mountainman

Dear Roger,

An interesting conjecture, possibly substantiated by the use of the term "aliens" for those people who refused to subscribe to the authority of the new testament canon and "holy writ", by those who controlled and protected its authority in the fourth century.


Did the new testament have scriptores in the same manner as did the Historia Augusta" (a fourth century fabricated "history" replete with multiple citations to lavish forgeries). Was the new testament a product of collegiate fabrication? Were the books of the new testament redacted from Hebrew and Hellenistic "wisdom literature" by a collegiate team of greek academics?

And of course, as a final question, we should examine the mode of "community renumeration", with such questions as "Were the collegiate team paid by sponsor"? Was there in fact a sponsorship in operation by which the community, of collegiate of fabricators, were guided and controlled? And if so, who sponsored the collegiate production? Which single person in ancient history could fit this description?

What is the earliest time such a collegiate fabrication could have taken place, and what is the latest epoch that such an operation could have occurred in ancient history?

Best wishes,



Pete

Transient

I know where this is going so let's head it elsewhere.
Most likely there was a whole mumbo jumbo of "christianities" before Constantine, from gnostic thru to stuff that might even look close to modern christianity, or should I say catholic christianity.
Along comes Constantine and says "I need a unifying religion here - let's sort out these christianities and make a good 'ole solid religion - and to make it strong we will make it mandatory and get rid of all opposition".
As they say - the rest is history (of course a history that is written by the catholic church which conveniently destroyed all opposing documents - how nice of them).
Then again you could say that they could not be bothered preserving the opposing documents which is a nicer way of putting it - I guess most organizations would have done the same.

fatpie42

The gospel of John is widely recognised as having been written by multiple authors to a much greater extent than the others.

Mark actually has a whole new ending tagged on the end, so that definitely has more than one author.

Sheshbazzar

It really wouldn't matter even if they had been originally composed by single individuals, because once they fell into the hands of the church, they were interpolated and theologically doctored and corrected repeatedly, to the point that any original authors actual words are irrecoverably lost in the morass of church tamperings, same goes for any original writings by "Paul", if he ever existed.
The latter church's filthy fingerprints are on every page, there is not one sentence to be found in the entire NT that can be trusted to be an actual production of its claimed author.

delusional

Now that is claim often made by atheists, but never validated. As for Jesus never existed:

http://midanglican.com/?p=282


Not even the ones that were being quoted as early as 110 you mean?

Part of the problem atheists have is that they can't think themselves into the Christian position. Christian's believe that the Bible is the word of God. Given that belief (which for them is not just a debating point), how free do you think they would have felt to play fast and loose with it?

wordy

Unfortunately I have no link but I trust the following are so well known standard theological theory that you guys who have done this for many years know and will sigh or shake heads.

Here is the theory through my vague interpretation:

If one read some of the stories in the epistles aloud in front of a group of believer and if there is a tradition that has "primed" them or teached them to behave as when we modern folks goes to a movie.

to live the plot, to do as the story say or tells one to do but to be those persons as if one are in a Game SIM City like or Real Life II community, take the role of the person described and either see if from his perspective or from those he address it to.

Example. Paul address the people in Tessalonica??? He thank them and address known persons there and send his personal greetings and then get down to bis. This and that and Jesus in the spirit told me that so and so and now don't be stubborn cause this is direct from Christ himself and I was raised in the spirit and this is to be trusted cause do you remember when I did this and that and I was the one having the authority and if you do as I say all will go well and so on. ... Greetings and hope to see you soon I take next Vimana and fly to you. Paul. ok I tease a bit.

But it is as if kind of ritual play. They do it again and again and again. the whole text is more like a ritual it is not supposed to be as we atheist read it.

It is something you live in faith.


More like when they read Manga now. The Japan culture of imagined stories. They go to them after work and spend hours there and then sleep there and go back to work next morning. It is a way to live a story.

To do as we do here. To ask if it is true or faked or doctored or interpolated and whatever that is to treat it on a level it is not written to hold up to. It is like a Video Game or Simulation. You live it and not ask if it is true.

Not something I recommend or find moral to do. I have never played a Video Game and I never go to Theater to see a Play and I don't do Live Role Playing either.

But if I get it the text in the Bible are a kind of ritual text.

It become true if one do it in faith. One live the text. One get into that world and stay there and the reality outside is "The World" and the world inside the Bible is "God's Kingdom." which they see as Heaven and Earth as Hell maybe.

It is an early version of Game and Role Playing. all of you are more intelligent than me here so the only reason you would fail to get what I try to say would be if I am too confusing. Am I?

DCHindley

Now I would think that even a community can have a single person represent it through a publication. But you are right, what about publication by committee?

If this was the case, what implications would it have for the organization of such an early Christian community or its agenda for having the work published?

Was it really intended to be for edification of the faithful, or as a type of apology for the faith and directed at non-believers, presented in the form of an ancient "bio" (biography)? Just because it was later used to edify the faithful, that may not necessarily mean that was why it was published!

What other possibilities are there? This gets astonishingly little attention. Look at all the ink spilled by form critics and their detactors, who all assume the former (edification of the faithful). I do not think any professional critic has proposed apology as the meta genre.

DCH

delusional

There is no great mystery about why the New Testament texts were written.

The epistles were written to deal with issues which were arising in the church of the day, and you can find out what those issues were by the simple expedient of reading them.

The gospels were written when it began to dawn upon people that the first generation of Christians were beginning to die out, and they had better get something down on paper (or papyrus) before it was too late.

Revelation was written as an attack upon the Roman Empire durind a period of persecution - probably that of Domitian.

Sheshbazzar

You got your mythological Jesus and his magical pole.
I really prefer Jack and his magical Beanstalk.
Who did you -buy- your magical beans from?
If I were really set on ever going up into heaven, I'd be building a rocket, or booking a flight on one.
I certainly wouldn't be trying to get there by using a magical pole and climbing up on the highest pile of shit that I could find.

Not even if they were being quoted as early as 40, crap is crap, whenever it is produced, adding additional crap onto it only makes more crap;
it doesn't magically transform the original pile of crap into gold bricks.
One can closely examine ancient feces and determine what it was that was originally swallowed,
but it still remains feces, and one really oughtn't attempt to swallow it,
feed it to the children, or to the hungry, or try to live on it again.
Sick conduct, that no one ought to need be told is sick.
Been there, done that.

The evidence clearly indicates that early Christians were very free in playing fast and loose with it for a long time-back then
And today, the evidence of Christian Apologetics sites and their highly imaginative arguments show that they have no problem with playing fast and loose with the words of their Gawd today.
They make a veritable talking sock-puppet out of him, shamelessly rearranging, reinterpreting and adding on to and taking away from his alleged words at will.

I don't trust the testimony of these first fabricators, and the conduct and the speech of the now present church, and its members, with their lying testimonies and false claims, is utterly reprehensible, and worthy of all contempt.
Really, it has been the ridiculous and contrived arguments, the evasiveness, and the continual resorting to every devious, underhanded, and unethical debating method that could be devised, by the religious apologist posting in these forums, that has been most effective in turning me against religion and its claims.
The more they talk, and the more they try to explain away, the more evil their positions appear.

aa5874

And your response is typical of apologists.

By the way, can you explain why Eusebius preferred the forged passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 to the passage in Annals 15.44?

No church writer used Annals 15.44 for Jesus sake.

[