Who wrote the New Testament?

[beamishboy]

On this subject, I have read Metzger's book referred to above and FF Bruce, The Canon of Scripture.

Hebrews was not written by Paul. It was by an unknown writer. It's not very clear who wrote the other epistles. There's a dispute. Only the Pauline corpus of 13 epistles was more accepted universally. And the gospels and Acts too. Hebrews got in only because some people were mistaken and they thought it was a part of the Pauline corpus.

Why is there a sudden silence? Did I say something wrong? Correct me then, please.

 

[CShephard53]

On this subject, I have read Metzger's book referred to above and FF Bruce, The Canon of Scripture.

Hebrews was not written by Paul. It was by an unknown writer. It's not very clear who wrote the other epistles. There's a dispute. Only the Pauline corpus of 13 epistles was more accepted universally. And the gospels and Acts too. Hebrews got in only because some people were mistaken and they thought it was a part of the Pauline corpus.

Yeah, tell me you're not trying to say: that Luke and Acts weren't written by Luke, that Mark wasn't written by John Mark, and that John, 1-3rd John, and Revelation wasn't written by John. If you're not, then you've got no argument from me.

 

[beamishboy]

Yeah, tell me you're not trying to say: that Luke and Acts weren't written by Luke, that Mark wasn't written by John Mark, and that John, 1-3rd John, and Revelation wasn't written by John. If you're not, then you've got no argument from me.

Hi jawsmetroid,

We haven't met for ages. Don't think I've forgotten the blessings you gave me when I joined CF in January this year. That helped me start getting my character and armour. I'm always grateful to my benefactors!

I have no problem with the Gospels and Acts. My problem, as I have specified in my earlier post, is with Hebrews. I'm not so worried about author generally but in Hebrews, the incorrect authorship assumed by some in the early church is what led it to be accepted as part of the canon. That is what I'm troubled about.

 

[CShephard53]

Hi jawsmetroid,

We haven't met for ages. Don't think I've forgotten the blessings you gave me when I joined CF in January this year. That helped me start getting my character and armour. I'm always grateful to my benefactors!

I have no problem with the Gospels and Acts. My problem, as I have specified in my earlier post, is with Hebrews. I'm not so worried about author generally but in Hebrews, the incorrect authorship assumed by some in the early church is what led it to be accepted as part of the canon. That is what I'm troubled about.

Ah, goodie. Just checking. You're good! Though I would say that Hebrews does have some fun insights... not any I'd study too in depth myself.

 

[analogmusicman]

I think "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict" is a very good to excellent reference. McDowell definitely cleaned up his previous work.

tnx,

 

[CShephard53]

I think "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict" is a very good to excellent reference. McDowell definitely cleaned up his previous work.

tnx,

Right. I'll let you know when it's viewed as a credible source. That would be never.

 

[jwp]

jawsmetroid again refutes Mcdowells work but give no evidence.

 

[beamishboy]

jawsmetroid again refutes Mcdowells work but give no evidence.

I don't like McDowell's work. For example, on the topic of the canon of the Bible, McDowell cites 4th century lists to show the similarity between those and our NT canon now. But what he does not do is to show the dissimilarities in the other lists eg the Muratorian fragment of about AD 170. He then very cleverly brings in Papias and says that Papias quotes from NT as inspired scripture. What he does not say again is that Papias uses "inspired" very loosely and would include any writing that is inspirational and edifying. He does not say that Papias tells us that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a piece of work "in the Hebrew tongue" and that people are all translating that into Greek in their own way. Papias is implying that the translations are not accurate. This raises a problem. Is our Matthew the same one that Papias heard of. Is ours the original one written in Hebrew and accurately translated later or is it one of the many unreliable translations that Papias talks about?

What I don't like about McDowell is that he mentions names to support a proposition he's partial to. He does not honestly expose the problems that these names should unearth. That is not scholarly behaviour and in any event, no theologian ever looks on McDowell as a scholar. He himself has never claimed to be one.

I think jawsmetroid is being very honest in refuting McDowell. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

 

[jwp]

I don't like McDowell's work. For example, on the topic of the canon of the Bible, McDowell cites 4th century lists to show the similarity between those and our NT canon now. But what he does not do is to show the dissimilarities in the other lists eg the Muratorian fragment of about AD 170. He then very cleverly brings in Papias and says that Papias quotes from NT as inspired scripture. What he does not say again is that Papias uses "inspired" very loosely and would include any writing that is inspirational and edifying. He does not say that Papias tells us that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a piece of work "in the Hebrew tongue" and that people are all translating that into Greek in their own way. Papias is implying that the translations are not accurate. This raises a problem. Is our Matthew the same one that Papias heard of. Is ours the original one written in Hebrew and accurately translated later or is it one of the many unreliable translations that Papias talks about?

What I don't like about McDowell is that he mentions names to support a proposition he's partial to. He does not honestly expose the problems that these names should unearth. That is not scholarly behaviour and in any event, no theologian ever looks on McDowell as a scholar. He himself has never claimed to be one.

I think jawsmetroid is being very honest in refuting McDowell. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

Ok so what is the importance of the Muratorian fragment being omitted in his book? I've never heard of the Mratorian fragment. How does Mcdowell's omission make this book bad or wrong or whatever it is that you need to stay away from it.

What's so clever about citing Papais? Mcdowell? ...doesn't tell us that Papais said that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a piece of work "in the Hebrew tongue" and that people are all translating that into Greek in their own way.

What? Please simplify your point.

...or is it one of the many unreliable translations that Papias talks about? I'm sorry I have no idea who Papias was or his importance to anything. Do you mind explaining this to me?

...He does not honestly expose the problems that these names should unearth. I don't understand your statement, what problems that these names should unearth?

...no theologian ever looks on McDowell as a scholar. Is that bad? Sounds ok to me.. Let me ask you was Jesus a theologian?

What book do you recommend that is similar to Mcdowels?

 

[ebia]

Let me ask you was Jesus a theologian?

Yes.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi ALL , many answers
to me

the Bible is GOD BREATHED .. every WORD that Proceeds out of the MOUTH OF GOD.. Jesus even BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT into the wilderness ..told satan/adversary on the mount of temptation in Matt 4 ; 4But he answering said, `It hath been written, Not upon bread alone doth man live, but upon every word coming forth from the mouth of God.'
also confirming ........
2Cr 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency [is] of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

this being the difference and settling within us , for many hearts including mine

hearing what the SPIRIT is saying
love in Christ ,,C

 

[beamishboy]

Hi Chickapee,

I have a few questions and comments to your post. I'll use a different colour so it's clearer.

Hi ALL , many answers
to me

the Bible is GOD BREATHED .. every WORD that Proceeds out of the MOUTH OF GOD.. Jesus even BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT into the wilderness ..told satan/adversary on the mount of temptation in Matt 4 ; 4But he answering said, `It hath been written, Not upon bread alone doth man live, but upon every word coming forth from the mouth of God.'

That verse simply says that we should live on every word coming forth from the mouth of God. It does not say that the 66 books of our Bible come forth from the mouth of God. The question is how were these books chosen? We know there were errors in the choosing process. For example, Hebrews only got accepted as a part of the Bible because of a terrible error by some people in the early church who thought it was written by Paul. Today, nobody accepts that it's written by Paul. I'm told even fundamentalists don't accept Pauline authorship for Hebrews. Even in the early church, it was accepted by the leaders that Paul didn't write it. That is why it got removed from the Pauline Corpus which stands at 13 epistles to the present day.

also confirming ........
2Cr 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency [is] of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

this being the difference and settling within us , for many hearts including mine

hearing what the SPIRIT is saying
love in Christ ,,C

2 Cor 3:3 makes no reference to the epistles at all. It's talking about the Christians themselves who have God's laws written in them. It would go against your argument because, here, Paul is saying the letter kills. Surely that's hardly a verse you should use to show the NT is the word of God.

The issue is not whether we should listen to God's word. Of course we should. No doubt about that. The issue is how can we be certain the books in our Bible and every sentence therein is from God. The facts seem to indicate otherwise. Books get into the Bible by mistake, eg. Hebrews.

Jude got in even though it has a quotation from 1 Enoch which is an apocryphal OT book. 1 Enoch is not accepted by any Christian denomination and neither is it accepted by the Jews as canonical. Yet Jude quotes it. Jude almost didn't make it into the canon of the NT. But the early church fathers put it in because they were sexists. I can't remember the name of the chap who wanted it in but he wanted 1 Enoch in also. It's because 1 Enoch had a passage on Satan teaching women to put on cosmetics. So those who hate women will lap it up. By the way, I didn't make all this up. I got my facts from Metzger, "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture". FF Bruce is a highly revered evangelical scholar.

 

[beamishboy]

Ok so what is the importance of the Muratorian fragment being omitted in his book? I've never heard of the Mratorian fragment. How does Mcdowell's omission make this book bad or wrong or whatever it is that you need to stay away from it.

What's so clever about citing Papais? Mcdowell? ...doesn't tell us that Papais said that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a piece of work "in the Hebrew tongue" and that people are all translating that into Greek in their own way.

What? Please simplify your point.

...or is it one of the many unreliable translations that Papias talks about? I'm sorry I have no idea who Papias was or his importance to anything. Do you mind explaining this to me?

...He does not honestly expose the problems that these names should unearth. I don't understand your statement, what problems that these names should unearth?

...no theologian ever looks on McDowell as a scholar. Is that bad? Sounds ok to me.. Let me ask you was Jesus a theologian?

What book do you recommend that is similar to Mcdowels?

Hi, if you are interested in studying the Canon of the Bible, particularly the NT, there are two books which are considered the definitive texts on the subject. They are Bruce Metzger, "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture".

Metzger does not transliterate the Greek into English and so it's wise to learn the Greek letters. FF Bruce uses transliteration whenever he quotes the Greek. So, Metzger writes "kanwn" when he wants to say the Greek version of "canon" and FF Bruce writes "kanon". But it's quite easy to learn the letters and they sure look impressive. Hehe.

I started out reading Metzger because I knew FF Bruce to be evangelical. I wanted FF Bruce to heal whatever damage Metzger might have caused. But as it turns out, FF Bruce's book is no different from Metzger. Apparently truly great scholars don't differ in anything. They just present the facts in true scholarly fashion.

 

[CShephard53]

jawsmetroid again refutes Mcdowells work but give no evidence.

Then you must have missed this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Crit...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?q=Criti...ient=firefox-a

Nice try, check the first entry.

Seen just a few posts before your comment.

 

[CShephard53]

Ok so what is the importance of the Muratorian fragment being omitted in his book? I've never heard of the Mratorian fragment. How does Mcdowell's omission make this book bad or wrong or whatever it is that you need to stay away from it.

What's so clever about citing Papais? Mcdowell? ...doesn't tell us that Papais said that he HEARD that Matthew wrote a piece of work "in the Hebrew tongue" and that people are all translating that into Greek in their own way.

What? Please simplify your point.

...or is it one of the many unreliable translations that Papias talks about? I'm sorry I have no idea who Papias was or his importance to anything. Do you mind explaining this to me?

...He does not honestly expose the problems that these names should unearth. I don't understand your statement, what problems that these names should unearth?

...no theologian ever looks on McDowell as a scholar. Is that bad? Sounds ok to me.. Let me ask you was Jesus a theologian?

What book do you recommend that is similar to Mcdowels?

If you expect me to give evidence to bash his book, then you can show us how you came to your conclusions that McDowell is reliable.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi Chickapee,

I have a few questions and comments to your post. I'll use a different colour so it's clearer.



[/B]That verse simply says that we should live on every word coming forth from the mouth of God. It does not say that the 66 books of our Bible come forth from the mouth of God. The question is how were these books chosen? We know there were errors in the choosing process. For example, Hebrews only got accepted as a part of the Bible because of a terrible error by some people in the early church who thought it was written by Paul. Today, nobody accepts that it's written by Paul. I'm told even fundamentalists don't accept Pauline authorship for Hebrews. Even in the early church, it was accepted by the leaders that Paul didn't write it. That is why it got removed from the Pauline Corpus which stands at 13 epistles to the present day.




2 Cor 3:3 makes no reference to the epistles at all. It's talking about the Christians themselves who have God's laws written in them. It would go against your argument because, here, Paul is saying the letter kills. Surely that's hardly a verse you should use to show the NT is the word of God.

The issue is not whether we should listen to God's word. Of course we should. No doubt about that. The issue is how can we be certain the books in our Bible and every sentence therein is from God. The facts seem to indicate otherwise. Books get into the Bible by mistake, eg. Hebrews.

Jude got in even though it has a quotation from 1 Enoch which is an apocryphal OT book. 1 Enoch is not accepted by any Christian denomination and neither is it accepted by the Jews as canonical. Yet Jude quotes it. Jude almost didn't make it into the canon of the NT. But the early church fathers put it in because they were sexists. I can't remember the name of the chap who wanted it in but he wanted 1 Enoch in also. It's because 1 Enoch had a passage on Satan teaching women to put on cosmetics. So those who hate women will lap it up. By the way, I didn't make all this up. I got my facts from Metzger, "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture". FF Bruce is a highly revered evangelical scholar.

Oh Beamishboy
Your a wise young man , thank you for your post
I realize that the letter kills because of how and whom its interpeted ..
If the Spirit of God is not within us as Christs also working within us , we are sure to miss the mark ..

and upon this I will also say that the warning and Im sure it applys to everyone [should put the fear of God in us ]
its only to them whom hear the words of the book warning them not to add to or take away from what is written in the BOOK in rev we see this is in effect even now as we speak Rev 22:18¶For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


God bless you in your searching ..C

 

[jwp]

Then you must have missed this:


Seen just a few posts before your comment.

I saw it before... the first link is from the infidels.com site. Nothing I'm interested in reading.

This lady refutes it because she says there's no empirical evidence for his claims but uses no proof that here conclusions are valid it's mere opinion.
[URL]http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html

The thid link is by SKEPTICS
http://www.skepticfiles.org/mcdowell/etdav.htm

The next link is this no name:
http://www.nocreyentes.org/library/modern/robert_price/


You can see there is no value for digging through that garbage.

Then you ask me to prove something I already believe in for what? For you? No you are the one making the challenge the book is off base, weak and uniformed. Where's your wisdom on this? Show it to me.

 

[jwp]

We know there were errors in the choosing process. For example, Hebrews only got accepted as a part of the Bible because of a terrible error by some people in the early church who thought it was written by Paul. Today, nobody accepts that it's written by Paul.

Really? What was the terrible error in teh early church or the proof that Paul didn't write it? I've never heard this.

I'm told even fundamentalists don't accept Pauline authorship for Hebrews. Even in the early church, it was accepted by the leaders that Paul didn't write it. That is why it got removed from the Pauline Corpus which stands at 13 epistles to the present day.

Ok, so what content problems are there contained in the book of Romans that should discredited it?

I've read it for 30 or more years and find it to be very much in Pauline style and agreement with everything else I read in the bible.



BTW isn't it small thinking to go out in your backyard at night with a telescope and look at the enormity of the Universe and to reflect on who created it. I mean little things like the size of the earth and moon and the sun are still unbelievable in their size. To acknowledge indeed that God created all of this and then to say he can't leave a book behind. That's what all this argument is about really is God is too small to leave a bood behind.

The issue is this "Is his message clearly indicated to us?" Are we at risk of losing our salvation because of the books we read? Can we make our own conclusion based on the agreements of books considered to be the Protestant version of the bible? I don't think so... I don't see any contradiction that impinges on salvation in all of the OT and NT from the PROTESTANT VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABLE TO BE BOUGHT IN EVERY WALMART IN AMERICA.

 

[CShephard53]

I saw it before... the first link is from the infidels.com site. Nothing I'm interested in reading.

So, you're going to call the whole thing 'garbage' when you're not even willing to read a source?

This lady refutes it because she says there's no empirical evidence for his claims but uses no proof that here conclusions are valid it's mere opinion.
http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html

The thid link is by SKEPTICS
http://www.skepticfiles.org/mcdowell/etdav.htm

The next link is this no name:
http://www.nocreyentes.org/library/modern/robert_price/


You can see there is no value for digging through that garbage.

You call it garbage after not addressing a single thing in any of them. And, I might add, after ignoring a source. Not to mention the fact that the first site itself has other sources reference in it:
Evidence That Demands a Refund (2001) by Jeffery Jay Lowder
A review of McDowell's New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
Feedback on Jury (1997?-1999)
Miscellaneous feedback we received on Jury between 1997? and 1999.
Other Critiques of Josh McDowell [ Index ]
Links to critiques of Josh McDowell's other books.
Glenn R. Morton (Off Site)
The ghost author of the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book, Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, Morton is now a theistic evolutionist on the basis of the scientific evidence for evolution.
Josh McDowell Ministries (Off Site)
The official website of Josh McDowell Ministries, which refuses to link to this critique.

Then you ask me to prove something I already believe in for what? For you? No you are the one making the challenge the book is off base, weak and uniformed. Where's your wisdom on this? Show it to me.

I said it wasn't credible. Where is your wisdom in ignoring an entire source?

 

[CShephard53]

Really? What was the terrible error in teh early church or the proof that Paul didn't write it? I've never heard this.

We have no idea who wrote Hebrews. Some think it may have been Paul, but that is not based on enough to be believable. Read any 'Survey of the New Testament' book and you will see that.

Ok, so what content problems are there contained in the book of Romans that should discredited it?

Red herring/Straw man. He did not comment on Romans in your quote of him:

I'm told even fundamentalists don't accept Pauline authorship for Hebrews. Even in the early church, it was accepted by the leaders that Paul didn't write it. That is why it got removed from the Pauline Corpus which stands at 13 epistles to the present day.

I've read it for 30 or more years and find it to be very much in Pauline style and agreement with everything else I read in the bible.

You're not a scholar, and even if you were and tried to say that as evidence, it would be an appeal to authority. What you just stated is a knowledge claim- essentially useless.

BTW isn't it small thinking to go out in your backyard at night with a telescope and look at the enormity of the Universe and to reflect on who created it. I mean little things like the size of the earth and moon and the sun are still unbelievable in their size. To acknowledge indeed that God created all of this and then to say he can't leave a book behind. That's what all this argument is about really is God is too small to leave a bood behind.

Red herring. Stay on topic.

The issue is this "Is his message clearly indicated to us?" Are we at risk of losing our salvation because of the books we read? Can we make our own conclusion based on the agreements of books considered to be the Protestant version of the bible? I don't think so... I don't see any contradiction that impinges on salvation in all of the OT and NT from the PROTESTANT VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABLE TO BE BOUGHT IN EVERY WALMART IN AMERICA.

The issue is that we don't know where Hebrews came from. While it may line up with the rest of the Bible in its doctrines, we don't know if it is legit enough to be considered with the rest of the Bible. It's an assumption either way. Please stop with the Red herrings.