(September 10, 2013 at 8:13 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I would think that if the fate of the entire human race hinged upon a collection of Holy writings that accuracy would have been of the utmost importance to every author throughout the canon.

It certainly should've been a priority for the guy who was supposed to be "inspiring" the fucking thing.

(September 11, 2013 at 5:28 am)Tonus Wrote:

(September 10, 2013 at 8:13 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I would think that if the fate of the entire human race hinged upon a collection of Holy writings that accuracy would have been of the utmost importance to every author throughout the canon.

It certainly should've been a priority for the guy who was supposed to be "inspiring" the fucking thing.

Lack of inspiration noted.

(September 10, 2013 at 8:13 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I would think that if the fate of the entire human race hinged upon a collection of Holy writings that accuracy would have been of the utmost importance to every author throughout the canon. Think of how pissed off Trekkies get when you bring up the "ridge-less Klingons" of the Original Series.

they were augments (like Kahn)

and pin point biblical accuracy is not needed. If it were we all would be in trouble.

You, yes. Me? The bible is a pile of shit. No concern of mine but facts are facts.

(September 10, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Or, they were writing before that "christology" developed? Recall that there were many "gospels" which were rejected by the church for one reason or another and the final canon of the bible was not fixed until the late 4th century in the West and even later in the East. Even then, we have evidence that individual books were edited.

But thanks for a reasoned discussion on the issue. So different than what we normally get from the fundies.

The Christology was well and truly under way by Paul's letters (Philippians 2:10, 1 Cor 8:6, Romans 10:13). I hardly need tell you that these are generally dated a couple of decades before the Synoptics. The latter seem to have carefully avoided adding the sort of direct Christological analysis running through John.

Why not add a parable in which Jesus talks about himself, to inspire the faithful? Because it mattered to get it right.

I'm not sure what the rejected gospels bring to that discussion. They all post-date Paul.

Thanks for the comment. I think I may be the sort of Xian that fundie pastors tell their flock to avoid.

---

(September 10, 2013 at 8:13 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I would think that if the fate of the entire human race hinged upon a collection of Holy writings that accuracy would have been of the utmost importance to every author throughout the canon. Think of how pissed off Trekkies get when you bring up the "ridge-less Klingons" of the Original Series.

I'm afraid that the Star Trek reference evades me, but at least I have a new way to annoy any Star Trek fans I might meet.

I think (see above) that accuracy was important to the writers, but then they didn't think they were writing 'Scripture' anyway. For instance, in writing Philemon, Paul was trying to ensure a runaway slave he was very fond of didn't get pounded by his master. Any idea that he was writing something to be put alongside Isaiah or Deuteronomy would never have occurred to him.

The purposes for writing the various books are different, but the Gospels take the bios as the core model and the conventions on accuracy that entailed. The oral records would have been more significant at the time things were being written down.

Quote:I hardly need tell you that these are generally dated a couple of decades before the Synoptics.

Yes, but that is the story which is in dispute.

The xtian writer Justin Martyr writing to the emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 knows nothing about any "paul" or any named gospels. Xtian writers denounce Marcion - whom Justin did know about - and tell us that Marcion's canon included a single gospel and 10 letters of Paul.

Quote:Tertullian claimed Marcion was the first to separate the New Testament from the Old Testament.[15] Marcion is said to have gathered scriptures from Jewish tradition, and juxtaposed these against the sayings and teachings of Jesus in a work entitled the Antithesis.[16] Besides the Antithesis, the Testament of the Marcionites was also composed of a Gospel of Christ which was Marcion's version of Luke, and that the Marcionites attributed to Paul, that was different in a number of ways from the version that is now regarded as canonical.[17] It seems to have lacked all prophecies of Christ's coming, as well as the Infancy account, the baptism, and the verses were more terse in general. It also included ten of the Pauline Epistles (but not the Pastoral Epistles or the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, according to the Muratonian canon, included a Marcionite pseudo-Paul's epistle to the Alexandrians and an epistle to the Laodiceans)[18] In bringing together these texts, Marcion redacted what is perhaps the first New Testament canon on record, which he called the Gospel and the Apostolikon, which reflects his belief in the writings of Jesus and the apostle Paul respectively.

But Tertullian lived after Justin - he was born in 160 and did his heavy writing in the late2d/3d century - and it is clear that the tale had time to evolve by then.

Perhaps the later perpetrators of xtianity decided that Marcion had to go but "Paul's" drivel was salvageable for their purposes?

History and archaeology seem to have worked again.

I really didn't mean to chase her away. This one was interesting.

See what I get for being nice.