Blue_Metal

Some guy at my high school said it was written by non-christians, is he right? I called him an idiot, but I would have anyway.

Blue

Egoinos

Maybe he meant that they thought of themselves as Jews rather than Christians? Seems rather an odd thing to say, though...

Blue_Metal

I know! I was like, What! He also claims that the gosples were written by Luke, Mark...

Blue

Toto

Does he believe that the Bible is accurate (at least some of the time?)

From Acts 11:26:

"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch". This indicates that they may have been known by some other name before that time or in other places.

The term "Christian" is also used in 1 Peter 4:16;

"However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."

This would seem to indicate that at least some of the people who wrote the NT thought of themselves as Christians, rather than as Jews.

Paul never seems to use the word "Christian" and came from a Jewish background. But he does not appear to consider himself a Jew after his conversion:

1 Corinthians 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."

It is an interesting question. Modern historians (who do not necessarily treat the Bible as gospel truth) seem to think that the Christians operated as a sect of Judaism until late in the first century (too lazy to look the date up.) Most of the NT was probably written after that time, however, based on the number of unflattering references to the Jews.

RyanS2

1 Peter, if one is to accept Burton Mack as an expert on this matter, is a forgery in the name of Peter. This writing is dated as being very late. What is generally conceded as happening was that there were schisms in the early Church, one which was going towards Hellenized Christianity, (Paul's version), and one sticking with Christianity as being an extension of the Old Testament. (Still requires circumcision, still can't eat certain animals, etc.)

There's some obvious examples of this in the Bible, and the dissention.

Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

However, Paul is being sarcastic here. The literal translation of the Greek is 'those who seem to be pillars', as given above. However, Paul was fully aware of their status, and was being sarcastic. This is also true of him calling Peter, "Cephas". The best translation I have come across is NEB which has 'those reputed pillars of our society'.

Why was this? At Corinth (1 Cor 1:12) there is trouble when some proclaim adherence to Paul, others to Apollos, others to Cephas. In 2 Cor 11:5 Paul is sarcastic about the efforts of “superapostles” in a church he founded.

Such danger of conflicting authority causes him to avoid building upon another man’s foundation (Rom 15:20), although others build upon his foundation (1 Cor 3:10). He then makes it clear that it's time they all preached the same Gospel: “Whether then it was I or they, so we preached and so you believed” (1 Cor 15:11).

Paul is critical of the status of such “pillars”—"What they were makes no difference to me" (Gal 2: 6,9), but he does recognize something important, in that if they don't like him, they can greatly hamper his efforts.

Refusal by Peter, James, and John to accept the Gentiles without circumcision would have ruined Paul’s efforts to keep the Gentile churches in communion with the Jewish churches. So, it is important that these figures extend the right hand of fellowship to Paul (Gal 2:7-9). I think it's after Paul and the apostles get into it that Christianity becomes "Christianity", having seperate branches and one being more "Hellenized" than the stricter observation under Judaism. That's my 8 yen anyway....

Toto

All the more reason to assume it was written by a self-identified Christian.

CX

Xians were considered a sect of Judaism until at least the second century. The writers of the gospels are unknown to us but based on the texty evidence it seems likely to be as follows:

GMk written by a diaspora Jewish convert (probably 2nd or 3rd generation descendent of early converts) who had never lived in Palestine around 70 C.E.

GMt written by a Palestinian Jew using GMk and another written source around 80-90 C.e.

GLk written by a Gentile convert (possibly a disciple of Paul) around 85-95 C.E. using GMk and either the written source used by AMt or GMt directly

GJn written by a 2nd or 3rd generation elder of the early Xian Church (possibly Presbyter John spoken of by Papias) around 90-95 C.E.

It seems likely that only GJn was written by someone identified as "Xian" as the others are early enough and the evidence indicates that they were written before that term came into common usage. All early Xians were either Jews or Gentiles converts to a reformed sect of Messianic Judaism. It wasn't really until the tail end of the 1st century or the beginning of the second century that Xianity began to distance itself from Judaism and began to be recognize by pagan authorities as a different religion.

sidewinder

The NT was written entirely by Christians but these Christians came from different Christian groups, which explains some of the contradictions in the NT.

sixtoo

Who wrote the NT?? One source is the educator, Edith Hamiltons book, "Witness to the Truth" in which she covers with logic and resoning how and when the four gospels were put together.

Vorkosigan

GLk written by a Gentile convert (possibly a disciple of Paul) around 85-95 C.E. using GMk and either the written source used by AMt or GMt directly

So you don't buy a Luke-josephus link? And why do you date John so early? I wouldn't put it earlier than 120, although there may be a core that is earlier.

Michael