A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:takeabow:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hi Everybody...I'm Seeking Biblical Knowledge...
- Thread starter VinDino11
- Start date
:takeabow:
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
WOW...
She sounds like she has a littlle back up pride ..then she admired someone?
Love
Dallas
The OP was "who wrote the Bible?" I answered that question by saying that with few exceptions, all the authors are anonymous.
Basically that translates out to, "Except for Paul, we don't have any of the names of the Biblical authors, though a few titles have been given to the four sources of the Documentary Hypothesis, J, E, P, and D."
Tell you what. If you're REALLY desperate, here's a couple of verses that many interpret as an indication that the Bible is God-breathed.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."(Tim 3:16-17)
However, there are obvious problems with this passage. First of all, all Paul says is "Scripture," which can mean ANY sort of writing. (Remember that back then, writing wasn't as common as it is today.) I've also seen Paul state an obvious dislike for "endless genealogies," which appear frequently in the Bible.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."(Tim 3:16-17)
However, there are obvious problems with this passage. First of all, all Paul says is "Scripture," which can mean ANY sort of writing. (Remember that back then, writing wasn't as common as it is today.) I've also seen Paul state an obvious dislike for "endless genealogies," which appear frequently in the Bible.
Can you confirm this? Experts in this field must have thoroughly examined the Bible and reached your conclusions.
Because I find it bizarre that GOD wouldn't leave His signature if the Bible was truely the covenant. A covenant is a contract that is legally binding, all contracts carry the signature of the Guarantor.
I'll be looking forward to your findings.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Peddle your trash elsewhere. This really is over the top.
I don't understand where this statement comes from.
But thank-you anyways for your input.
And it is from such experts that I have learned of these conclusions, and reading the Bible myself, they make perfect sense.
Here: I'll name one of them: Robert Alter, who translated and commentated on the Torah.
Here's a bit of information about my beliefs: I do NOT believe the Bible to be the Word of God. It is simply a collection of Hebrew and Greek texts. Classic literature, yes, but no more divinely inspired (or historically accurate) than the Iliad.
What findings? I've already stated them in post #12.
Thanks for sharing your belief.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Bold faced lie.
Nice try.
However, your seriously sad attempt has failed.
Please feel free to try again though.
Aslinitato
New Member
You did a fine job there Riverwolf, but on the NT, I would like to expand a bit.
The initial three's style is a result of near-plagiarism. It is believed by biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke copied extremely heavily from Mark, and that the remainder of the books were from a collection of sayings that were written in Greek. At the moment we have no evidence that Q actually exists, and is merely postulated as a result of the unique work in the two pieces of literature. However we do have similar documents that weren't added to the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas.
What we do know about John, as a result of the vastly different attitudes that John has about Jesus' claims to be the messiah, and omitting certain scenes (Such as the Garden of Gethsemane), demonstrates that he has a vastly different opinion of Jesus and his divinity than the other three authors.
In addition, the books have had alterations. Initially, Mark ended at 16:8, just showing the empty tomb, and nobody witnessing the risen Jesus. The next several verses were added later, as the 12 oldest manuscripts we possess have no such lines. This is agreed upon by christian and skeptic scholars alike, and even Christian apologists concede this. (See Lee Strobel).
The identity of the people who added to the text is unknown, and Q was likely the wrote of several authors.
This is actually incorrect. Scholars have doubts about several of his writings.
For instance, although Ephesians is similar to Colossians, it reads more as a tract or manifesto than a Pauline letter. In addition, it is missing a reference to the Second Coming, something that pervades Paul's writings, as well as any emphasis on the cross. Christian marriage is exalted in a way quite unlike Paul, whose opinion of such can be seen in 1Corinthians 7:8-9
In regards to the Timothy epistles, scholar Norman Penn analyzed the original Greek used for the work, and determined that 1/3 of the verbiage utilized in the work is not found in the remainder of the epistles. 2/3 of those words are utilized by 2nd-century authors.
It is argued that although the consistency demonstrates that they are the work of one man, it is more likely that they were all written by an admirer of Paul's than the man himself.
All we know about the likely author is that due to parallels, that person is also likely to have written the Epistles of Polycarp.
Computer studies have supposedly demonstrated that the differences noted by Penn are in fact false, but such works are to be treated with caution, and it is still majority opinion among scholars that the Timothy epistles were not written by Paul. The identity of the supposed other author is unknown.
Due to the fact that scholars find it likely that all the pastoral epistles were written after Paul's death, that means that Titus is not written by Paul either. This is backed up by the fact that the language and literary style are radically different to those you normally see when you read Paul's epistles. Paul's principals also seem more similar to the early Christian church, rather than those of the first-generation apostle. Supposed authorship is unknown, although it has been alternatively dated from 80 CE to the end of the second century.
In addition, skeptics don't see how the life situation in these epistles fits with the biography of Paul constructed by the epistles that are still considered to be genuine.
Scholars are divided on Colossians and 2Thessalonians.
In fact, nearly all modern scholars agree that Hebrews is a letter by an anonymous author. There were doubts at the time as well. This was a result of the fact that all the Pauline works contain a sentence at the beginning confirming that he wrote them, something Hebrews does not have. The writing style is substantially different from other works.
Here are scholars on the issue-
There have been various theories on who wrote Hebrews, but nothing definitive.
In conclusion, these are the epistles that almost entirely agreed to be written by Paul.
Romans
Phillipines
Galatians
Philemon
First-Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The authorship of the others is in dispute. Scholars have not been able to identify any of the hypothetical authors.
You did a good job, but I felt that it would be best to add details, and to note that certain parts of the Pauline letters more in dispute than is portrayed.
The initial three's style is a result of near-plagiarism. It is believed by biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke copied extremely heavily from Mark, and that the remainder of the books were from a collection of sayings that were written in Greek. At the moment we have no evidence that Q actually exists, and is merely postulated as a result of the unique work in the two pieces of literature. However we do have similar documents that weren't added to the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas.
What we do know about John, as a result of the vastly different attitudes that John has about Jesus' claims to be the messiah, and omitting certain scenes (Such as the Garden of Gethsemane), demonstrates that he has a vastly different opinion of Jesus and his divinity than the other three authors.
In addition, the books have had alterations. Initially, Mark ended at 16:8, just showing the empty tomb, and nobody witnessing the risen Jesus. The next several verses were added later, as the 12 oldest manuscripts we possess have no such lines. This is agreed upon by christian and skeptic scholars alike, and even Christian apologists concede this. (See Lee Strobel).
The identity of the people who added to the text is unknown, and Q was likely the wrote of several authors.
This is actually incorrect. Scholars have doubts about several of his writings.
For instance, although Ephesians is similar to Colossians, it reads more as a tract or manifesto than a Pauline letter. In addition, it is missing a reference to the Second Coming, something that pervades Paul's writings, as well as any emphasis on the cross. Christian marriage is exalted in a way quite unlike Paul, whose opinion of such can be seen in 1Corinthians 7:8-9
The style as a whole is quite unlike writings that much likely are from Paul. Defenders make the claim that it was intended to be read by a number of churches and that it marks a new development of thinking by Paul, but the majority of modern textual critics believe it to not be written by Paul. Others believe that it was initially written by Paul, but that there were various interpolations.
In regards to the Timothy epistles, scholar Norman Penn analyzed the original Greek used for the work, and determined that 1/3 of the verbiage utilized in the work is not found in the remainder of the epistles. 2/3 of those words are utilized by 2nd-century authors.
It is argued that although the consistency demonstrates that they are the work of one man, it is more likely that they were all written by an admirer of Paul's than the man himself.
All we know about the likely author is that due to parallels, that person is also likely to have written the Epistles of Polycarp.
Computer studies have supposedly demonstrated that the differences noted by Penn are in fact false, but such works are to be treated with caution, and it is still majority opinion among scholars that the Timothy epistles were not written by Paul. The identity of the supposed other author is unknown.
Due to the fact that scholars find it likely that all the pastoral epistles were written after Paul's death, that means that Titus is not written by Paul either. This is backed up by the fact that the language and literary style are radically different to those you normally see when you read Paul's epistles. Paul's principals also seem more similar to the early Christian church, rather than those of the first-generation apostle. Supposed authorship is unknown, although it has been alternatively dated from 80 CE to the end of the second century.
In addition, skeptics don't see how the life situation in these epistles fits with the biography of Paul constructed by the epistles that are still considered to be genuine.
Scholars are divided on Colossians and 2Thessalonians.
In fact, nearly all modern scholars agree that Hebrews is a letter by an anonymous author. There were doubts at the time as well. This was a result of the fact that all the Pauline works contain a sentence at the beginning confirming that he wrote them, something Hebrews does not have. The writing style is substantially different from other works.
Here are scholars on the issue-
Donald Guthrie said:
Daniel Wallace said:
There have been various theories on who wrote Hebrews, but nothing definitive.
In conclusion, these are the epistles that almost entirely agreed to be written by Paul.
Romans
Phillipines
Galatians
Philemon
First-Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The authorship of the others is in dispute. Scholars have not been able to identify any of the hypothetical authors.
You did a good job, but I felt that it would be best to add details, and to note that certain parts of the Pauline letters more in dispute than is portrayed.
I know that, but I was worried that my post would run too long. Thanks for posting this.
Seems like several authors is a Biblical trademark. lol
Thank you for the correction.
Thank you for the extension. I actually don't know much about Paul's letters, which is why I wasn't able to portray much detail. Would you mind citing some sources, because I'd like to read more on the subject.
No it hasn't in your case. You either forgot to address the OP or don't know the answer, and you couldn't have made your disposition any clearer!!!
This I have to strenously disagree with. I'm far from an expert in OT historical criticism, but my understanding is that a good deal of it (comparatively) is considered historically accurate, whereas the illiad is virtually worthless as a historical source.
As for the gospels, they are FAR more historically accurate than the illiad. On the other hand, the illiad is far better literature. I still have the first several lines memorized all the way back from greek 202 as an undergrad.
If I can be of help yes!
While technically accurate the negative semantic load of this term would not have been in the minds of the authors' audience. Copying, with or without citation, paraphrasing or no, was very common.
Not entirely correct. For one, evidence from research into the reliability or oral transmissions makes it possible (and some scholars have argued for it) that Q was an "oral text" so to speak.
Second, both Matthew and Luke have material unique to each (often called M and L in NT scholarship).
That is almost certainly part of it. However, each author not only had his/her own opinions, they also had an audience. John's gospel is the most theological in nature, and shows perhaps the most redaction of the Jesus tradition. He was clearly addressing specific issues which were present in either his community or in the christian community at large (some have postulated his work addresses a proto-gnostic christology/theology/cosmology).
The synoptics on the other hand show more interest in preserving the tradition as is (Matthew being the most likely to show redaction of the three). Mark's gospel does rather resemble a work such as the one Papias describes John Mark as writing (whereas our matthew is clearly not the one he was talking about, being originally written in greek, not hebrew). Luke is the most self-consciously historical, and his comments in the prologue to luke and acts place him squarely in the greek historical tradition.
In other words, the gulf between John and the synoptics is partly to be explained by their respective dates, audience, and styles, not just beliefs and access to particular traditions.
The typo here makes it difficult to understand you (I hate to point out such mistakes, particularly since I make them constantly, but I would like to know what you are trying to say here).
I've seen many sources (can't remember them at the moment) which say that the events in the Torah are fully myth, citing the fact that none of the reported events have parallels in other civilizations' writings. (I'm not talking about the Genesis myths here, which do have very striking parallels in other mythologies; I'm talking about Exodus onward.)
I dunno. The Gospels are beautiful stories, but the narrative is so heavily borrowed from other myths (the myth of focus being the Osiris myth of Egyptian mythology) that it's pretty clear that it is fiction, even though most scholars agree that there was a man named Jesus (Yeshua) who went around teaching some of the things that the gospels record.
However, the Trojan War was an historical event; it's just that they were fighting over trade routes instead of some woman.