Part 16 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

I believe the Gospel of John was written by the disciple/apostle John...what I don't count?...lol

Again you are just spouting off falsehoods, critics of the Bible are famous for doing that.

 

Perhaps you should read this and keep up with events. If you had studied widely you would have come across this years ago. Of course you won't like it

Jerusalem scholars trace Bible's evolution
Hebrew University researchers have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies – publishing authoritative edition of Old Testament

Jerusalem (AP) – A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: The sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.

An ancient version of one book has an extra phrase. Another appears to have been revised to retroactively insert a prophecy after the events happened.

Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies – publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.

And it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary.

For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. For Orthodox Jews, the accuracy is considered so inviolable that if a synagogue's Torah scroll is found to have a minute error in a single letter, the entire scroll is unusable.

But the ongoing work of the academic detectives of the Bible Project, as their undertaking is known, shows that this text at the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was somewhat fluid for long periods of its history, and that its transmission through the ages was messier and more human than most of us imagine.

The project's scholars have been at work on their critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, a version intended mainly for the use of other scholars, since 1958.

"What we're doing here must be of interest for anyone interested in the Bible," said Michael Segal.

 

Yeppir... in that specific case, he is even leaning on the beliefs of other people... seemingly not even his own belief. Good post MR.

 

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous. It was not attributed to Matthew until the 2nd century. What you believe may not be what is known.

 

2nd century... hmmmm... that would mean that the Gospel of Matthew has survived the scrutiny of many billions of people over a period of round about 1800 + years... I would say that is a pretty good track record.

 

So would I, but that doesn't mean the authorship is right. Who wrote 'Romeo and Juliet'? Shakespeare, or as some believe, Bacon. No matter, it doesn't alter the fact that it is a good play.

 

Repeating your claim over an over again to yourself like a broken record is not proof for that claim.

The reason why your opinion does not count is because it has no proof to back it up. Where is the proof for your claim or even reasonable arguments that support your claim?

Demonizing me "spouting falsehoods" does not constitute proof for your claim, especially when all I have done is shown you what is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I) Titles of the Gospels.—The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenaus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies, whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy ... did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was ‚Äòaccording to this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels

I am sure this is upsetting to you but why shoot the messenger. If you do not like the message then prove it wrong.

 

Considering it was made illegal for regular people to even own a Bible and then due to the Churches destruction of knowledge almost all people were illiterate (even some Priests) such that they could not read the Bible, and that anyone who challenged scripture could face torture and death ...

I would hardly call that "scrutiny" never mind a good track record of scrutiny.

 

Now what are you blubbering about. Which of "my own beliefs" do you refer.

Coming from a fellow that believes the Bible is not the "Word of God" and that all scripture is man made so that it is all errant ... Too funny.

 

Well applying the same operation toward the Gospel of Matthew: No matter. it doesn't alter the fact that it is a good reading session.

 

I said nothing about "my own beliefs".. I referenced "his own beliefs". so you are now suggesting that it is not OK for me to agree with someone who is standing in opposition to you and your ilk?

 

Do Christians believe only human sexuality should be dealt with through any form of "compelling public interest" but not the abomination of hypocrisy through any form of "compelling public interest"?

 

Nope ... you said "his own beliefs" referring to me. What beliefs were you referring to ?

 

Is the writer referring to actual lions or young men?

Do you think god takes time out of his busy daily schedule to answer prayers like this? ( well I guess if he has time to answer Tim Tebow's prayers for football help he might actually have time for this kind of prayer also )

 

Does this actually mean that menstruating women are not to be touched for seven days? Or does it just mean no sex for seven days? And why would we find topics such as these in what is to be considered an holy book?

 

So If I understand this correctly we should kill folks who "curse" their parents ...

But to be a follower of Jesus you have to hate your parents... does this make any sense?

 

The Tim Tibow clown show:

Matt 6

 

What happened to all the unicorns in the old testament?

 

They are still around... they just go by a different name now.

 

Closed ~ Surpassed post capacity