more similar to what Jesus is quoted as sayinf in the Gospels than in any other New Testament book - including around 10 direct parallel teachings to the Sermon on the Mount. Almost every thought that James writes down in this epistle can be traced to something Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament. We know that James the Just was an important leader (as important as Peter and Paul) at the time the epistle was written, and he appears to have greater authority in the early church than Peter or Barnabas (Acts 15). And the most likely time this epistle was written is sometime between 45-49 AD (although any date up to the early 60's is technically possible).

What's perhaps most notable about it is just how Jewish it is. Jesus's teachings became progressively less Jewish with the introduction of Paul's epistles, and then the Gospel writers providing their theological views, but the epistle of James is so Jewish that with some exception it could pass off as being a Jewish book and not a Christian book.

So again, James isn't the "alleged" author: He is the most likely author of the epistle. Most likely, but certainly not certain.

(September 24, 2015 at 8:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Are you saying that the "most scholars" they mention have changed their minds, since?
I was drawing attention to that detail... and the sentence you mention seems to me like a value with some error bars on top. I agree that it's not a normal way of putting things, but... oh well, it's the wiki... a starting point for those who want to go further.

Their position is misquoted for one thing. No one is certain of when the gospels are written, and the range of possible dates span from 45 AD all the way through to 95 AD. The really early dates like 45 AD require a proto-Mark document - a version of Mark that pre-dates the present version of Mark. This view can't be ruled out, and Mark is still Mark even if it started as "proto-Mark" it would simply mean what we have now is a later edition of proto-Mark (which by the way is the main view). An early date in the mid 50's for proto-Mark solves a wave of problems that are presented by the synoptic problem. If proto-Mark isn't written until 70 AD or later one needs to find ways to explain all the primitive features in it which get polished and corrected in Matthew and Luke. If it's written in the mid-50's or sooner it's easier to explain. The version of Mark that we have now could well have been written AFTER Matthew and Luke, and the problem that presents is - why bother rewriting it when Matthew and Luke already exist and are much better gospels? Matthew contains 97% of Mark. Why would Matthew be writing to Jewish Christians AFTER 70AD which is after the Jerusalem Church has been destroyed? Those problems get solved if it's written around 60AD. In fact nearly every problem I can think of gets solved if both Matthew and Luke are written around that time: It explains why Mark gets re-written, it better explains why the first-person-narrative in Acts begins in Acts 13, it explains why Acts ends in 61AD, it explains why Matthew is writing his version for Jewish-Christians instead of gentile Christians, it explains why Mark's gospel is so primitive. It also allows the Gospel of John to be written in the correct time-frame with the knowledge of the content of the synoptics but without making direct usage of them, and allowing for the clear difference in literary language which is used by John.

And the so-called early dates do not pose any problem for sceptics. I think in years to come the viewpoint among critical scholars will broaden more.

In any case there aren't absolutes being claimed by most scholars despite Wikipedia implying otherwise.

(September 24, 2015 at 8:24 pm)vorlon13 Wrote:

(September 24, 2015 at 8:11 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Don't forget loulou, swallow =cannibalism, spitting =murder!
Losty learned me that one.

Wonder where the murder charge accrues when we're snowballing ??

hehehe ... I'm sure there's bylaws protecting participants passing on second hand goods!

(September 25, 2015 at 1:55 am)Aractus Wrote:

(September 24, 2015 at 8:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: All authors are "alleged authors". Of all, only 7 are considered to have actually been written by the "alleged authors".

That's not correct. 7 of Paul's Epistles are clearly attributed to Paul without any doubt among scholars. An 8th is considered likely to have been written by him, however it's disputed (2 Thessalonians) and there's no clear consensus on it. In one respect it doesn't really matter too much because it's largely a duplication of what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians. If 1 Thessalonians didn't exist then the authorship of 2 Thessalonians wouldn't be disputed.

---

The pastoral epistles are considered unlikely to have been written by Paul because most scholars don't think Paul could have been released from Roman-custody only to be re-arrested a couple of years later. Even if that possibility is accepted, there is no external evidence for these trips - however that's because Acts ends in 61AD and the three pastorals would have been written between 62-67 AD. Also Acts 20:25 makes it clear Paul doesn't expect to be released "And now I know that none of you, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, will ever see my face again."... but then that assumes accuracy for Acts of the Apostles. Also Acts ends in 61AD - before Paul is either released or executed, so it could well be that Luke felt that Paul was not going to be released when he wrote Acts, but something unexpected happened a year later. Many scholars argue that 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-14 on the question of whether women can teach in churches; if it was written by Paul he had to have changed his mind. The external evidence however shows that women were given roles to have in the early church and faced criticisms from non-Christians for it; therefore it seems unlikely that the first or second century church was following this teaching. Furthermore the pastorals are the last of the Pauline epistles to be canonised.

However most agree they do still reflect the theology that Paul taught and followed (except of course for the restrictive roles of women) meaning that they were likely written by someone devoted to Paul's flavour of Christianity. It is possible that Paul wrote them. None of the above points prove absolutely that he didn't, but they lend evidence that supports the view that he did not, therefore making the conclusion that he "most likely didn't write them" the one that most scholars hold. It's held with a level of conviction of course, but it's not absolute - and it's not as strong as the conviction that Paul did write the 7 "undisputed" Epistles.

The Epistles of Peter are considered pseudonymous.

The Epistles of James and Jude aren't; however scholars note that since each author only wrote one letter that survives today it can't be authenticated by their other writings, as can be done with Paul's. Therefore it's impossible to conclude on the evidence alone whether they are genuine or not. Regardless they are not "alleged" authors, the texts claim authorship to James and Jude it isn't "alleged". If they are indeed forgeries they are the earliest forgeries in the Bible and that itself is a problem, because as I explained before the Church doesn't get targeted for persecution until 64 AD; and both James and Jude are alive and well and in Jerusalem until at least 61 AD. So one needs to come up with an explanation of how someone is going to create a forgery while they are still alive and are active in the church leadership, and why they would it.

Scholars generally agree that Jude was written by a person named Judas. They also agree it wasn't Judas Iscariot (the Judas that betrays Jesus). The author himself says he is the brother of James, which indicates he's not the other Apostle Jude.

The Epistle of James is more interesting. There are four main views: 1. It was written by James before or during the period that Paul was writing, 2. It was written by James shortly after Paul's epistles, 3. James wrote an epistle and somebody else reworked it into the Epistle of James, 4. It is pseudonymous. Interestingly no one in scholarly circles holds the view that it was written by some "mystery James". The author doesn't seem to need to explain his identity - just like Paul doesn't need to explain his.

The internal evidence that James the Just is the author is extremely strong. In particular, the teachings in the short Epistle are much more similar to what Jesus is quoted as sayinf in the Gospels than in any other New Testament book - including around 10 direct parallel teachings to the Sermon on the Mount. Almost every thought that James writes down in this epistle can be traced to something Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament. We know that James the Just was an important leader (as important as Peter and Paul) at the time the epistle was written, and he appears to have greater authority in the early church than Peter or Barnabas (Acts 15). And the most likely time this epistle was written is sometime between 45-49 AD (although any date up to the early 60's is technically possible).

What's perhaps most notable about it is just how Jewish it is. Jesus's teachings became progressively less Jewish with the introduction of Paul's epistles, and then the Gospel writers providing their theological views, but the epistle of James is so Jewish that with some exception it could pass off as being a Jewish book and not a Christian book.

So again, James isn't the "alleged" author: He is the most likely author of the epistle. Most likely, but certainly not certain.

(September 24, 2015 at 8:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Are you saying that the "most scholars" they mention have changed their minds, since?
I was drawing attention to that detail... and the sentence you mention seems to me like a value with some error bars on top. I agree that it's not a normal way of putting things, but... oh well, it's the wiki... a starting point for those who want to go further.

Their position is misquoted for one thing. No one is certain of when the gospels are written, and the range of possible dates span from 45 AD all the way through to 95 AD. The really early dates like 45 AD require a proto-Mark document - a version of Mark that pre-dates the present version of Mark. This view can't be ruled out, and Mark is still Mark even if it started as "proto-Mark" it would simply mean what we have now is a later edition of proto-Mark (which by the way is the main view). An early date in the mid 50's for proto-Mark solves a wave of problems that are presented by the synoptic problem. If proto-Mark isn't written until 70 AD or later one needs to find ways to explain all the primitive features in it which get polished and corrected in Matthew and Luke. If it's written in the mid-50's or sooner it's easier to explain. The version of Mark that we have now could well have been written AFTER Matthew and Luke, and the problem that presents is - why bother rewriting it when Matthew and Luke already exist and are much better gospels? Matthew contains 97% of Mark. Why would Matthew be writing to Jewish Christians AFTER 70AD which is after the Jerusalem Church has been destroyed? Those problems get solved if it's written around 60AD. In fact nearly every problem I can think of gets solved if both Matthew and Luke are written around that time: It explains why Mark gets re-written, it better explains why the first-person-narrative in Acts begins in Acts 13, it explains why Acts ends in 61AD, it explains why Matthew is writing his version for Jewish-Christians instead of gentile Christians, it explains why Mark's gospel is so primitive. It also allows the Gospel of John to be written in the correct time-frame with the knowledge of the content of the synoptics but without making direct usage of them, and allowing for the clear difference in literary language which is used by John.

And the so-called early dates do not pose any problem for sceptics. I think in years to come the viewpoint among critical scholars will broaden more.

In any case there aren't absolutes being claimed by most scholars despite Wikipedia implying otherwise.

---

Thanks for the lesson. really, I've learned something new.
However, it doesn't change the gist of the argument - most NT books seem to have not been written by who they are claimed to have been written.
What changes in the theology, if we remove the clearly pseudonymous books?

The majority of what we're left with is from Paul... Pauline christianity...?

(September 25, 2015 at 4:46 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 25, 2015 at 1:55 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not correct. 7 of Paul's Epistles are clearly attributed to Paul without any doubt among scholars. An 8th is considered likely to have been written by him, however it's disputed (2 Thessalonians) and there's no clear consensus on it. In one respect it doesn't really matter too much because it's largely a duplication of what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians. If 1 Thessalonians didn't exist then the authorship of 2 Thessalonians wouldn't be disputed.

---

The pastoral epistles are considered unlikely to have been written by Paul because most scholars don't think Paul could have been released from Roman-custody only to be re-arrested a couple of years later. Even if that possibility is accepted, there is no external evidence for these trips - however that's because Acts ends in 61AD and the three pastorals would have been written between 62-67 AD. Also Acts 20:25 makes it clear Paul doesn't expect to be released "And now I know that none of you, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, will ever see my face again."... but then that assumes accuracy for Acts of the Apostles. Also Acts ends in 61AD - before Paul is either released or executed, so it could well be that Luke felt that Paul was not going to be released when he wrote Acts, but something unexpected happened a year later. Many scholars argue that 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-14 on the question of whether women can teach in churches; if it was written by Paul he had to have changed his mind. The external evidence however shows that women were given roles to have in the early church and faced criticisms from non-Christians for it; therefore it seems unlikely that the first or second century church was following this teaching. Furthermore the pastorals are the last of the Pauline epistles to be canonised.

However most agree they do still reflect the theology that Paul taught and followed (except of course for the restrictive roles of women) meaning that they were likely written by someone devoted to Paul's flavour of Christianity. It is possible that Paul wrote them. None of the above points prove absolutely that he didn't, but they lend evidence that supports the view that he did not, therefore making the conclusion that he "most likely didn't write them" the one that most scholars hold. It's held with a level of conviction of course, but it's not absolute - and it's not as strong as the conviction that Paul did write the 7 "undisputed" Epistles.

The Epistles of Peter are considered pseudonymous.

The Epistles of James and Jude aren't; however scholars note that since each author only wrote one letter that survives today it can't be authenticated by their other writings, as can be done with Paul's. Therefore it's impossible to conclude on the evidence alone whether they are genuine or not. Regardless they are not "alleged" authors, the texts claim authorship to James and Jude it isn't "alleged". If they are indeed forgeries they are the earliest forgeries in the Bible and that itself is a problem, because as I explained before the Church doesn't get targeted for persecution until 64 AD; and both James and Jude are alive and well and in Jerusalem until at least 61 AD. So one needs to come up with an explanation of how someone is going to create a forgery while they are still alive and are active in the church leadership, and why they would it.

Scholars generally agree that Jude was written by a person named Judas. They also agree it wasn't Judas Iscariot (the Judas that betrays Jesus). The author himself says he is the brother of James, which indicates he's not the other Apostle Jude.

The Epistle of James is more interesting. There are four main views: 1. It was written by James before or during the period that Paul was writing, 2. It was written by James shortly after Paul's epistles, 3. James wrote an epistle and somebody else reworked it into the Epistle of James, 4. It is pseudonymous. Interestingly no one in scholarly circles holds the view that it was written by some "mystery James". The author doesn't seem to need to explain his identity - just like Paul doesn't need to explain his.

The internal evidence that James the Just is the author is extremely strong. In particular, the teachings in the short Epistle are much more similar to what Jesus is quoted as sayinf in the Gospels than in any other New Testament book - including around 10 direct parallel teachings to the Sermon on the Mount. Almost every thought that James writes down in this epistle can be traced to something Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament. We know that James the Just was an important leader (as important as Peter and Paul) at the time the epistle was written, and he appears to have greater authority in the early church than Peter or Barnabas (Acts 15). And the most likely time this epistle was written is sometime between 45-49 AD (although any date up to the early 60's is technically possible).

What's perhaps most notable about it is just how Jewish it is. Jesus's teachings became progressively less Jewish with the introduction of Paul's epistles, and then the Gospel writers providing their theological views, but the epistle of James is so Jewish that with some exception it could pass off as being a Jewish book and not a Christian book.

So again, James isn't the "alleged" author: He is the most likely author of the epistle. Most likely, but certainly not certain.



Their position is misquoted for one thing. No one is certain of when the gospels are written, and the range of possible dates span from 45 AD all the way through to 95 AD. The really early dates like 45 AD require a proto-Mark document - a version of Mark that pre-dates the present version of Mark. This view can't be ruled out, and Mark is still Mark even if it started as "proto-Mark" it would simply mean what we have now is a later edition of proto-Mark (which by the way is the main view). An early date in the mid 50's for proto-Mark solves a wave of problems that are presented by the synoptic problem. If proto-Mark isn't written until 70 AD or later one needs to find ways to explain all the primitive features in it which get polished and corrected in Matthew and Luke. If it's written in the mid-50's or sooner it's easier to explain. The version of Mark that we have now could well have been written AFTER Matthew and Luke, and the problem that presents is - why bother rewriting it when Matthew and Luke already exist and are much better gospels? Matthew contains 97% of Mark. Why would Matthew be writing to Jewish Christians AFTER 70AD which is after the Jerusalem Church has been destroyed? Those problems get solved if it's written around 60AD. In fact nearly every problem I can think of gets solved if both Matthew and Luke are written around that time: It explains why Mark gets re-written, it better explains why the first-person-narrative in Acts begins in Acts 13, it explains why Acts ends in 61AD, it explains why Matthew is writing his version for Jewish-Christians instead of gentile Christians, it explains why Mark's gospel is so primitive. It also allows the Gospel of John to be written in the correct time-frame with the knowledge of the content of the synoptics but without making direct usage of them, and allowing for the clear difference in literary language which is used by John.

And the so-called early dates do not pose any problem for sceptics. I think in years to come the viewpoint among critical scholars will broaden more.

In any case there aren't absolutes being claimed by most scholars despite Wikipedia implying otherwise.

---

Thanks for the lesson. really, I've learned something new.
However, it doesn't change the gist of the argument - most NT books seem to have not been written by who they are claimed to have been written.
What changes in the theology, if we remove the clearly pseudonymous books?

The majority of what we're left with is from Paul... Pauline christianity...?

Not to interrupt a great discussion, but what books would be left - in your "canon", so to speak?

(September 25, 2015 at 4:50 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 25, 2015 at 4:46 am)pocaracas Wrote: Thanks for the lesson. really, I've learned something new.
However, it doesn't change the gist of the argument - most NT books seem to have not been written by who they are claimed to have been written.
What changes in the theology, if we remove the clearly pseudonymous books?

The majority of what we're left with is from Paul... Pauline christianity...?

Not to interrupt a great discussion, but what books would be left - in your "canon", so to speak?

Just going from Aractus' reply here:
- The 7 undisputed from Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
- 2 Thessalonians can be included
- Epistles of James and Jude

And... I can't see any other.
So, Randy, I deffer to your knowledge: what sort of christianity does that leave us with?

---

To Aractus: About proto-Mark, is it possible that this was just an oral tradition tale that was going around and never got written until Mark, who may have added his own flare to the tale?

Probably the biggest argument against Christianity is the Bible itself. Knowing the Bible and knowing it well is the quickest way to catch a Christian on his/her heels, especially if they're part of the bunch that tries to insist that the Bible is the inerrant and true word of Jehovah.


Jehovah himself is inherently contradictory because of his laundry-list of mutually exclusive powers and personality traits. No all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful being could possibly be responsible for our Universe. For that matter, such a being would never behave the way Jehovah does in the Bible. A not-so-close reading makes it perfectly clear that the Bible was written by Bronze and Iron Age primitives who had no practical knowledge of science, no human rights for women, and no respect for the autonomy of other nations. Even if he did exist, the god of the Bible would be a completely immoral monster if we're to accept what's written about him in the Bible.


There's also the issue of the "inerrant" word of Jehovah containing a shit-ton of factual errors. The creation story is obviously crap; science has pretty well kicked it in the balls with all that "Evolution" and "carbon dating" business. The flood story is also pretty problematic because it would have essentially wiped out the whole planet, even Noah and his boat-animals. The enslavement of the Jews and the Exodus from Egypt completely lack even the most basic archaeological evidence, making it one of the few cases where absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.


Jesus himself is also a problem. Even if you go with the mainstream position that the Jesus of Nazareth character was based on one real guy who was actually crucified by Pontius Pilate, mainstream historians still generally reject most of the gospel as being fiction; any way you slice it, the Jesus of Nazareth character didn't exist in the way the Bible said he did. The real human (if there was one) has less historicity than pretty much anyone, and the Bible version has none at all. At most, his baptism and crucifixion happened, and at worst not one bit of it happened.


The simple point in all of this is that if this much of the Bible is definitely fiction, and the test for salvation is believing the Bible, then it means that whoever created the Universe gave us a book that directly contradicts the reality he put us in and then started damning us for not believing this book in spite of all the contrary evidence he sprinkled throughout the Universe. Such a deceptive test could not possibly be the work of an all-loving, all-powerful deity who never lies.


Edit: Oh yeah, and there's also the issue of Jehovah having generally worse moral guidelines than modern day humans. The god of the Bible barely cares about rape, occasionally encourages genocide, and absolutely loves slavery. If he's the highest source of morality, why does he allow things that modern man deems immoral? Why are these things now morally unacceptable except in the most religious countries?

Lack of evidence and the evidently flawed / insensible logic of Christianity or any other religion should be enough for anyone to disprove them, in an ideal world that is.

(September 25, 2015 at 7:46 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Jesus himself is also a problem. Even if you go with the mainstream position that the Jesus of Nazareth character was based on one real guy who was actually crucified by Pontius Pilate, mainstream historians still generally reject most of the gospel as being fiction; any way you slice it, the Jesus of Nazareth character didn't exist in the way the Bible said he did.

Really Redbeard? So without Jesus who came up with the parable of the "Good Samaritan"? Who gave the parable of the "Prodigal Son"? Who delivered the Sermon on the Mount?

(September 25, 2015 at 7:46 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: The real human (if there was one) has less historicity than pretty much anyone, and the Bible version has none at all.

There's no "if" - scholars unanimously say he existed.

(September 25, 2015 at 7:46 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: At most, his baptism and crucifixion happened, and at worst not one bit of it happened.

No, at worst he was baptised by John, he called disciples, he delivered teachings, and he was crucified by order of Pilate. I'd also say the short version of the Lord's Supper is fairly certain (though whether it was really the Last Supper is certainly up for debate).

At most he taught and said everything that's attributed to him in the gospels. In light of the Epistle of James, and Paul's early epistles (written before any of the gospels even by early dating), we can say with confidence that he delivered teachings consistent with a message of salvation, compassion, reconciliation, and other quite noble themes.

We atheists often categorise him as apocalyptic, and I do believe that's correct, but that's also debatable.

I'm curious: debatable in what way(s)? Apocalyptic views would be strange things to attribute to him after the fact, especially since he is made to say things in the Gospels that clearly didn't come to pass (unless one indulges in some fairly creative interpretation). Besides, if his association with the Baptist is taken as an historical likelihood, then there is an apocalyptic bent to his public life at the very start.

I realize, Aractus, that you also believe he held apocalyptic views, but I have not really encountered any writers who find that interpretation debatable. Can you direct me to someone who makes that argument?

(September 25, 2015 at 5:52 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 25, 2015 at 4:50 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Not to interrupt a great discussion, but what books would be left - in your "canon", so to speak?

Just going from Aractus' reply here:
- The 7 undisputed from Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
- 2 Thessalonians can be included
- Epistles of James and Jude

And... I can't see any other.
So, Randy, I deffer to your knowledge: what sort of christianity does that leave us with?

Essentially the same that we see today and for this reason: Jesus founded an infallible Church which existed long BEFORE the NT was written or formally canonized. So, even without it, the Oral Tradition of the Church would be sufficient to pass along the core message just as it was long before the invention of the printing press.

However, if you are asking whether there are any doctrines that would be missing as a result of removing specific books from the Bible, again, I say that because the writings of the NT were a reflection of what the Church was preaching and teaching orally (ie, baptism of infants, confession of sins to a priest, the real presence in the Eucharist, etc.), everything that we have today was present in the Early Church before inscripturation.

IOW, the NT authors captured on paper what the Church was already preaching; they did not add to what the Church already knew.