Fabnaq

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You forget the two major powers of the time (Rome and the Jews) opposed and persecuted the first century church. The first century church leaders were martyred.
Power and influence don't matter much when you're missing your head.
It's also plausable that there were other men/groups behind the scences who were more then happy to have people become martyres for the greater good and the ideas they were spreading.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Actually I'm not educated enough in archeaology, Hebrew or Aramaic to date the writings.
This has been done by a swarm of other scholars.
Well I asked for two reasons. Reason one is the information I have dates the Epistles as late as 125 AD. Subtract the age of Christ at his death and you get over 50 years and the Gospel of John written between 90-100 AD, also over 50 year from Christ's death.
The second reason I asked is because I am curious what methods of dating you choose to accept. Many scholars offer dates of other holy scriptures from long before the Christian Bible and yet many believers of the Christian Bible choose not to accept these dates...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
It's also plausable that there were other men/groups behind the scences who were more then happy to have people become martyres for the greater good and the ideas they were spreading.
True.
However, few men choose to die knowing they are dying for a lie. It would have been tough to manipulate jews into leaving their faith and starting a new religion knowing it was all a lie. Remember, these were eyewitnesses.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I asked for two reasons. Reason one is the information I have dates the Epistles as late as 125 AD. Subtract the age of Christ at his death and you get over 50 years and the Gospel of John written between 90-100 AD, also over 50 year from Christ's death.
The second reason I asked is because I am curious what methods of dating you choose to accept. Many scholars offer dates of other holy scriptures from long before the Christian Bible and yet many believers of the Christian Bible choose not to accept these dates...
The late date of the authorship of John fails to account for no mention of the sacking of the temple.
The Epistles were written by Paul, who was imprisoned and later exocuted by the Roman Emperor Nero (according to church tradition at the time). This would have taken place, again before the razing of the Temple in 70ad.
As Paul was orignally a Jew (as described in Acts) and taught at the Temple (Acts) his letters must have been written well before the turn of the first century.
I have no issue at all with early religious writings of various faiths. I believe the similarities in many different OT stories with other religious writings points to a common event.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The late date of the authorship of John fails to account for no mention of the sacking of the temple.
The Epistles were written by Paul, who was imprisoned and later exocuted by the Roman Emperor Nero (according to church tradition at the time). This would have taken place, again before the razing of the Temple in 70ad.
As Paul was orignally a Jew (as described in Acts) and taught at the Temple (Acts) his letters must have been written well before the turn of the first century.
I have no issue at all with early religious writings of various faiths. I believe the similarities in many different OT stories with other religious writings points to a common event.
If the gospel of John was written as an account of Jesus' life it would not have to mention the current events of the time it was written. Lets say someone wrote a gospel of Jesus' life today, it would not need to include the current events in the middle east. Therefore it does not mean anything for the gospel to not mention the current events of the time it was written in.
Secondly, many of the Epistoles were not written by Paul, or atleast that is was the scholars say. Apparently the language is very different between them and the traditions of time were to write under the names of ones teacher...
As far as the different religous stories refering to coimmon events, there seems to be a problem because the dates of these stores do not agree and it would appear some stories were being recycled and were not just different accounts of the same events..

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
If the gospel of John was written as an account of Jesus' life it would not have to mention the current events of the time it was written. Lets say someone wrote a gospel of Jesus' life today, it would not need to include the current events in the middle east. Therefore it does not mean anything for the gospel to not mention the current events of the time it was written in.
Secondly, many of the Epistoles were not written by Paul, or atleast that is was the scholars say. Apparently the language is very different between them and the traditions of time were to write under the names of ones teacher...
As far as the different religous stories refering to coimmon events, there seems to be a problem because the dates of these stores do not agree and it would appear some stories were being recycled and were not just different accounts of the same events..
Except that the Temple was the central religious hub of the people at the time.
As for authorship, you actually made me double check. All of the Epistles were written by Paul. Each claims authorship by him.
I Corinthians 1:1 (attested to by Clement of Rome in 96AD)
II Corinthians1:1
Galatians 1:1
Ephesians 1:1
Philippians 1:1
Colossians 1:1
I Thes 1:1 (Marcion in AD 140 attested to authorship)
II Thes 1:1
I Timothy 1:1
II timothy 1:1
Titus 1:1
Philemon 1:1
Scholars in the 20th century have debated authorship, but going back to the first and second century church authorship of each of these books was universally accepted.
Vocabulary and word variants are used to argue authorship; but in reality this is weak. Depending on my mood, audience, and topic my sermons can vary wildy too.... Paul's letters were written from churches, prisons, captivity in Rome, etc. to a wide range of audiences (friends and foes alike) at various points in his ministry.

 

[jerthunter]

"Of the so-called Pauline Epistles, it is now recognized that several were not written by Paul. Hebrews is most clearly not by Paul, because the Greek is quite different from Paul's genuine letters. . . . . . However, writing in the name of a famous teacher after the person's death was a common practice in the ancient world; it was meant not to deceive but to honor the teacher."
Michael Molloy, Experiencing The World's Religions, 3rd Ed., Boston:
McGraw Hill, 2004
Now maybe this guy is wrong, although I have seen the same information elsewhere, this is just what I had at my fingertips. If you decide to say this guy is incorrect perhaps you should give your criteria for which people you will believe. Otherwise it will be difficult to find information for you since you can just dismiss any information that does not fit your belief system.

 

[1journeyman]

Hebrews is not a traditional "Pauline Epistle" first off. Typically it falls into the "general" Epistle category. If you notice, I left it out of my list. It is clearly written in a different manner, including the fact that the author does not identify himself. That said, as early as 400 AD the early church was attributing authorship to Paul.
Now, feel free to argue with them if you so choose.

 

[jerthunter]

Well according to Paul they should be still alive so I suppose I just need to find them and argue my point. I believe he is credited with the claim that the Christian at his time would not die before the second coming of Christ, maybe I am wrong on that (I am not a pastor after all).
Now if you read the quote you will notice it states that many of the Epistles referred to as from Paul probably are not. It just uses Hebrews as an example. Since I do not want to type out the whole book I am not going to find each quote that shows the reason why different books are probably not written by Paul..
But back to the point. It isn't an issue of WHEN each book was written (but if you are interested in the Bible it might be fun to read up on it) the issue I would like to see addressed is what information you will listen to. You said yourself that you are not educated enough to date the books yourself, and that you rely on the 'scholars' so I would like to know which 'scholars' you consider to be trustworthy and how you come to that assumption.

 

[jerthunter]

Also, I figure I'll ask this question then.
You have stated that ALL the NT scriptures were written less then 50 years after the death of Christ but now it seems like you are saying, "well maybe not Hebrews..." Is that what you are saying or if not how do you place Hebrews within 50 years of Christ's death.
Back to the Gospel of John. If it was written as an account of the life of Jesus it wouldn't make sense to add events that happened long after Christ's death. If someone were to write a book detailing the life of me after I died I would not expect them to add, "and oh, Jeremy's home was destroyed 40 years after his death." It just wouldn't fit into the story like that. However you can look at the tone the book was written in and notice different ideas and words that give us an idea of that fact that it was written much later then the rest of the Gospels..

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
...(but if you are interested in the Bible it might be fun to read up on it) ....
Actually I have.
I didn't say Hebrews was written later. I said it was written by a different author.
Jerth, I've read the critics of the Bible. I've also read many of the writings of the early church fathers. The guys that were actually there within a couple of generations of eyewitness. I tend to take their word for it over that of scholars 2000 years later.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Actually I have.
I didn't say Hebrews was written later. I said it was written by a different author.
Jerth, I've read the critics of the Bible. I've also read many of the writings of the early church fathers. The guys that were actually there within a couple of generations of eyewitness. I tend to take their word for it over that of scholars 2000 years later.
Well you gave you reasons why you think John and the rest of the Epistles were written within 50 years of Christ's death but you leave out Hebrews. Not that I want you to explain each book but it seems like you are skipping around that book and it draws attention to it making me wonder why.
My issue with these people within a couple of generations is once more, how do you know they are from that time other then their words? You must rely on some current information from this day to tie it all together.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well you gave you reasons why you think John and the rest of the Epistles were written within 50 years of Christ's death but you leave out Hebrews. Not that I want you to explain each book but it seems like you are skipping around that book and it draws attention to it making me wonder why.
My issue with these people within a couple of generations is once more, how do you know they are from that time other then their words? You must rely on some current information from this day to tie it all together.
I didn't skip around the book of Hebres at all. I just didn't want it to get confused with the Pauline Epistles as scholars often slip up and do.
Hebrews clearly was written before the destruction of the temple. Multiple times throughout Hebrews the priesthood is referenced in "present" tense.
The church has a long, continous history. The earliest church letters are referenced by later writers and church fathers, who are in turn referenced by later writers and church fathers, etc.

 

[jerthunter]

The priesthood existed long before the existence of the temple and it was not dependant on the temple. So mentioning the priesthood in the present tense does not mean the the book was written prior to the destruction of the temple. Also, from my memory the references to the priesthood in Hebrews were for the most part explaining how Jesus filled the role of High Priest once and for all.
But once again, this isn't really the point, althought it might be interesting to someone who wants to understand the context the scriptures were written in.
Back to the point. Somewhere along the line you have decided what to believe and what criteria you have for new information. So without setting up a set of criteria you will use to accept or reject information you can look at any new information and just reject it if it does not agree with your current belief. That is a huge difference between the way many people look at religion and science.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
The priesthood existed long before the existence of the temple and it was not dependant on the temple. So mentioning the priesthood in the present tense does not mean the the book was written prior to the destruction of the temple. Also, from my memory the references to the priesthood in Hebrews were for the most part explaining how Jesus filled the role of High Priest once and for all.
But once again, this isn't really the point, althought it might be interesting to someone who wants to understand the context the scriptures were written in.
Back to the point. Somewhere along the line you have decided what to believe and what criteria you have for new information. So without setting up a set of criteria you will use to accept or reject information you can look at any new information and just reject it if it does not agree with your current belief. That is a huge difference between the way many people look at religion and science.
The priesthood came into existence with the synagogue, which was replaced once Solomon built the temple. While Hebrews does talk about Christ in the roll of "priest" there are many other references that, in context, cannot fit that description. Taken in context it is clear the author is talking about priests of his day (Hebrews 8:3 for example).

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The priesthood came into existence with the synagogue, which was replaced once Solomon built the temple. While Hebrews does talk about Christ in the roll of "priest" there are many other references that, in context, cannot fit that description. Taken in context it is clear the author is talking about priests of his day (Hebrews 8:3 for example).
If you read the context of Hebrews 8 you will see that it is talking about how Christ was supposed to be filling the role of High Priest. The verse you reference is about how he fits into that role. You can see this if you read the verse in its context.
But back to the point. There should be some sort of criteria you have set forth to determine what is valid or not. Without having a set of shared criteria there is really no options for discussion because you can just dismiss any information that you feel hurts your position.
I wanted to add this.
I believe the priesthood started with Aaron, before any synagogue was in existence. Shortly after Aaron was appointed the first priest there was a Tabernacle, perhaps that is what you were referring to?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
If you read the context of Hebrews 8 you will see that it is talking about how Christ was supposed to be filling the role of High Priest. The verse you reference is about how he fits into that role. You can see this if you read the verse in its context.
But back to the point. There should be some sort of criteria you have set forth to determine what is valid or not. Without having a set of shared criteria there is really no options for discussion because you can just dismiss any information that you feel hurts your position.
I wanted to add this.
I believe the priesthood started with Aaron, before any synagogue was in existence. Shortly after Aaron was appointed the first priest there was a Tabernacle, perhaps that is what you were referring to?
Hebrews 8:1-5
"1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven..."
Note verse 1 and 2 refers to Christ, 3-5 contrasts the priests of the day with Christ (present tense) There are several other examples as well. I always read the context of the verses in question...
As for Aaron, you are correct. The Tabernacle was what I was referring to. It was the temporary house of worship until Solomon built the temple.

 

[jerthunter]

It sounds like the writer is trying to reassure the people that there is no need for any human high priest since that position is filled. I would imagine there was quite a bit of discussion about what the role of the high priest would be following the destruction of the temple and it would seem to fit in that there would need to be reassurance in this time of uncertainty.
But again. That isn't the point. The point is what is your criteria. Plain and simple. Why do you believe one person and not another?

 

[1journeyman]

Jerth, the Hebrews topic was brought up by you. I was just pointing out the book makes it clear it's written "pre" destruction of the temple.
As for criteria, there are many different criteria. Certainly I place a lot of weight on how the document was referenced at the time of it's writings and it's acceptance. If the church fathers in the first and second century accepted authorship of the Pauline Epistles I lend more weight to their opinions than a 21st author.

 

[jerthunter]

Yes, I did bring up the topic, but not because the date it was written was important to me. I brought it up, to show that even among bible scholars there is alot of debate about the authorship of the Christian Bible. Debate isn't a bad thing, but when there are conflicts of opinion there should be some method in place to weigh out or test which is better or more correct.
Generally the best answer isn't that the church said so along time ago, otherwise you will be stuck believing a lot of other strange beliefs...