Today in our funny Bible verses series: Does anyone else find Paul to be a bit passive aggressive? No shade, i just find it funny lol

@Babylon Msny atheists are far more knowledgeable about the Bible than most religious people are.

@Babylon I don't really know much about the Bible, i'm just reading it.

@LeopoldBloom I actually agree tbh

@Pikachu what has you reading it?

@Babylon Oh i just wanted to. I'd read most of it before but that was years ago so i wanted a refresher.

@Pikachu true. I thought for a moment that you were reading the bible to see if it is the truth

@Babylon

Oh well i mean that's a little part of it. If you're going to reject something that is meant to be true and which is meant to reveal itself as truth you've gotta read the ding dang thing lol

But as i've said before, reading the bible i get no sense of divinity or divine/supernatural inspiration.
Seems a very human collection of stories.

@Pikachu did you ever figure out who wrote the different books btw? Like the book of Hebrews, Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John

@Babylon lol no i haven't cracked that one. My understanding is that modern scholarship does not have the actual Apostles writing the gospels.

The latest scholarship puts the writing of the gospels as eye witnesses. Interesting that when German scholarship got his hands on it they treated the works as western texts and it’s only since we treated it is Jewish texts that we’ve really discovered the richness of it@Pikachu

@1354swrdt

I think we've spoken on this before.
That's not the impression ive got from the debates and treatments i've seen.

I think you need to lighten up my friend. It seems as though you can’t bear any form of correction. You get offended that at least little things. This is a blinking question. Here you go again. You must always be right? But I suppose when someone stays on the Internet all the while and has very little input from outside this is what we get@Pikachu

@1354swrdt

lol please excuse me for not agreeing with you, massa. It won't happen again.
And right on to the personal attacks, i see.

Of course you don’t resort to personal attacks, do you@Pikachu

@Pikachu Jonathan Kirsch, author of the seminal study of King David, proposes that most of the Old Testament was written during his reign to create the origin story of the Hebrew people. The Gospels were written between 30 and 120 years after the events described. Harold Bloom proposed the lost Q gospel as the source, along with Mark, for Matthew and Luke. The John of that gospel, the last one written, is not John of Patmos who wrote Revelation as the styles and command of the Greek language are different.

Yes but if you believe that you’ll believe anything. Like I believe the moon is made of green cheese. There is absolutely no basis for Kirsch’s proposition. It is merely a wild theory which has now been undermined by archeology. Some of us have actually been to the sites and seen for ourselves without looking at the Internet .
The Q theory of the gospels is tied in with the synoptic problem and leaves scholars pretty divided. It always amazes me that so much has been written about a ‘document’ of which there is no proof whatever of its existence. Of course it’s the fact that scholars in the 19th and 20th century thought that the gospel writers were like them and sat in an office surrounded by books rather than men who dictated to scribes on scrolls. If you actually go by knowledge rather than ignorance and getting things off the Internet you know nothing about then you will find that Luke himself has in the beginning of his gospel told us that he has used various sources both written and oral for his gospel. In fact the most recent scholarship tells us that it is believed that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses all those who knew eyewitnesses. Interesting that one of the leading modern liberal scholars of his day John AT Robinson was one of the 1st to date the gospel very early and told his colleagues who dated them late that they didn’t know what they were talking about. He called the late dating of the gospels ‘faulty scholarship’. A lot of scholars are now coming round to the fact that the gospels were written within a generation of the happenings by those who knew the eyewitnesses or were actual eyewitnesses. As the last Q there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of its existence. Period. It is a figment of the imagination of some modern scholars.
Interesting that John AT Robinson said that he reckoned that Johns Gospel was the first one that was written. So you can see how scholarship is divided. Of course the apostle John didn’t actually pen John’s gospel anymore than Paul penned his letters. One of his disciples did. John is the source not the scribe. When it comes to the revelation then the Greek is rough and Hebraic and it may be the Apostle John wrote it while actually seeing the visions committed to him. This was the theory of the distinguished translator J B Philips. This will explain both the difference in style and also the fact that someone who knew the old Testament so intimately and was so well acquainted with the style could write such awful Greek. There are mysteries here but of course because we cannot solve them all does not mean to say that we do not believe. There are mysteries in science - we don’t know how 96% of the universe functions - but we still believe in it. I believe that the revelation was written by the apostle John and the differences in the Greek can easily be explained by the fact that a different pen man was employed. In fact the pen man for the revelation was the apostle himself.

@LeopoldBloom

@1354swrdt You need to go back to school and learn about paragraphs. Also, Kirsch didn’t mention the gospels, Harold Bloom did. Do try to keep up. And if Luke was an eyewitness, why did he need other sources? Maybe he was like you and didn’t pay attention.

Speaking of something with no evidence, if King David had United the Hebrew tribes, the other surrounding groups would have noticed. Yet there is no record of him outside the Bible. Of course, you’re required to believe he was a real person or your entire line of David theory goes out the window.

@LeopoldBloom

Well i'm no biblical scholar and i know that the gospels are not generally considered to be written by eyewitnesses or the apostles themselves but i have a hard time believing that most of the OT was written at King David's time.

Please learn to read. I didn’t say Kirsch mentioned the gospels. Even if there is no mention of David outside of the Hebrew history that hardly makes him unique. There are plenty of characters in ancient history which just relupy on one source. Besides, what we have in the Bible is not just one source it is obviously compiled from a variety of sources. The problem is we don’t apply reasoning like this to other historical sources, there is much in Hebrew literature about David. Why should we expect it anywhere else?
You obviously know nothing about the work of the historian. You haven’t bothered to read what Luke himself said he did. But then ignorance appears to be your preference @LeopoldBloom

I can see you are no scholar by what you write! 😃

Scholarship has generally come round to admitting early dates for the gospels and they were written by eyewitnesses or those close to them @Pikachu

@1354swrdt

[quote]nd they were written by eyewitnesses or those close to them[/quote]

"none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus."
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1754

"It should be noted that Luke’s gospel immediately indicates that the author is likely NOT an eyewitness of the events that are recorded afterward."
https://pursuingveritas.com/2015/08/12/were-the-gospel-writers-eyewitnesses-luke/

"The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[53] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#cite_note-FOOTNOTEEve2014135-55

I mean you can have your own opinion on the scholarship but let's not pretend that the consensus is of reliable eyewitnesses.

Your problem is that these people reckon that they are the majority and of course they are not the majority. This is old hat and the particularly the rubbish of form and reactive criticism. It’s based on the fact that these men or so-called scholars think of the gospel writers as men who are sitting in an office surrounded by books and making up theology. This is absolute BS. These guys were employed as fishermen and other things. They were writing history not sitting there making up theology. It is absolute crap what these men are saying. The gospels were written because the eyewitnesses were getting old and therefore either the eyewitnesses (John, Matthew) or others like Luke or Mark ( Simon Peter’s nephew) wrote down what the eyewitnesses said. This is what Luke says. There is no proof whatsoever for what these so-called scholars say and a lot of scholars have now bypassed them. Tom Wright recently scoffed at this sort of nonsense. They honestly think the evangelist will like them and they weren’t because they were first century Jews writing on a scroll. It really is farcical to hear these so-called scholars go on about like this@Pikachu

@1354swrdt

...so your response is "Nuh UH!" and "There are scholars who support MY point of view!"

lol ok.
Like i said, you can be convinced by the arguments you find convincing. Just don't be so dishonest as to pretend this is an open and shut case.

As I say that scholarship you “is a load of old BS. Most scholars are going away from the form criticism and reductive criticism. It is absolute nonsense and just comes from the head of academics. There is absolutely no basis in fact for it. The fact was that Jesus was a travelling preacher and probably said the same things 30 or 40 times over in the hearing of his disciples so obviously his sayings are recorded in different forms as he used the same illustrations differently. This is something that we can’t get into the heads of rather rigid people@Pikachu

@1354swrdt

[quote] Most scholars are going away from the form criticism and reductive criticism[/quote]

You keep saying that but i haven't seen you back it up yet🤷‍♀️