| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Neil Kelsey" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2006 12:37:15 PM |
| Object: |
Dumb Bible question |
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the apostles, and
these books were written (from what I understand) after the apostles
would have died. Why then are they called the "Book of John," for
instance? John didn't write the book, did he?
.
|
|
| User: "Edgar A Pearlstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 01:08:07 PM |
|
|
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
NeilKelsey wrote: : > > If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
: > > apostles, and these books were written (from what I
: > > understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
: > > then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
: > > John didn't write the book, did he?
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 01:41:12 PM |
|
|
"Edgar A Pearlstein" <epearlst@unlserve.unl.edu> wrote in message
news:e9gjm7$ctr$1@unlnews.unl.edu...
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
I would just add that the fact that even if there *were* Apostolic names
attached to them from the start, or even if we *had* the 'original'
manuscripts of the four gospels, it would not make them one whit more
'true'. (Would Mat. 27:50-53 be more 'convincing' if Matthew Levi, the tax
collector of Mt. 9:9 [cf. Mk. 2:13-14], had actually written the 'Gospel
According to Matthew'? I hardly think so.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 01:24:43 PM |
|
|
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
NeilKelsey wrote: : > > If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
: > > apostles, and these books were written (from what I
: > > understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
: > > then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
: > > John didn't write the book, did he?
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 04:54:19 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jul 2006 11:24:43 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153160683.024396.233480@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
That does not mean that there have been some plausible guesses as to
their origins, of course.
NeilKelsey wrote: : > > If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
: > > apostles, and these books were written (from what I
: > > understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
: > > then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
: > > John didn't write the book, did he?
:
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 07:47:55 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 03:38:01 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness
to the putative events described. There is no use of the first person,
as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
--
"Laughter is not a sin intrinsically, but it produces sin"
"Homilies - Adversus ebriosos et de resurrectione domini
nostri Jesu" - St. John Chrysostom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 10:35:01 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 18 July 2006 4:38 pm
wbarwell perhaps from wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels.
The names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of
the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was
eye-witness to the putative events described. There is no use of
the first person, as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the
gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not
known either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
The first mention of four gospels was in 170 CE. The first mention of
four gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John was no earlier
than 190 CE.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 04:51:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:38:01 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12bqhl0tduhprd6@corp.supernews.com>
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness
to the putative events described. There is no use of the first person,
as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
You are not really very clear here.
If you mean that the first confirmed appearance of any gospel
according to "John" appeared at around 150AD, then you are right.
But this is a fragmentary page only, and makes no mention of Jesus.
It is quite plainly a part of what we now know as "John", though.
We have to wait much later for any more substantial version to turn
up.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 10:44:00 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 18 July 2006 5:51 pm
Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:38:01 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12bqhl0tduhprd6@corp.supernews.com>
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray < > wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels.
The names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of
the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was
eye-witness to the putative events described. There is no use of
the first person, as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the
gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not
known either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
You are not really very clear here.
If you mean that the first confirmed appearance of any gospel
according to "John" appeared at around 150AD, then you are right.
But this is a fragmentary page only, and makes no mention of Jesus.
It is quite plainly a part of what we now know as "John", though.
We have to wait much later for any more substantial version to turn
up.
--
Are you speaking of P52? If so the fragment is only the size of a small
post card with pieces missing. The only complete word is the word
'kai" which means 'and' (Yeah, I know you know that, but some of the
readers may not.) The most one can say is that some of the letters
seem to be relatively in the same position as a small passage in the
gospel according to John.
For all we know, it was part of some other little tail that later got
assimilated into John's gospel, and may not even be from that gospel.
It could well be the other way around.
And there is no corrabative evidence that this fragment really dates to
150 CE except the say so of some religious paleographers.
But it could well be part of the original gospel of John, or a copy not
far removed. However we have no idea what the missing text might have
been. All we know is that there are some letters that are similar to
those in John, and the word 'and'.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
19 Jul 2006 03:44:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:44:00 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4i5o41F25nucU2@individual.net>
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 18 July 2006 5:51 pm
Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:38:01 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12bqhl0tduhprd6@corp.supernews.com>
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray < > wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels.
The names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of
the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was
eye-witness to the putative events described. There is no use of
the first person, as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the
gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not
known either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
You are not really very clear here.
If you mean that the first confirmed appearance of any gospel
according to "John" appeared at around 150AD, then you are right.
But this is a fragmentary page only, and makes no mention of Jesus.
It is quite plainly a part of what we now know as "John", though.
We have to wait much later for any more substantial version to turn
up.
--
Are you speaking of P52? If so the fragment is only the size of a small
I usually refer to it as Rylands P457, but P52 is apparently an
alternate manuscript number, so yes.
post card with pieces missing. The only complete word is the word
'kai" which means 'and' (Yeah, I know you know that, but some of the
readers may not.) The most one can say is that some of the letters
seem to be relatively in the same position as a small passage in the
gospel according to John.
It has other complete words on the recto:
"oi", "oudena" and "ina" "o"x2 (as well as "kai"), and 4 others the
verso.
Not a lot, but the positions, coupled with some very nearly complete
words flanking them make it fairly clear to me that this is what we
know as John 18.
Both sides correspond pretty well exactly to the positions that the
words would be in if John 18, 31-36 were written recto, and followed
by 37, etc verso.
For all we know, it was part of some other little tail that later got
assimilated into John's gospel, and may not even be from that gospel.
It could well be the other way around.
Quite.
I make no assumptions on that score at all, I merely point out that
this is likely to be the earliest clear extant progenitor to anything
resemling what is no known as the N.T.
Anything claimed to be earlier than this is *****. (Please excuse
the technical term)
And there is no corrabative evidence that this fragment really dates to
150 CE except the say so of some religious paleographers.
True.
It would be great if ANSTO were able to date a tiny fragment of it, as
they were allowed to do to a Buddhist manuscript of the same period.
But it could well be part of the original gospel of John, or a copy not
far removed. However we have no idea what the missing text might have
been. All we know is that there are some letters that are similar to
those in John, and the word 'and'.
Strictly speaking, you are correct.
I think that it is a fair guess that it has some close connection with
the gospel of John, though.
The two are possibly sourced from a similar proto-text, although quite
when is a matter of judgement/guesswork without ANSTO dating.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 05:39:14 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:38:01 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12bqhl0tduhprd6@corp.supernews.com>
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness
to the putative events described. There is no use of the first person,
as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
You are not really very clear here.
If you mean that the first confirmed appearance of any gospel
according to "John" appeared at around 150AD, then you are right.
But this is a fragmentary page only, and makes no mention of Jesus.
It is quite plainly a part of what we now know as "John", though.
We have to wait much later for any more substantial version to turn
up.
I'm curious, Michael. I get the impression that you were working with
the actual original fragments, am I wrong? Was your translating the
gospels part of some sort of job?
If that's the case, it reminds me of a job I used to have, working for
Bill Reid, the famous Haida sculptor. Besides reproducing his
sculptures, the Metropolitan Museum would send artifacts for copying.
Holding a 4,000 year old Chinese jade horse is almost a mystical
experience, I can only imagine what holding a piece of history like a
gospel fragment might be like. At least I wouldn't be as worried about
dropping it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 07:19:48 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2006 15:39:14 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153262354.679369.299840@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:38:01 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12bqhl0tduhprd6@corp.supernews.com>
Elroy Willis wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness
to the putative events described. There is no use of the first person,
as in "I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
As far as I know, the first mention of the idea of a
cannon about 150 shows us by then these gospels were
known and had these names attached to them.
John apparently was fathered on John because that book
mentioned "the disciple Jesus loved" et al, and such hints
at John were taken to mean a hidden clue as to the book's
author.
You are not really very clear here.
If you mean that the first confirmed appearance of any gospel
according to "John" appeared at around 150AD, then you are right.
But this is a fragmentary page only, and makes no mention of Jesus.
It is quite plainly a part of what we now know as "John", though.
We have to wait much later for any more substantial version to turn
up.
I'm curious, Michael.
Ooh, errr...!
Sounds a bit saucy!
I get the impression that you were working with
the actual original fragments, am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.
I am translating from photographs of the original fragments.
The original fragments are securely locked away.
Was your translating the
gospels part of some sort of job?
Nope.
Just for my own edification.
(I don't watch TV, you see!)
If that's the case, it reminds me of a job I used to have, working for
Bill Reid, the famous Haida sculptor. Besides reproducing his
sculptures, the Metropolitan Museum would send artifacts for copying.
Holding a 4,000 year old Chinese jade horse is almost a mystical
experience, I can only imagine what holding a piece of history like a
gospel fragment might be like. At least I wouldn't be as worried about
dropping it.
That's pretty cool!
I have actually held and reviewed several ancient documents in the
Magdalen College Library (Oxford), and it is an awesome 'feeling'.
I didn't drop any of them.
But the fragment of the "John" that I was talking about is held in a
Manchester collection, at the Rylands Library, I think.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 04:47:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:47:55 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6llpb2lh99n7joj7tpta12qkr3uln7hgka@4ax.com>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
You may have been flippant, I don't know, but you are more on the
'theological money' than you may realise.
I get the very strong impression that the NT is a kind of Urban
Legend, with Amway distribution style.
A pyramid urban legend?
(And anyone who says 'pharoah enough...' gets a kick in the backside)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
19 Jul 2006 01:29:59 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
You may have been flippant, I don't know, but you are more on the
'theological money' than you may realise.
I get the very strong impression that the NT is a kind of Urban
Legend, with Amway distribution style.
A pyramid urban legend?
(And anyone who says 'pharoah enough...' gets a kick in the backside)
I definitely see mythmaking for a profit at the center of it. A lot
of it from tourism, and making up stories to get people to come
spend time and money in some spot where some "holy event" supposedly
took place or some "holy person" lived or died.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
19 Jul 2006 06:19:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:29:59 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0utsb2dfrq9pauj82n3in18br3n8aup8pa@4ax.com>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:
You are absolutely right. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The
names that got attached are not authentic.
None of the gospels tell the name of the author (as do some of the
other NT books), and none of them claim that the author was eye-witness to
the putative events described. There is no use of the first person, as in
"I saw" or "we went".
And the names Mark and Luke don't appear anywhere in the gospels.
How did their names get attached to these books then? Is that not known
either?
No one *really* knows.
When quizzed to the very end, the experts are forced to admit this.
I like to compare the problem to modern urban legends, and trying to
track down who first started them. Since I started one myself and
watched it spread, I'm familiar with how it works.
You may have been flippant, I don't know, but you are more on the
'theological money' than you may realise.
I get the very strong impression that the NT is a kind of Urban
Legend, with Amway distribution style.
A pyramid urban legend?
(And anyone who says 'pharoah enough...' gets a kick in the backside)
I definitely see mythmaking for a profit at the center of it. A lot
of it from tourism, and making up stories to get people to come
spend time and money in some spot where some "holy event" supposedly
took place or some "holy person" lived or died.
Why is it that "Lourdes" rings a bell?
And is it merely serendipity that it rhymes with "Frauds"??
Cue Leonard Nimoy: "I think not!"
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
20 Jul 2006 12:21:14 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
I definitely see mythmaking for a profit at the center of it. A lot
of it from tourism, and making up stories to get people to come
spend time and money in some spot where some "holy event" supposedly
took place or some "holy person" lived or died.
Why is it that "Lourdes" rings a bell?
And is it merely serendipity that it rhymes with "Frauds"??
Cue Leonard Nimoy: "I think not!"
Didn't Southpark do an episode about Lourdes?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
20 Jul 2006 08:08:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:21:14 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
- Refer: <5nevb2547d18lein663kviarfpeof0ml07@4ax.com>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
I definitely see mythmaking for a profit at the center of it. A lot
of it from tourism, and making up stories to get people to come
spend time and money in some spot where some "holy event" supposedly
took place or some "holy person" lived or died.
Why is it that "Lourdes" rings a bell?
And is it merely serendipity that it rhymes with "Frauds"??
Cue Leonard Nimoy: "I think not!"
Didn't Southpark do an episode about Lourdes?
I don't know.
(How's that for a snappy comeback?)
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 05:43:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1153157835.832634.296660@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the apostles, and
these books were written (from what I understand) after the apostles
would have died. Why then are they called the "Book of John," for
instance? John didn't write the book, did he?
Many books of the NT are "pseudoepigraphs." They were written by
churchmen who used names familiar to Christians in order to lend the
power of "authority" to what they wanted their listeners to hear. Which
is pretty much common sense. No one in their right mind would listen to
even a third of the BS in those letters unless they thought it was
coming straight from GAWD!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 12:46:38 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
apostles, and these books were written (from what I
understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
John didn't write the book, did he?
The short & sweet answer is that most Christians &
certainly all fundies believe that John was written by John.
Few are aware of any dating issues, and even fewer care.
Most would simply insist that you're confusing the oldest
surviving copy with the first copy, and the bible has
existed intact and in its present form since... well, since
whenever it needed to be in order to confirm everything
they want to believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 02:02:39 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1153158398.426733.182660
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
apostles, and these books were written (from what I
understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
John didn't write the book, did he?
The short & sweet answer is that most Christians &
certainly all fundies believe that John was written by John.
What many don't realize is that it was heavily revised at the Council of
Nicaea, as was much of the rest of the "word of god".
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 12:55:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
apostles, and these books were written (from what I
understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
John didn't write the book, did he?
The short & sweet answer is that most Christians &
certainly all fundies believe that John was written by John.
Few are aware of any dating issues, and even fewer care.
Most would simply insist that you're confusing the oldest
surviving copy with the first copy, and the bible has
existed intact and in its present form since... well, since
whenever it needed to be in order to confirm everything
they want to believe.
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 05:23:23 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
apostles, and these books were written (from what I
understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
John didn't write the book, did he?
The short & sweet answer is that most Christians &
certainly all fundies believe that John was written by John.
Few are aware of any dating issues, and even fewer care.
Most would simply insist that you're confusing the oldest
surviving copy with the first copy, and the bible has
existed intact and in its present form since... well, since
whenever it needed to be in order to confirm everything
they want to believe.
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
Actually, I'm an ex-theist - specifically, ex Christian fundamentalist
- atheist, and what wrote above is pretty much the
right answer to your question.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 09:00:05 AM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1153175003.907062.157890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Neil Kelsey wrote:
wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
apostles, and these books were written (from what I
understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
John didn't write the book, did he?
The short & sweet answer is that most Christians &
certainly all fundies believe that John was written by John.
Few are aware of any dating issues, and even fewer care.
Most would simply insist that you're confusing the oldest
surviving copy with the first copy, and the bible has
existed intact and in its present form since... well, since
whenever it needed to be in order to confirm everything
they want to believe.
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
Actually, I'm an ex-theist - specifically, ex Christian fundamentalist
- atheist, and what wrote above is pretty much the
right answer to your question.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
It utterly astounds me that the majority of hardcore Christians have such an
abysmal knowledge of the bible. I once 'debated' two students right in the
bookstore of the Moody Bible Institute (in Chicago) and just creamed their
*****. How'd I manage to do that, you ask? The students had virtually no
knowledge of the great 'liberal' bible scholars, especially the University
of Tubingen (Germany) guys, (they had never heard of David Friedrich Strauss
[!]) and, thus, were so-much canon fodder. It was a slaughter. They can have
degrees from this Institute or that seminary all the way up their butt. But
if they haven't examined *both* sides of view -- and all the available
evidence -- what real good are their degrees?
An ex Christian fundamentalist turning into an atheist shows that you let
your brain lead you to the truth -- no matter *what* that truth turned out
to be. And that's just how it ought to be.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 04:39:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:00:05 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12bpqbgkkv6ol59@corp.supernews.com>
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1153175003.907062.157890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Neil Kelsey wrote:
wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
If the New Testament consists of books by some of the
apostles, and these books were written (from what I
understand) after the apostles would have died. Why
then are they called the "Book of John," for instance?
John didn't write the book, did he?
The short & sweet answer is that most Christians &
certainly all fundies believe that John was written by John.
Few are aware of any dating issues, and even fewer care.
Most would simply insist that you're confusing the oldest
surviving copy with the first copy, and the bible has
existed intact and in its present form since... well, since
whenever it needed to be in order to confirm everything
they want to believe.
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
Actually, I'm an ex-theist - specifically, ex Christian fundamentalist
- atheist, and what wrote above is pretty much the
right answer to your question.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
It utterly astounds me that the majority of hardcore Christians have such an
abysmal knowledge of the bible. I once 'debated' two students right in the
bookstore of the Moody Bible Institute (in Chicago) and just creamed their
*****. How'd I manage to do that, you ask? The students had virtually no
knowledge of the great 'liberal' bible scholars, especially the University
of Tubingen (Germany) guys, (they had never heard of David Friedrich Strauss
[!]) and, thus, were so-much canon fodder. It was a slaughter. They can have
degrees from this Institute or that seminary all the way up their butt. But
if they haven't examined *both* sides of view -- and all the available
evidence -- what real good are their degrees?
An ex Christian fundamentalist turning into an atheist shows that you let
your brain lead you to the truth -- no matter *what* that truth turned out
to be. And that's just how it ought to be.
Greywolf
This used to surprise me, but I have since discovered a basic reality:
if you want true biblical scholarship, ask an atheist.
I used to be shocked at the high percentage of people who call
themselves "Christian" who had never read more than say, 5% of their
book.
It was until I realised that I was getting it the wrong way around
that it dawned on me:
People who are so intellectually lazy that they cannot be bothered to
read a book all the way past the second page, are naturally attracted
to the church of their parents, as it offers a way to get through life
and being rewarded for never thinking for one's-self!
These lazy idiots are self-selected for belief.
They are not inquiring minds who have been convinced by dint of logic
that this church is the one that makes sense.
Theists are, (overwhelmingly), mentally lazy slobs, who want their
thinking done for them.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 01:19:18 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jul 2006 10:55:59 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
THOSE people don't have the foggiest idea of an answer.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 01:27:16 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 10:55:59 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
THOSE people don't have the foggiest idea of an answer.
Thanks for illustrating my concerns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 01:54:06 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153160836.290003.244230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 10:55:59 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
THOSE people don't have the foggiest idea of an answer.
Thanks for illustrating my concerns.
Jeepers, Neil. Don't start giving this twit credit!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 05:29:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:54:06 -0400, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153160836.290003.244230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 10:55:59 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust to
give an honest answer.
THOSE people don't have the foggiest idea of an answer.
Thanks for illustrating my concerns.
Jeepers, Neil. Don't start giving this twit credit!
He's not intelligent enough to give this "twit" credit. I'm far too intelligent
for him, and I consider him superior to you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
17 Jul 2006 08:56:08 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:54:06 -0400, "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153160836.290003.244230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 10:55:59 -0700, "Neil Kelsey"
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess I want an answer from an ex-theist atheist, whom I trust
to give an honest answer.
THOSE people don't have the foggiest idea of an answer.
Thanks for illustrating my concerns.
Jeepers, Neil. Don't start giving this twit credit!
He's not intelligent enough to give this "twit" credit. I'm far too
intelligent for him, and I consider him superior to you.
Like I just said to Bam, you're a hero in your own mind.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumb Bible question |
18 Jul 2006 05:14:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:56:08 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Like I just said to Bam, you're a hero in your own mind.
Well, you're one that will never be able to disspell my thoughts.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
