What is the purpose of life? [moved]

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you're a little late to the conversation, but for the record, the argument is that:

1. Matthew didn't write Matthew ... someone else did.
2. Mark didn't write Mark ... someone else did.
3. Luke didn't write Luke ... someone else did.
4. John didn't write John ... someone else did.

The argument I've seen us that the gospels have not been altered, not that the original authors were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If that's your claim then that has also been pretty much debunked.

The main point is this:The original story of Christianity was not authored in the second century, nor was anything embellished.

The New Testament was finished in AD 96, with the book of Revelation.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were real men, who were inspired to write the Gospels that bear their names, and died martyr's death for refusing to recant.

Are you denying that the gospels have been altered since they were written? Nobody has added to them or taken parts out? The evidence says some of the gospels have been altered. Perhaps you should do some research.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because the two commandments of Jesus still stand.

Jesus only made two commandments? You have a very different Bible to mine - one of them has obviously been heavily redacted. Which would, of course, be more evidence in support of my argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not compose the Gospels attributed to them. Others did and no one knows who. Google it--read peer review sources--you'll see.

Wikipedia and others maintain the SS* version of how we got our Gospels.

* seducing spirits

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus only made two commandments? You have a very different Bible to mine - one of them has obviously been heavily redacted. Which would, of course, be more evidence in support of my argument.

I think he's referring to this:

Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you're a little late to the conversation, but for the record, the argument is that:

1. Matthew didn't write Matthew ... someone else did.
2. Mark didn't write Mark ... someone else did.
3. Luke didn't write Luke ... someone else did.
4. John didn't write John ... someone else did.

The main point is this:The original story of Christianity was not authored in the second century, nor was anything embellished.

The New Testament was finished in AD 96, with the book of Revelation.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were real men, who were inspired to write the Gospels that bear their names, and died martyr's death for refusing to recant.

They may have been real men, but the Gospels traditionally attributed to them are anonymous. You can believe if you like that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels, but nothing in the Gospels themselves requires it.

 

[AV1611VET]

They may have been real men, but the Gospels traditionally attributed to them are anonymous.

There's a much easier way to avoid all this rigmarole of who wrote what:

Just employ verbal plenary inspiration and say God wrote them -- which He did.

 

[Speedwell]

There's a much easier way to avoid all this rigmarole of who wrote what:

Just employ verbal plenary inspiration and say God wrote them -- which He did.

Both approaches are ugly and unworkable. The best thing to do is to read them for content.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both approaches are ugly and unworkable.

Meaning the secular explanations are beautiful and work for you?

 

[Speedwell]

Meaning the secular explanations are beautiful and work for you?

The secular explanations are what they are. The Gospels are real texts with real histories which can, in principle, be determined by scholars. Your so-called "plenary verbal inspiration," has no effect whatever on such a determination. It's an unfalsifiable proposition which conveys no useful information about the content.

 

[AV1611VET]

The secular explanations are what they are. The Gospels are real texts with real histories which can, in principle, be determined by scholars. Your so-called "plenary verbal inspiration," has no effect whatever on such a determination. It's an unfalsifiable proposition which conveys no useful information about the content.

Using the content to discredit the writer is like using Humpty Dumpty to discredit the existence of Lewis Carroll.

 

[Speedwell]

Using the content to discredit the writer is like using Humpty Dumpty to discredit the existence of Lewis Carroll.

Who is using the content to discredit the writer? The content is what is important. Your imaginary ideas about inspiration and authorship do more to discredit the content than any secular scholar.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who is using the content to discredit the writer?

Academia.

Didn't you say this?

The Gospels are real texts with real histories which can, in principle, be determined by scholars.

 

[Speedwell]

Academia.

No, Academia can't discredit the content, only fanciful notions about authorship.

Didn't you say this?

I did. Don't you agree? Or do you think the texts just popped into existence last Thursday?

 

[AV1611VET]

I did. Don't you agree? Or do you think the texts just popped into existence last Thursday?

Would it matter if the texts just popped into existence last Thursday?

Historians would eventually discredit them with the same arguments as the ones they use for the verbal plenary texts.

 

[Speedwell]

Would it matter if the texts just popped into existence last Thursday?

Historians would eventually discredit them with the same arguments as the ones they use for the verbal plenary texts.

I'm not sure how you think historians are discrediting the Gospels by being honest about provenance and authorship. It appears to be that all they are discrediting is your fanciful ideas about provenance and authorship which are not in any case essential to the truth of the Gospel message. Who cares of the disciple Matthew actually wrote the Gospel which some unknown person attributed to him? the Gospel itself doesn't make the claim that Matthew himself wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure how you think historians are discrediting the Gospels by being honest about provenance and authorship.

But they aren't being honest.

Their argument goes like this: Matthew didn't write the book of Matthew; but as to who did write it, we don't know.

If you don't know who wrote it, how can you say Matthew didn't?

It appears to be that all they are discrediting is your fanciful ideas about provenance and authorship which are not in any case essential to the truth of the Gospel message.

As I just pointed out, it wouldn't matter how the texts came about -- verbal plenary, last Thursday, or anything in between -- historians would still discredit them.

Who cares of the disciple Matthew actually wrote the Gospel which some unknown person attributed to him?

Because Matthew's name is right above the first verse.

In very large font that would be akin to shouting on the Internet.

In other words, even though the Bible screams his name, academia can't hear it.

... the Gospel itself doesn't make the claim that Matthew himself wrote it.

Would it matter if it did?

Paul claims he wrote his texts, and academia isn't listening.

 

[Speedwell]

But they aren't being honest.

Their argument goes like this: Matthew didn't write the book of Matthew; but as to who did write it, we don't know.

If you don't know who wrote it, how can you say Matthew didn't?

Nobody says he absolutely didn't write it, it just seems unlikely as it was probably not composed before 70 AD.

As I just pointed out, it wouldn't matter how the texts came about -- verbal plenary, last Thursday, or anything in between -- historians would still discredit them.Because Matthew's name is right above the first verse.

In very large font that would be akin to shouting on the Internet.

In other words, even though the Bible screams his name, academia can't hear it.Would it matter if it did?

"The Bible" may scream his name, but the text of the Gospel (of which the title is not a part) does not. Only the text is inspired.

Paul claims he wrote his texts, and academia isn't listening.

The text of some of the letters attributed to Paul make that claim, and a few of those claims are disputed. So what? The letters were elected to the Canon on the strength of their content, not necessarily on the basis of their attributed authorship--which in some cases was regarded as uncertain even at the time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody says he absolutely didn't write it,

Except posts like Post 100, right?

The text of some of the letters attributed to Paul make that claim,

Good grief.

Just say Paul wrote it.

... and a few of those claims are disputed.

Anything can be disputed nowadays.

So what? The letters were elected to the Canon on the strength of their content, not necessarily on the basis of their attributed authorship--which in some cases was regarded as uncertain even at the time.

The letters were separated from the fake news letters at some council meeting (in 325 or thereabouts).

God separated the wheat from the chaff.

Can you take a room full of one, two, three, four, five ... ten-dollar bills and separate them into two piles: one called LEGAL TENDER and the other called FAKE MONEY?

That's what was done at that council.

They didn't make a book of authorized canon, they made a canon of authorized books.

In other words, God authorized His books long before, then separated them from the fake books that started getting mixed in with them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's a much easier way to avoid all this rigmarole of who wrote what:

Just employ verbal plenary inspiration and say God wrote them -- which He did.

That would make God responsible for the inconsistencies between them - careless or deliberate?

 

[AV1611VET]

That would make God responsible for the inconsistencies between them - careless or deliberate?

Academia is responsible for the inconsistencies between them.

Deliberate.

"Yea, hath God said?"

Sound familiar?