the gospels were written after paul's epistles.
this is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural bible scholars.
yet we see that paul says clearly in 2 corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of jesus and different gospels before the orthodox canonized gospels were written:.
I write about the distance between Paul and Jerusalem in my Study:
http://www.jwstudies.com/2013_-_Did_a__Governing_Body__govern_Paul.pdf
A seminal work is "St Paul versus St Peter: A tale of Two Missions", by Michael Goulder, which influenced much of John Shelby Spong's writings.
Doug
the gospels were written after paul's epistles.
this is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural bible scholars.
yet we see that paul says clearly in 2 corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of jesus and different gospels before the orthodox canonized gospels were written:.
I do not have a list, but I have seen some Bible commentators say that about 25% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuinely his. I recall that one criterion that makes Jesus' words to be considered as genuine is when it is uncomfortable to the Church or unfulfilled. (There is a technical term that I do not recall). In other words, if Jesus said something that is obviously embarrassing to the church, yet they retained it, then it is considered to be genuine. ("This generation will not pass" would qualify, because by the time the story was written - and later included in the 4th century canon - it was clearly a disastrous pronouncement.)
I would appreciate any information if anyone has access to such studies.
One commentator writes that people believe that the words attributed to Jesus are genuine because the words are often written in red colour and the edge of the book has gold leaf applied.
Doug
this is the first time i noticed how dumb jc's use of illustrations could be if that's all he did in the context of.
matt.
13:10-15 ) so the disciples came and said to him: why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?
It was not until the 4th century that a NT list was termed Canon.
The Church operated for 400 years at least before it had a Bible. The Church created the Bible based on what it considered to be orthodox ("right beliefs"). Beliefs created the Bible, not the other way around.
Regarding the NT writers: Paul was the chronologically first writer and his claim to fame was that Jesus visited him in visions. He says so. Paul also says that he received nothing about Jesus from other men. He says so. The earliest writers after Paul (died about 64 CE) lived about the time of Jerusleam's destruction, which is a generation after Jesus' death. No one knows the names of the Gospel writers. Only later tradition assigned names; one criterion for accepting a writing into the NT was "apostolicity", so an Apostle's name was assigned to each (apart from the Greek Luke).
There was no consciousness of a biblical canon in the first century; the earliest list was by the (supposed) heretic Marcion.
Out of interest, took at the llist of books in the earliest known Codices (and their dates). (The Jews used scrolls; the Christians used the codex format.)
Doug
the gospels were written after paul's epistles.
this is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural bible scholars.
yet we see that paul says clearly in 2 corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of jesus and different gospels before the orthodox canonized gospels were written:.
clarity,
I include a discussion on the Jewish expectations of the "Anointed"/"Mesach" (Messiah) in my Study at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Did_Israel_s_ruler_come_from_Bethlehem.pdf
Jesus says that when the Son of Man comes "he" will reward. Why does Jesus not say "I" will reward? Perhaps his riding into Jerusalem in victory indicates that as the Romans said, he planned to make himself the "King" in the kingdom that some "Son of Man" would soon set up (with his friend Judas as an accomplice???). Jesus repeatedly spoke of the "Kingdom" - which he was fully expecting to come in his time - hence his continuous focus on it. He was wrong.
Doug
this is the first time i noticed how dumb jc's use of illustrations could be if that's all he did in the context of.
matt.
13:10-15 ) so the disciples came and said to him: why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?
It might fit in with Matthew 7:6 (“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine.”)
Rather than ask what Jesus meant, ask yourself who were the writers and why did they say this? Whom were they talking about and talking to?
Always remember that not one of the NT writers had actually seen or heard Jesus. They were writing a generation later, and each writing group was operating with religio-political agendas that developed since Jesus' death.
We can safely say that the "Matthew" authors were part of the Jewish-Christian community. That group, originally based at Jerusalem, operated in opposition to Paul, who was based at Antioch. I do not know, but it is not impossible that the "Matthew" writing group were throwing a few barbs at their Gentile-Christian "brethren".
Looking at the Bible from the outside in provides a valuable understanding.
Doug
first of all i want to express my sincere gratitude to atlantis and his good friends for making this 2014 book available.. ------------.
as i see it, and i am absolutely open to contradiction, the wts appears to be giving another new meaning to this generation.
this time the term means all of his anointed followers, including his immediate disciples.
Of course Russell and his friends did not have the current "understanding" of 1914. They anticipated that 1914 would usher in unprecedented peace under the rule of the Zionists.
And we can see how peaceful they are.
Doug
first of all i want to express my sincere gratitude to atlantis and his good friends for making this 2014 book available.. ------------.
as i see it, and i am absolutely open to contradiction, the wts appears to be giving another new meaning to this generation.
this time the term means all of his anointed followers, including his immediate disciples.
I suppose the sentence that interested me is: "The apostles would soon be anointedwith holy spirit" (italics are mine). And Jesus was speaking to them "privately" (as he does to the GB). So is the WTS including the apostles (or disciples) whom Jesus was speaking to as part of "this generation"?
If it were saying this, then their "this generation" continues until there is no more "anointed one" (on Earth), making it quite open-ended and unrelated to a time period, or maybe no longer related to 1914.
Of course, the argument would be raised that when Jesus said these to his apostles (disciples?), they were not yet part of the WTS's "anointed" so they were not yet part of "this generation".
Or am I crediting the WTS with too much thinking ability in this para?
Doug
first of all i want to express my sincere gratitude to atlantis and his good friends for making this 2014 book available.. ------------.
as i see it, and i am absolutely open to contradiction, the wts appears to be giving another new meaning to this generation.
this time the term means all of his anointed followers, including his immediate disciples.
First of all I want to express my sincere gratitude to Atlantis and his good friends for making this 2014 book available.
------------
As I see it, and I am absolutely open to contradiction, the WTS appears to be giving another new meaning to “This Generation”. This time the term means all of his “anointed followers”, including his immediate Disciples. The following is from this new book:
“This generation.” Did Jesus have in mind unbelievers? No, … when Jesus spoke of “this generation,” he had in mind his anointed followers. (“God’s Kingdom Rules!”, page 11, para 16, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 2014, italics in the original)
Doug
i was trying to find the source of the michael j. tyler quote in the was it designed article in the jul 15 awake, when i came across this website.. was this posted before the magazine?
is the watchtower passing someone else's work off as their own, or the other way round?.
also, can anyone find the source of the quote?
OK. I have ordered a copy of Tyler's book on frogs. It's from the Western Australian Museum. My interest will be to see if it provides me with a contact to Mr tyler and see if he has any comment on his being linked to creationism. Unless one of you can find out from him first.
It's interesting that on pages 12-13 of that Awake, that once more they have to resort to a JW scientist as support.
Doug
i was trying to find the source of the michael j. tyler quote in the was it designed article in the jul 15 awake, when i came across this website.. was this posted before the magazine?
is the watchtower passing someone else's work off as their own, or the other way round?.
also, can anyone find the source of the quote?
That is not a quotation mark at the end of the citation from Awake!. It is a star after the Awake's opinion sentence, pointing to poor old Charlie Darwin.
Doug
