Who put the NT together?
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 24 Aug 1998 /
.
] Dooley wrote: Not only that, but much of the NT wasn't even written yet! So who decided what
] was inspired and what wasn't?? Come on, CB, spit it out. Say it with me, okay? One, two, three,
] GO!! T-H-E R-O-M-A-N C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C C-H-U-R-C-H!!! Ha ha! I knew you could!
.
Dear Dooley, before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire there was no RCC to speak of. Oh yes, there certainly was a church in Rome, but it was but one among many. The churches in Antioch and Alexandra were just as big and just as important as the one in Rome. And they certainly did not bend the knee to the bishop in Rome. ... So who decided which books were holy and which were not? It was the early Christians themselves! They did not have to be told that Paul's epistles were full of power and truth; they could see it for themselves! They were NOT stupid ignorant baboons, like today's spiritually benighted nominal-Christians.
.
>>>> CB wrote: I don't know if that's true or not but even so, it doesn't change the contents. I believe
>>>> if the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, He could also have a hand in how it was put together.
.
Dear CB, SHE certainly did have a hand in the editing and transmission of the holy books. However, this does not mean that errors did not creep into the process. Indeed, the editor who compiled the Corinthian correspondance did so with all the skill of a chimpanze with a hand axe. All these snafuz do not mean that scripture is not inspired; only that a lot of work remains to be done before we have an adequate perception of what the original manuscripts / autographs MAY have looked like. It's a task that bible scholars are reluctant to pursue because (a) it's a horrendously difficult project, and (b) it seems like blasphemy to the piously ignorant.
.
>>> Kevin Beach wrote: Of course he did! The Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>>> ... as ever.
.
Of course SHE did! The early Greek churches, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. ... as ever.
.
>> CB wrote: I think you missed my point. If God guided the devil to put together the Scriptures,
>> would it still be true?
.
Yes.
.
> Kevin Beach wrote: Yes. But is Satan a candidate for the title of "Bible Complier"?
> In fact, how many candidates for the title are there, apart from the RCC?
.
Dear Kevin, how about the early Greek churches? Roman Cats are certainly very eager to forget their own roots in the 'primitive' Greek churches. If you fools think that the Romish whore was responsible for the NT, then how do you explain the blatantly obvious fact that ALL the NT books were written in Greek? If Rome was responsible, you may rest assured that each and every book would have been written in Latin, which was the main LEGAL language then as today, and well suited to the one track minds of Romish episcopal muffinheads.
/ Topic > Re: Who put the NT together? / Date > 24 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: Of course SHE did!
.
> Gene Rohling replies: The use of that one pronoun blew your creditability right out of the water!!!
.
Dear Gene, my wut? My 'creditability'? Hey, didn't I tell you: I don't believe in credit. I think it's a scam by the banks to make more money for the filthy rich. It's easier for a camel to ... huh? ... Oh! You mean my 'credibility'? Is my credibility so shaky that it take's only one small humble word to utterly destroy it? Good Grief! Say it ain't so! ... btw: Just exactly why do you say this? Do you have it on good authority that the Holy Spirit cannot be called 'she'. Look here: We have the Heavenly Father and the Eternal Son who are both conceived under masculine aspects. It only makes sense that there be some measure of feminine characteristics in the godhead, and the only candidate is the HS herself. Indeed, the fullness of divinity more or less demands this; and I really don't see how (or why) any Catholic can legitimately object to this. Pray, do enlighten us ...
/ Topic > Re: Who put the NT together? / Date > 24 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman says: Dear Dooley, before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire
>> there was no RCC to speak of. Oh yes, there certainly was a church in Rome, but it was but one among
>> many. The churches in Antioch and Alexandra were just as big and just as important as the one in Rome.
>> And they certainly did not bend the knee to the bishop in Rome. ... So who decided which books were holy
>> and which were not? It was the early Christians themselves! They did not have to be told that Paul's
>> epistles were full of power and truth; they could see it for themselves! They were NOT stupid ignorant
>> baboons, like today's spiritually benighted nominal-Christian
.
> On 24Aug98 bam wrote: Tell me textman, how do you know what you just said? Have you consulted spirits,
> or are you a visionary? I have writings that debunk everything you've said. What do you have to prove your
> contentions? Personal desires?
.
Dear BAM, I have not consulted spirits. I am not prone to having 'visions', as such. One can find books denying and debunking just about everything. One recent book I've seen regurgitates the old idea that there never was a man called Jesus Christ; that he was invented by the early Christians. The lesson here is that one cannot believe everything one reads, no matter how 'authoritative' it may *seem* to be. No, to read wisely requires logic, reason, common sense, and the ability to discern rubbish from that which is worth reading. Not everyone has these skills, BAM. Being violently pious does not automatically bring them on. It takes effort and determination to educate oneself in the value and meaning of history. Try reading 'Testament' by Jon Romer. It's a wonderful book about the history of the Bible, and well worth the effort it takes to read it. ... Oh, and one more thing: I have a tremendous respect for history and reality. As for my "Personal desires" ... yes, I have many. But my main personal desire is for truth and honesty in religion, because I believe that without these things our Faith is worthless. btw: when was the last time you heard a bishop speaking frankly and openly about anything? The last time for me was just before he retired. He could not speak the truth before then, you see (for fear of reprisals). What does this say about the RCC, BAM?
/ Topic > Re: Who put the NT together? / Date > 25 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman say: The lesson here is that one cannot believe everything
>> one reads, no matter how 'authoritative' it may *seem* to be.
.
> On 24Aug98 BAM replies: But I asked you THIS:
.
>>> bam: Tell me textman, how do you know what you just said? Have you consulted spirits, or are you
>>> a visionary? I have writings that debunk everything you've said. What do you have to prove your
>>> contentions? Personal desires? - BAM
.
> bam: So your answer must be that you merely used your head and decided what history MUST have
> been like. You haven't a smattering of evidence to back up your statements, and thus, your claims
> are nothing but "hot air". -- BAM
.
Dear BAM, it's not that simple. History is NOT what you or I or anyone else *supposes* it to be. History is a part of our current reality. What is today is the result of what was yesterday. It's true that we cannot know everything that actually happened. History is largely a matter of playing off probabilities, one against the other. But historians do not arbitrarily decide what is and is not historical based on personal desires or wishes or preconcieved ideas about how things must have been. This is history as it was practiced in the past, and it is BAD history because it is not objective. Let there be no mistake about this: the Church cannot simply say that Luke's account is 100% history and just leave it at that. That may be good and pious faith, but it is horrendous history. Respect for the truth, and respect for reality, demands that we take history (yes, even church history) seriously.
.
I do not make these things up as I go along, BAM. All my ideas ... well ok: MOST of them ... are based on the work of respectable church historians and bible scholars. Trust me when I say that there are very few of these who would challenge the statements you quoted in your last article in this thread. It's actually pretty basic stuff that you can learn from almost any introductory course on early church history. ... btw: have you ever taken a course in church history, BAM? If not, where comes your authority to challenge me? ... "Personal desires" perhaps?
/ Re: Who put the NT together? / 25Aug98 / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: Dear Dooley, before Constantine made Christianity the
>> official religion of the Roman Empire there was no RCC to speak of.
.
> Edward Thorne replies: This statement is wrong, both parts of it are.
.
>> Oh yes, there certainly was a church in Rome, but it was but one among many. <snip>
.
> It was the church founded by Peter and Paul.
.
Dear Edward, this statement is wrong, both parts of it are. Paul never even made it to Rome after his conversion; except in pious legend. Neither did Peter 'found' that church. He was perfectly happy in Antioch, and had no reason to 'go west, young man'. The truth is that we just don't know who first brought the faith to Babylon ... perhaps it was a resurrected Jonah!
.
> <snip the rest of the rubbish>
.
>> textman wrote: Dear Edward, this statement is wrong, both parts of it are. Paul never even made it
>> to Rome after his conversion; except in pious legend.
.
Although I have heard a rumor that he sent a letter there in his stead.
But I don't know about that. Sounds rather far-fetched to me ...
.
> On 26Aug98 Stephanie Rendino wrote: Funny...the Acts of the Apostles is pious legend?
.
Dear Steph, Lk-Acts was written a half century after Paul died. It was written to tell a story; the story of two Christian heroes: Jesus and Paul. Therefore its value as history is secondary to its primary goal of legendary embellishment and tall-tale telling. ... Haven't you ever noticed that Luke nowhere makes mention of the fact that Paul wrote a bunch of letters that changed the course of church history? A rather glaring oversite for a "church-historian", wouldn't you say?
.
> Again, no wonder you were kicked out of theology school. (rolls eyes)
.
Why can't you just accept the fact that the reason I was eXpelled had nothing to do with my radical ideas or criticisms of the Church, but had everything to do with the wishes of the Favored One?
.
>>>> Stephanie Rendino wrote: Funny...the Acts of the Apostles is pious legend?
.
>>> textman answered: Dear Steph, Lk-Acts was written a half century after Paul died. It was wriiten
>>> to tell a story; the story of two Christian heroes: Jesus and Paul. Therefore its value as history is
>>> secondary to its primary goal of legendary embellishment and tall-tale telling. ... Haven't you ever
>>> noticed that Luke nowhere makes mention of the fact that Paul wrote a bunch of letters that
>>> changed the course of church history? A rather glaring oversite for a "historian", wouldn't you say?
.
>> Stephanie replies: It's not for us to go re-writing Scripture, though.
.
textman say: Re-writing? No. But it is for us to re-examine the text, in order to better understand it. And in better understanding it, we can more effectively transmit the message therein. The Pope himself agrees that we must re-speak the Word in a way that is intelligible to our faithless culture and spiritually-dead society. I am only following the directives of the Pope. What are you doing, besides criticizing me?
.
>> S: I know perfectly well there are some contradictions in Acts against Galatians,
.
Only some? Try a whole truckload!
.
>> S: but this is because it's the other side of the story.
.
No it isn't. The other side of the story could only be authentically told by people who were witnesses to the events in question. So Luke comes along two generations later to tell the 'other side of the story'? ... I think NOT!
.
>> S: Galatian's is Paul's.
.
Paul's point of view is about as authentic and Christian as we can get. Frankly, I'll take Paul's account of events over Luke's any day of the week. And so would every other competent historian!
.
>>>> S: Again, no wonder you were kicked out of theology school. (rolls eyes)
.
>>> tx: Why can't you just accept the fact that the reason I was eXpelled had nothing to do
>>> with my radical ideas or criticisms of the Church, but had everything to do with the wishes
>>> of the Favored One?
.
>> S: Because everything you say is shite. It's like saying "I was thrown out of school
>> because of my sex/age/race/etc" when you didn't pass a single course.
.
This is utter nonsense. I was one of the best students that that third-rate college/seminary ever had. I never failed any course I ever took. On the contrary, my marks were good enough to get me into the Master of Theology program. The same program you're in, Stephanie. You just want to believe it's my fault I was expelled, because you can't face the truth of the matter!
.
> On 28Aug98 Edward Thorne chimes in: What theology was textman expelled from,
> or, what was its denomination?
.
Dear Edward, I was "dismissed" [being the official technical term for sadistic and unjustified hostility] from a Catholic college and seminary [aka the Heart of the Diocese]. I was right in the midst of introductory Greek when I was judged unfit to be a Catholic!
.
> Who is the favored one?
.
Ah well, this is a rather more difficult question. Let us start by saying that the Favored One is the Church of Canada's very own precious little darling. They will do anything for her; so thrilled are they that she is among them. Does she want to be an honorary seminarian? Consider it done. Does she want to mentor unto priests and seminarians? Hey, no problem. Does she want to preach to the People of God during the celebration of Sunday liturgy? Then let it be so. And it was so. I was there. I saw it happen. A gud-luving liturgical lesbian actually preached on 'making straight paths for the Lord'! Of course, I was the only one who appreciated the irony therein; but then no one listens to textman anyway (being, as it were, a lowly and hated hetero lay-male (ie. an oppressive heterosexist troll; which creatures the Woman-Catholic Church of Canada doth despise to the max). ... Of course she has other names as well: The Liberated and Autononmous One; The Transgendered One; The Polymorphously Promiscious One; God's Good Gift to Women; Lucifer's Favorite Daughter; The Post-Modern Priestess & Prophetess; Satan's Most Loyal Whore; She Who Must Be Obeyed; etc etc. So when this Abomination Unto Desolation took exception to my presence at 'her' college, she told her sadistic priestly friends to get rid of me ... which they gladly did. And you had best believe that she was more than overjoyed at that!
LONG SAD HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES
/ Re: Why So Many Churches / Date > 5 Oct 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>>>>> becky wrote: WHY SO MANY CHURCHES AND WHICH IS RIGHT?
.
>>>> Kjasowen wrote: <snip irrelevant remarks>
.
>>> On 22Aug99 irishj replies: Your heading poses an interesting question that I have pondered
>>> for a long time. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.
.
>> Tondaar say: Dear irishj, yes, but only a little bit at a time; for obviously we are very unable to
>> handle the whole truth (if it were given all at once). <snip remainder of article for sake of brevity>
.
> On 2Oct99 PETER ELFVIN replies: Ahhh. Where to begin. It IS true that when you look at the church as
> it was constitiuted in the twenty or thirty years after Christs crucifixion you find a multitude of teachings.
.
textman answers: Dear Peter, there were local variations in teachings among the different churches, to be sure (hardly "a multitude" in those early years); but it's pretty darn silly to imagine that it could (or even should) have been otherwise.
.
> PE: During the first three hundred years or so, many competing versions of the gospel
> sprang into being. It wasn't until the One True Holy and Apostolic church
.
The wut?! ... Could we please NOT make any unnecessary excursions into the Twilight Zone? If you wish to talk about the historical realities involving the many and varied churches, you are well advised to stay away from such nasty theological fantasies. Okay?
.
> was made official by Constantine the Great that it was possible
> to come out of hiding and finally settle on what the truth was.
.
I'm sorry; you lost me there. Are you saying that the gospel was in hiding before the Great Emperor? How then did the Good News win over so many peoples all over the Empire? As for settling on what the truth was, this was the primary concern of all manner of writers and teachers from Paulos to the second century Egyptian prophets and Greek Apologists to the third century catechetical schools. I don't think that any of these would much appreciate your suggestion that it took the Emperor and his fourth century bishops to decide what the truth is!
.
> PE: Constantine called the great ecumenical council of Nicea.
.
In 325CE.
.
> PE: There had been other, local councils held before Nicea, such as the council mentioned
> in the new testament,
.
If you are referring to the so-called Jerusalem council of c.48CE (mentioned by Paulos and Luke), I must say that it is extremely foolish and anachronistic to refer to this event (as some others do) as an ecumenical council. In no way was that meeting 'ecumenical'. Rather, it was (at best) as you say, a local council.
.
> but Nicea was where the first dangerous heresy was faced down.
.
Dear Peter, this statement tells me that you know *very* little about the complex and dynamic history of the early Greek churches. In fact, there was a whole series of dangerous heresies besetting the churches prior to the fourth century. Even in Paul's day there were those attempting to undermine the integrity of the Faith. In the second century there were the many and various types of Gnosticism that led many astray (to wander the twisted paths of the Wicked One). In the same way, the third century also had its share of dangerous heresies. Therefore I must completely reject your interpretation of the meaning and significance of the first ecumenical council.
.
> PE: Other, later councils decided such things as the canon of scripture (council of Carthage) and
> the fate of icons in the church (Nicea II) Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the prayerful
> leading of the ecumenical councils, the rules of the church were laid out and the Truth that the
> church could teach defined.
.
Actually, what was laid out by the councils had very little to do with the Truth of things, and everything to do with making priestcraft, and the priestly vision of all things, the supreme ruling authority over all the churches ... Beside the pagan Emperor, of course! ... In other words, by the fourth century, the inevitable creeping corruption had everywhere infected the churches such that the pure cool streams of the gospel had been muddied and submerged under a cesspool of false teachings and perverse practices (for example: infant baptism). In the fourth century the corruption was so widespread, and so deeply ingrained, that some had no choice but to leave the worldly churches altogether, and seek "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" in the barren desert sands of Egypt. These were the Desert Fathers; and from them was to come the monastic traditions that were so important to the survival of the churches in the Dark Ages that followed the fall of the Roman Empire.
.
> In 1054, after years of strife (which seems to have started with patriarch Photios in the 8th century)
.
Then you ought to say: "In 1054, after *centuries* of strife ..."
.
> the Roman catholics excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.
.
A rather arrogant thing for the pope to do, don't you think?
.
> In response, the four Orthodox patriarchates excommunicated the Roman catholic see.
.
Monkey see, monkey do.
.
> PE: The churches were anathema to each other until the twentieh century.
.
You mean they're *not* anathema anymore? ... :)
.
> during this time, Rome proposed more innovations to the faith.
.
You mean in the last thousand years? ... You call them "innovations", eh? I call them corruption heaped upon iniquity heaped upon apostasy! ... "innovations" HA! That's a hot one.
.
> Things like the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were ideas that were decided on by the
> schismatic Romans alone.
.
Yes. They set the standards for priestly arrogance and vanity.
.
> PE: In response to the Roman sees innovations and additions to the true faith,
.
I have no idea what you mean when you refer to "the true faith". I know what I mean when I refer to the true faith: I mean the Faith of the early Greek churches as it is preserved and gifted unto us in the form of the sacred documents of the New Testament (ie. being the measure or standard of all authentic Christian faith). Is this what you mean by 'true faith' also?
.
> people like Martin Luther and John Calvin began their theological founding of Protestantism.
.
That is incorrect. The early Protestant Reformers did not set out to create something called 'Protestantism' to compete with 'Catholicism'. The early years of the Reformation were just that, an attempt to 'reform' the existing (corrupt) system. Only when that proved to be quite impossible was it necessary to create other religious systems.
.
> If, instead of founding false churches, they had joined with the
> Holy Orthodox church, history might have been far different.
.
Oh, no doubt history would have been *somewhat* different. But I don't see much advantage in joining a church that is little more than a slave of its own dead and dying traditions. That is, the Holy Orthodox church serves its traditions, rather than having its traditions serve the needs of believers. This is a subtle distinction, to be sure, but a very important one nevertheless! At least the Reformers had the courage to try something new and alive; rather than give themselves over to something spiritually frozen and dead in the water.
.
> PE: I do not believe that Gay rights advocates and militant feminists are busy counting Orthodox victories,
> they are too busy working on the schismatic Roman church and the heretical Protestant churches.
.
The Woman Catholic Church of Canada, and her many popular and ecumenical Protestant daughter churches, have already long since lost and surrendered completely and absolutely to the madness and perversion of radical feminism (such that there is no 'big-name' church anywhere in Canada that is a fit place for any self-respecting Christian man (or woman, for that matter))!
.
> PE: I have heard of active gay and female ministers in the Episcopal church,
.
Not surprisingly, 'the church that reason built' leads the way in turning the churches into something very pleasing unto the Wicked One.
.
> but I haven't heard of them in the Orthodox church. If I am mistaken, please let me know.
.
I don't think that the Orthodox Church's resilience against the apostate 'gospel of perversion' is any kind of proof of its innate superiority; since it is, in any case, incapable of changing so as to meet the current spiritual, social, and ethical needs of today's lost and forlorn post-modern Christians. Moreover, there are other minor churches that likewise resist the folly and lunacy of Woman-Church; and they are in no way connected with the Orthodox churches.
.
> I believe that the one true church is still around,
.
The only 'one true church' that I am aware of is the universal spiritual church of all true believers (who are a part of it regardless of their membership in any visible church).
.
> that it is Orthodox, and that it still teaches according to the apostolic traditions.
.
Really? Does the Orthodox church still baptize infants? Yes? Is it still owned and operated by the priests according to the priestly vision of all things? Yes? Then it most certainly does NOT teach according to the *authentic* apostolic traditions of the early Greek churches (as revealed and given in the sacred scriptures)!
.
> PE: If you are worried about the multitudes of churches
.
I am not worried about the multitudes of churches. I *am* worried about the multitudes of self-professed Christians who apparently haven't got the first clue as to what it means to be a Christian!
.
> you can relieve yourself of many of the worries about multiple denominations
> by joining the Orthodox church.
.
Really? Do you seriously suppose that such a spiritually frozen and inept church would welcome with open arms such a radical and offensive cyber-prophet as myself? ... Sure they would. But first I'd have to give up all pretensions of being a prophet of the Word. Right, Peter?
.
> There aren't too many churches. The church is one. All others are mere imitations of reality.
.
This is far too simplistic a view of complex social and religious realities. The spiritual church is one (ie. one in spirit and truth). But the visible churches are many and varied. Some are better than the others, to be sure; but all fall far short of the glory and justice of the Kingdom of God. Please remember that all the churches are human inventions. The Son of Man did not preach the coming of the churches (or "the One True Apostolic Church"). He preached the coming of the Kingdom of God. Obviously these are two very different things!
.
> Visit my home page at http://members.home.net/elvish1/relig-1.htm for links to all kinds of information
> on Christian Belief. Sections are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Heresy.
> Orthodox perspective as to what constitutes Heresy.
.
Hey Peter, just what is the "Orthodox perspective as to what constitutes Heresy"? ... And tell us also what is the Orthodox perspective as to what constitutes a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ? I would be very interested to see your answers to both these queries.
P.S. The Second Unwritten Law of Corporate America: Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
/ Re: Question about 1Timothy Chap4- Please Answer " Thank you" / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 7 Oct 1999 /
.
> On 3Oct99 Bklyn Dan wrote: a quote from 1Timothy 4:1-5 <snipped> ... When it speaks of forbidding to marry,
> and commanding to abstain from meats. does this have to do with priest not being able to get married, and
> things like not eating meat on good Friday????
.
textman say: Dear Bklyn Dan, these verses were not written with Catholicism in mind, for the simple reason that the "Holy Catholic Church" (as a distinct denomination) did not exist in the second century as such (although there were churches in Rome since the first century). Nevertheless, these verses certainly *can* be rightly applied to Catholic practices; just as they can rightly be applied to any religious system that practices such unchristian things.
.
> Is it also Referring to the Catholic Church.
.
No. The author of 1Timothy was thinking primarily of the Gnostics who were then invading the churches, and corrupting the faith with their false teachings (4X: marriage as a source of wickedness) and perverse practices (4X: "sacred" homosexuality). Now not all Gnostics looked down on marriage, or practiced asceticism, but many did; and it was these that doubtless came to the attention of our author.
.
> And if so, What do Catholic priests have to say about this verse????
.
Not much. They would simply rather ignore anything in scripture that could possibly be applied to them or their vile and ungodly practice of priestcraft.
/ Topic > Re: First NT Manuscript / Date > 20 Oct 1999 / Forum > ChristWatch - Biblical History /
.
> On 30Sept99 Isa73 asked: Can anybody tell me what the first, full manuscript of the NT was called,
> and when?? -- Christ's servant, Larry
.
textman answers: Dear Larry, the earliest full manuscript of the entire New Testament is traditionaly thought to be the Codex Sinaiticus. This is the fourth century codex of the Greek Bible discovered c.1850 by Tischendorf on Mount Sinai. It is the only known complete copy of the Greek NT in the uncial script. For more information on this important manuscript please see 'The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration', 3rd Edition, by Bruce Metzger.
/ Subject > Re: Abomination of Desolation / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 17 July 1998 /
.
> <snip> I think that the revelation was given prior to 70 AD.
> I can't remember if I mentioned that in my prior post or not.
.
Dear Scott, it hardly matters since you are wrong in any case. Most scholars date Rev at about 100CE, which is a full generation after the Fall of Jerusalem.
.
> Modern scholarship is leading many to conclude that ALL of the New Testament was completed prior to 70 AD.
.
Now this is just plain absurd in the extreme! There may be one or two very foolish scholars who hold this opinion, but that is all. Most bible scholars are very well aware that it took several generations for all the NT books to be written. And it doesn't take a genuis to figure out why. No one in their right mind could suppose for a moment that a whole bunch of people suddenly got the idea to write a bunch a books for the benefit of Christians far in the future when all the early Christians were quite convinced that this world had no future. The formation of the NT began very slowly and very unsurely, and this is precisely what we should expect!
.
> I will be posting more information on this in the future. -- Scott
.
Oh please don't bother if this is the quality of the scholarship you intend on subjecting us to!
Go read a good commentary instead, Scott.
