Old vs. New Testament?

POM, being similarly afflicted (an Ex-Catholic) , The Catholics realize that the New Testamnent was a "made up" document that was, from 1 and 2 Timothy , as merely equal in importance as "Church Tradition".
Since the authors of the books of the NT were not working as a "loop group" with any continuity in mind, the only thing they had for such continuity was the OT. All the stories , and traditions were assembled by the Church , much later. So, all the talk of "end times" etc come from the NT reinterpreting books like DAniel. Fundamentalists will arge till a nice shade of blue but they havent been able to be convincing about How a book that , while being written as a collection of loose papers and letters, were not in any order or based on any continuity.
If one were to forensically look at Matthew and the other of the Synoptics, one would be hit by the "questioned document" experts that here were a bunch of guys with wayy different opinions about the historical Jesus.

I think it was Lewis Black that said, "the difference between the OT and the NT is that after Macabees, God started some anger management"

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If one were to forensically look at Matthew and the other of the Synoptics, one would be hit by the "questioned document" experts that here were a bunch of guys with wayy different opinions about the historical Jesus.

You want to give a specific example of this supposed discrepancy?

You tried this once before, (as I recall), without much success, after reading some author who claimed that Jesus, (as presented by Mark), was 'out of the loop' and had not a clue regarding His death; and instead we located 4 passages in Mark where Jesus specifically said that He EXPECTED to be killed by the Jews.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47010&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gospel+mark&start=6230

0 Replies

RL I never called you on those because it was silly and I didnt want to dignify another exegetitical exercise. However , the centurion quote was also from Matthew,, and was almost word for word in MArk, as one would transcribe if one was the originator of that line. Since Marks Gospel has 2 endings , a short AND A LONGER ENDING, it gives the readers a strightforward testament that Crist was killed , buried and then went missing. The longer version, clearly a later addition adds some embellishment of Christs appearance to Mgdelene and some disciples as well as his Resurrection.
The Centurion line , has , in the opinions of not a few scholars of Bible history (people specifically trained in this area of "historical accounting")was a later embellishment, because its so "out of language style" of the rest of the document. It was inserted as almost an afterthought.

Im a clear skeptic but , if you view the Gopels from a forensic point of view, there are inconsistencies as well as later additions and embellishments.

MARK, being a relative of one of the remaining living disciples, got his stuff strait on, the other 2 synoptics merely capture some of Marks statements.

The Ctholic Bible, in its leaning on 1, and 2 Timothy for most of its Biblical authority for its Church, recognizesthat the Bible, rather than being fully inerrant and a "stand alone" cookbook , is an attempt at historiical documentation, often by means that would bve considered plagiarism and just Made up , by todays standards. It was a document that, along with tradition, is a composite work of divinely inspired people through AD time.

0 Replies

i have always wondered about that centurions quote. I mean if there are supposedly earthquakes, and storms and everyone is running and screaming, who would have time to hear one person say somethin like that, expecialy more than one. Also he wasnt being charged for saying he was god hewas being chanrged for caliming he was king of the jews.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

If one were to forensically look at Matthew and the other of the Synoptics, one would be hit by the "questioned document" experts that here were a bunch of guys with wayy different opinions about the historical Jesus.

You want to give a specific example of this supposed discrepancy?

You tried this once before, (as I recall), without much success, after reading some author who claimed that Jesus, (as presented by Mark), was 'out of the loop' and had not a clue regarding His death; and instead we located 4 passages in Mark where Jesus specifically said that He EXPECTED to be killed by the Jews.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47010&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gospel+mark&start=6230

That's what I get for not following that evolution thread more closely. I could have helped you out here. Really! Laughing

Except I would have had to distance myself from your trinitarian rant.

0 Replies

you talkin to me sparky boy?

Im here to take it all in. I yield to the historical accounts. Ive got no axe to grind in this area, Im just full of opinions and I freely admit that I read guys like Ruse and Thompkins, and a number of historiogrphic accounts. The only thing that I get torqued offd about is righteous smugness.
fORENSIC EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTS in the Bible fascinate me(not that Ive got time to spare, but when Im teaching, I sometimes hang around with the people in the divinity College and hear their takes on Fundamentalism and Millenialist thinking)

As far as the Evolution thread, ITS DEAD, one of our more passionate posters, (Rex) got it closed down (with some major help by Frank thePizza)

0 Replies

That was a fun thread, farmer.
Ain't seen Frank for a while.
Ahh, the good old days.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Im a clear skeptic but , if you view the Gopels from a forensic point of view, there are inconsistencies as well as later additions and embellishments.

MARK, being a relative of one of the remaining living disciples, got his stuff strait on, the other 2 synoptics merely capture some of Marks statements.

I think most modern theologians agree that the longer ending to Mark was added later and was not part of the original document. Among the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke--John is too different to be included and contradicts the others on various unimportant details--you will find documents produced to present a particular theological point of view, each slightly different from the others.

John Mark is generally thought to be a son of a woman in the Jerusalem congregation but he is not claimed to be a relative of any of the Disciples. Peter referred to him as 'my son', but it is generally thought that this was recognition of John Mark as his follower, student, convert, or whatever and not that John Mark was his flesh and blood son. It is thought, however, that John Mark is the probable author of all or most of the Gospel of Mark.

The interesting thing in the synoptics is that you find passages that are unique to Matthew and found nowhere else, and you will find passages in Luke that are unique to Luke and found nowhere else. Yet almost all of Mark is included in both. Matthew and Luke will disagree with each other and in unimportant details will disagree with Mark. But at no place do Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark.

Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and this probably accounts for its brevity and that it includes much less detail. Matthew almost certainly used Mark for its basis but included additional notes and transcripts and focused on the history and prophecies much more than did Mark. Luke also almost certainly used Mark for its basis but included additional notes and transcripts and focused on Jesus ministry, the miracles, the people, and the responses to Jesus's humanity.

(The Gospel according to Foxfyre)

0 Replies

Why didnt they include all the Gosples then, Gosple of Judas, Gosple of Mary Madgdalene, Gosple of Peter...

0 Replies

Miss Magdalene's was too hot for them.

0 Replies

Those crazy catholics. Razz

The actual reson is they didnt want women to have any place in the church.

0 Replies

EpiNirvana wrote:

Why didnt they include all the Gosples then, Gosple of Judas, Gosple of Mary Madgdalene, Gosple of Peter...

The conventional wisdom is that if they could not trace the manuscript to a credible author or otherwise verifiable written accounts, it didn't qualify as scripture. There was much debate wheher to include the many MANY other writings, but as the Jews had taken care to avoid unverifiable or corrupting text to make its way into their scriptures, the Christians were doing the same. From the Second Century on, these debates raged and gradually various writings were accepted as authentic and verifiable at least by the majority of bishops and church leaders who were making these decisions.

Even when the New Testament, mostly as we have it today, was nailed down many centuries later, there was not complete unity in which of the writings were authentic and this is why the New Testament was never formally canonized. Those in the Catholic and Anglican apocrypha, for instance, were accepted as less verifiable/authentic than the other manuscripts but still contained sufficient authentic material to be included. Most Prostestant denominations do not include the apocrypha in the Bible however.

Was Scripture written that didn't make it into the Bible? Almost certainly there was (and still is). Should any of the manuscripts included in the Bible have been omitted? I'm not going to tackle that one, but do enjoy debating it.

0 Replies

In modern times, books written during the New Testament era were discovered, telling variants of the accepted NT. Many of those documents were carefully hidden, which implies that there may have been a reason to protect them. Was it warfare among the various sects? Was it to protect the work from the Romans?

Of course, that act of hiding gives rise to the classic treasure hunt, with something hidden in such a way that finding it requires a combination of luck and code-breaking abilities.

What seems obvious is that there was strife among the various sects that were ancestral to Christianity.

0 Replies

The Book of Murray is one thatbrings it all together.

0 Replies

The Catholic version states hat John Mark ws the nephew of Barnabas.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The Catholic version states hat John Mark ws the nephew of Barnabas.

And perhaps he was.

The Christian History Institute says:
"John Mark, cousin to St. Barnabas, and a disciple of his, was the son of a Christian woman named Mary, who had a house in Jerusalem, where the apostle and the faithful generally used to meet. Here they were at prayers in the night, when St. Peter, who was delivered out of prison by the angel, came and knocked at the door; and in this house the celebrated church of Sion was said to have been afterward established."

As other commentaries agree, I think it is likely that Barnabas and John Mark were related.

When John Mark left one of the missionary journeys, Paul looked on it as desertion. Then Paul and Barnabas had a major falling out when Barnabas wanted to bring John Mark along on another journey and Paul objected. And from that point on Paul was the undisputed chief evangelist among the church leaders of his time.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL I never called you on those because it was silly and I didnt want to dignify another exegetitical exercise. However , the centurion quote was also from Matthew,, and was almost word for word in MArk, as one would transcribe if one was the originator of that line. Since Marks Gospel has 2 endings , a short AND A LONGER ENDING, it gives the readers a strightforward testament that Crist was killed , buried and then went missing. The longer version, clearly a later addition adds some embellishment of Christs appearance to Mgdelene and some disciples as well as his Resurrection.
The Centurion line , has , in the opinions of not a few scholars of Bible history (people specifically trained in this area of "historical accounting")was a later embellishment, because its so "out of language style" of the rest of the document. It was inserted as almost an afterthought.

Im a clear skeptic but , if you view the Gopels from a forensic point of view, there are inconsistencies as well as later additions and embellishments.

MARK, being a relative of one of the remaining living disciples, got his stuff strait on, the other 2 synoptics merely capture some of Marks statements.

The Ctholic Bible, in its leaning on 1, and 2 Timothy for most of its Biblical authority for its Church, recognizesthat the Bible, rather than being fully inerrant and a "stand alone" cookbook , is an attempt at historiical documentation, often by means that would bve considered plagiarism and just Made up , by todays standards. It was a document that, along with tradition, is a composite work of divinely inspired people through AD time.

That is a great quote.

Quote:

The Centurion line .....in the opinions of not a few scholars of Bible history ......was a later embellishment, because its so "out of language style" of the rest of the document.

Hmmmm, do you think that it's unusual that a Roman did not speak in the manner of the Jews? So when he's quoted amongst a company of Jews, it probably does sound unusual. No kidding.

---------------------------

Then you try to use the fact that the Centurion's quote IS almost word for word in several gospels as proof that it is NOT authentic?

What would be your reasoning if the quote were NOT word for word? "Well obviously we have a contradiction here because these two quotes from the same man do not even agree" So you can't be pleased either way.

0 Replies

rl, It only matters that the chronicler (Mark, then copied verbatim in Matthew) have it as his work. It doesnt matter that the Roman was of another language, because the passages in Mark 15 are(supposedly) in Marks language . The , terminology , context, and its almost "afterthought positioning" has led many Biblical scholars to assign this phrase to a later embellishment that came after Mark but before Matt.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

Then you try to use the fact that the Centurion's quote IS almost word for word in several gospels as proof that it is NOT authentic?

There is an entire discipline in forensics called "questioned documents". In this discipline , experts attempt to determine the authenticity of papers and subsections of papers.

1The fact that a section is derivative is no guarantee of its autrhenticity. "The Hitler Papers" and the chronicles of Joseph Smith were all hailed as authentic until experts in questioned documents used terminology, graphology, and context to show they were fake. The Centurions statement is just "plopped" in there almost without context. This happens a lot in the gospels and Im not a Bible scholar .
You know me well enough to realize that Im a sucker for evidence, so, if you are able to be compelling in explaining why you believe the authenticity and entirety of the Synoptic Gospels, I shall not be rude , I will listen attentively.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
Then you try to use the fact that the Centurion's quote IS almost word for word in several gospels as proof that it is NOT authentic?

There is an entire discipline in forensics called "questioned documents". In this discipline , experts attempt to determine the authenticity of papers and subsections of papers.

1The fact that a section is derivative is no guarantee of its autrhenticity. "The Hitler Papers" and the chronicles of Joseph Smith were all hailed as authentic until experts in questioned documents used terminology, graphology, and context to show they were fake. The Centurions statement is just "plopped" in there almost without context. This happens a lot in the gospels and Im not a Bible scholar .
You know me well enough to realize that Im a sucker for evidence, so, if you are able to be compelling in explaining why you believe the authenticity and entirety of the Synoptic Gospels, I shall not be rude , I will listen attentively.

My point is that NO MATTER which way the evidence points (if the Centurion quote was taken word for word from one gospel to be placed in another, or if it wasn't) , your cookie cutter objections lead to the exact same conclusion either way.

btw Even if one gospel writer DID decide to use the Centurion quote after reading it in an earlier gospel by another writer, and even if he DID quote it word for word, how is that proof that the event did not occur?

More likely if you were gonna use a quote from another work it would be because you had some reason to consider it reliable.

To say that it is there without context is hardly the case, however. The Passion narrative is in full swing, Jesus is dead and the Centurion upon seeing Him die, then speaks of His manner of death.

It's not like the Centurion quote is stuck into the middle of a passage that is unrelated to it's content. It's completely at home right where it is.

Quote:

Matt 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

54Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Quote:

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

38And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

39And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Quote:

Luke 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

47Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

Now really, comparing the passages, they don't look like a word for word quotation one of another. There are significant differences in them. Would you agree?

0 Replies

Old vs. New Testament?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know