The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both?

I am crafting a reply but if you would kindly please fix the quote from me that you brought over from the other thread:My quote was: I don't know if you typed it or what but you changed ahistoric to historic which changes my quote greatly.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

I am not claiming that they should be rejected because they were culturally conditioned. I am claiming that if you truly mean we should take the writings in context, that we need to recognize the conflicting or erroneous motivations of the writers. This information gives us incredibly valuable insight as to the truth claims that these people make and the reliability of their understanding of god. It seems very much like you want us to treat the NT as an imperfect picture that nevertheless still reveals the character of god. Is that a good characterization of your position? And so what should we think of his failure to connect Jesus to the OT? Why was he so motivated to make things up to convince Jews that Jesus really was the messiah? How is the character of god revealed in Matthew's willingness to lie to Jews about their own scripture? Its more than just that they had an agenda. Its the issue that they are lying about who they are in order to gain perceived authority.We can go further. We can say that what they wrote does make them wrong. They explicitly recast women back into subjugation. That IS wrong. Where is the character of god in these people's motivation? They falsely take Paul's name in order to say thing that have kept women as a depressed majority in our culture for the next 2000 years. They are liars and power mongers. How are we supposed to be informed by them in their TRUE context? And so how should we use our intelligence and enquiring minds and morality to treat the writings of liars and forgers? I think we should use our intelligence and morality to reject from the marketplace of ideas anything that so blatantly perjures itself. Well that is very interesting because although it might be a constant in the NT, it is NOT a constant thing about the diversity of the early writings about Jesus. The physical resurrection was a point of deep dispute AMONG CHRISTIANS in the early church. You have forever lost gospels as a result of the dystopian information suppression campaign of the early church. Docetism is present in many commentaries
that do survive. Fervor against the docetic position is the likely cause for the loss of the majority of the Gospel of Peter.Yet directly against your point, there was a variety of rather strong Christian derived movements that got off the ground WITHOUT what you claim is required for plausibility. It is in fact the outcome of this war among early Christians that hardened the doctrine of the physical resurrection. And do you not feel in any way that that may just be a deficiency of your own imagination? What do you think were the motivations of the people who wrote down the story of Prometheus?That may even be beside the point. Who cares if they believed it is true? How is that any support for it actually BEING true? How do the beliefs of these people inform us about the truth of god?That is the ultimate question with respect to inspiration isn't it? If the books aren't actually divinely directed, explain one way that they are any different from the giant pile of discarded mythology right next to them? To sum up my challenge, I feel that you are glossing over significant deficiencies by referring to them as "personal and cultural biases." Lying is not a bias. It is not an acceptable form of discourse in any cultural communication that is worth having a debate about.

I have a more general reply in mind but I want to clear up a couple of points to ground us.Do you or do you not accept that Paul is likely NOT the author of:Colossians
Ephesians
Hebrews
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
TitusOr for that matter, textual variants such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Well clearly the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul. Those are the easy ones. Do you dispute that? Shall we dive into the evidence?My favorite one though is 2 Thessalonians because it looks very much like it was written to REPLACE 1 Thessalonians. In 1 Thessalonians, the people are worried that Jesus hasn't come back yet like he said he would before that generation had perished. Yet people were dying and so people were understandably upset. So what does Paul do? Does he try to explain it away as the long suffering of the lord? NO! He doubles down! He tells them that the kingdom of god (the non-apocalyptic version) is coming and it will be quick and unexpected!Yet in 2 Thessalonians, "Paul" is all about how all these other things need to happen first and how god is biding his time waiting for cosmic events to ripen. God also has gotten a whole lot more apocalyptic, almost like he had been reading a lot of the stuff that was going around long after real Paul was dead. He even tells the people to get off their lazy butts waiting for god to come and get back to work! (3:6)So which Paul reveals the character of God? Is it the real Paul who's god is ineffective and fails to keep his promises? Or is it the fake Paul who excuses god and invents fantasy scenarios that will never pass?Do they both some how echo who god really is despite their respective failure? Does their contradiction not matter?

Sorry for the delay. I needed to take a few days off from the computer. It very clearly talks about WHEN and HOW the return of Christ will occur which is the point. Paul is telling them that those who have already died will be raised up before those who are still alive and all of them together will meet in the sky. This is addressed to "we who are alive". It is a very uncomplicated statement.and more: Paul says very clearly not only that it will be sudden and unexpected, but that these are things that the Thessalonians already know and should STILL expect. Like I said, He is doubling down! Thats not the point. As I laid out above, he also is making a claim about the proximity of events. THAT is the major difference between 1 and 2 Thessalonians.He is very clearly assuaging the doubts of the Thessalonians who are operating under the impression (that he affirms their prior knowledge of) that they will personally witness the return of Christ. Most importantly, is how Paul deals with this situation differently in 1 versus 2 Thessalonians.Lets move on to your quote from 2 Thessalonians. Which very much seems like a reference to 1 Thessalonians! At the very least, 2 Thessalonians is speaking very directly about a previous FALSE impression given to the Thessalonians about the nearness of the end times which it purports to correct.But why did you stop the quote there? Keep going! So he is DIRECLTY saying that the Thessalonians have false information available to them that he is trying to correct concerning the timing of the coming of the lord and the very first thing he says concerning the correction he is offering is about how it is conditioned upon world events!How much more contradictory can you get to "While people are saying, There is peace and security, then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman"?1 Thessalonians directly says that people will be lulled by peace. 2 Thessalonians says that first there will be conflict. I don't know how you could possibly come to this interpretation when the quote YOU pulled from 2 Thessalonians is referencing eschatology directly. The author is very specifically saying outright that he is talking about an alternative, correct accounting of the end times in contrast to some other information that the Thessalonians were currently relying on. Your own quote refutes you!But all of this is just to get you to reflect on this notion of context. When you say the word "context" you seem to mean, "the tool I use to create harmony when confronted with conflict." This is disingenuous.A true contextual approach to understanding some reflection of god in the text would take into account the fact that 1 and 2 Thessalonians are contradictory accounts of how early Christians perceived god. It would take into account the reasons for why early writers felt the need to lie about who they were to get their message out. Bear in mind, they didn't just take the name of Paul.

The main point wasn't about the imagery, it was about the specificity and the quote concerning "we who are alive". I'll note that you are doing here exactly what I talked about at the end of my last post concerning context. It is not a tool for creating harmony. Context is far more important in how it illuminates the differences and reasons for differences in the text.Even if you are pious, it doesn't serve you to try to weave these justifications. For example, look at how someone like Bruce Metzger approached it. For him, the higher criticism was illuminating. I almost took a position similar to his before I found other reasons to toss the faith. Why does everything have to be congruent? Aren't you making a more nuanced faith more inaccessible by this? You are completely ignoring the "thief in the night" and "sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman". This means something and if you take it ... in context ... you see that Paul is clearly talking about eschatology. Which is why some anonymous forger wrote 2 Thessalonians. Because Paul clearly was one of those who said that the end of the world is near and he was wrong.Why can't we just take the plain reading and just realize that Paul was wrong? Why is that in and of itself so controversial to you? Would that, if it were true, reduce the character of god revealed in his writings?Moving on ... lets stop splitting up 2 Thessalonian: Please answer these questionsWhat is the "letter seeming to be from us"? What is Paul trying to refute with this letter? This is important.What of this context makes you believe this is about the revolt? What other than your apriori commitment to place this letter at the time of Paul gives any indication that this is about the politics of Paul's time?"Paul" here says that "the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth"; but the revolt was crushed. This was not written at the time of Paul. This was written with knowledge of other apocalyptic literature that came after Paul. This is not Paul! No its not obvious at all. The people of the day were already trying to say that the kingdom of god had already come in some spiritual sense. It is the very common and predictable response to a failure of an end times prophecy. The most recent case was that crazy guy in California (was it last year) who spent all that money on advertising. When the day came, they just claimed it was spiritual.Paul in 1 Thessalonians does not shy away from the concern over the late return, he doubles down on the prediction. By the time 2 Thessalonians come around, its been far too long to make excuses and thus you have the apocalyptic conditioning. In this case yes they might have needed a letter because there was already a movement to water down the definition of the kingdom of god since ... you know ... he didn't come. Says you. I have not seen anything to convince me that they are talking about different events or that any contemporary event is tied to 2 Thessalonians. Well, you are going to have to come up with more evidence that Paul is talking about the revolt in 2 Thessalonians. This is especially considering the fact that it was written afterward and that the Romans won. That doesn't exactly jive with what is written. "Paul" says Jesus will kill them. Reality was different. Either "Paul" is not talking about that event or your 'Day of the Lord' re-interpretation is wrong. Either way it is illuminating of the fact that 2 Thessalonians was not the real Paul.As for the times of peace. Paul says that some people WILL be lulled into a sense of peace which will be rudely interrupted by the return of Christ. He is obviously talking about the suddenness of the return in 1 Thessalonians. Other than the "we who are alive" and "like a thief in the night"?Don't forget the nature of the event. There is a contradiction in the nature too. And you are missing the reason for the concern. The reason the Thessalonians are worried is that they though Jesus should have been back by now like he promised.Paul in 1 Thessalonians is making excuses for the failure of Jesus."Paul" 2 Thessalonians is making excuses for the failure of the real Paul. That sounds very convenient. Can you support this?

Thats the guy I was thinking of. I couldn't remember his name.Time and time again we have people who try to predict doom and when they fail that either.1. Set a new date
2. Claim it was spiritualCamping did both. Paul never set a date that we know of nor do we know the direct fallout of the fact that Jesus didn't return in his lifetime. What we do have is later authors making excuses and redefining the circumstances of the return.

NO worries. Thanks for replying at all. Our conversations always force me to think harder. But don't you agree that the interpretation of authorship and the resulting interpretation of content are linked? The reason you must interpret Paul the way you are seems to be because you are accepting genuine authorship first. Especially considering that you seem to be capable of looking past the apparent contradiction, it seems odd that you would be so defensive of original authorship. There are 7 "undisputed" epistles from which you can derive a lot of theology, rather good theology in my opinion. I happen to think that the world would have been a better place had Marcion won the debate. (I know Marcion accepted certain disputable works of Paul but the ones he rejected help a whole lot.)If you really believe in the message of Paul, wouldn't you want that message to be the authentic one?The point I am trying to make is, this seems to be common throughout modern Christianity. There is quite a bit of convoluted theology surrounding issues that more simply explained by the banal facts of how these books came to be. You haven't shown that at all (more on that below where it is addressed) and I have not read anyone who agrees with you. It seem like quite a stretch to say that Paul in 1 Thes. is not talking about the return of Christ. So when he says he is talking about the coming kingdom of god, why don't you believe him? Why do you take him to mean something else just so that it harmonizes with other unrelated works that he is unlikely to have written? I also asked you to support this claim and you haven't. Paul could not have been talking about the revolt in 2 Thes. because it was written after the revolt. I haven't seen anything compelling from you to the effect that we should believe that Paul is talking about the revolt. All he is saying is that it hasn't happen yet. Even if it is symbolic you have no evidence that he is talking about the revolt! This is a huge stretch.You are also ignoring what I said regarding what people were doing. We have notions that people WERE claiming that the kingdom of god was present. People were already modernizing, twisting, making different excuses. "Paul" had reason to reassure them that the real kingdom of god, not some metaphor for current events, was still going to occur in the future.You are the one who making this more complicated that it needs to be and the big question for me is still why? To what ends? What does it gain you not to just follow the easy road. The way your going we have to accept not only that Paul is not talking plainly about the kingdom of god, but that what it really references is a revolt for which it is doubtful if that is even possible giving the timing of things. Except for that whole, "we who are alive" and back in Luke "this generation will not pass". People REALLY believed that Jesus would be returning in their lifetime. And THEY were not the ones misinterpreting things. Not all of the issues of authenticity rest on the conflict over parousia. Admittedly this is the least clear cut of the disputed epistles but there are other issues such as the more advanced Christology, the apocalyptic nature, and differences in style in 2 Thes. I am willing to go down that path but I think you are missing the point which is that Paul in 2 Thes. has direct cause to refer to the kingdom of god in its literal sense. Thats the point I am trying to make. Your argument that it must be a metaphor for current events rests on this notion that Paul can't possibly be talking about parousia. I can't keep straight which epistle you think is referring to the revolt. In this case you seem to be saying that 1 Thes. is also referring to the revolt and not the return. Is that true? Which is perfectly fine if you believe Paul in 1 Thes. The real Paul was down with what Jesus said about his return. It only becomes a problem when you start reading "Paul" in 2 Thes. But Paul doesn't just use the phrase "the day of the lord". He also says: The "day of the lord" clearly is "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". It right there, in the same sentence. I don't know how it is possible for you to be separating them in your head. And AGAIN, I don't see to what purpose you could possibly be served by doing so.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

I admit to being a bit confused.It seems as though PaulK is referring to the disciples in the form of their actual existence; how they would really feel in the days after Jesus' death. In that moment there would be cognitive dissonance that would be resolved by their invention of the resurrection.You seem to be talking about the disciples as characters in the story, and how cognitive dissonance plays a part in the narrative. In his debate with GDR, I don't think PaulK is making literary argument.I could be wrong though, hopefully he can look past his frustration with you and let us know.To be fair, you did join the conversation with a rather weak, one line, criticism.

You didn't reply to the issue I posed at all.It seems as though you are coming from a literary perspective while PaulK is talking about a historical perspective.The fact that you zeroed in on my use of the word "invention" makes me believe even more that this is true.PaulK does not seem to be talking about the disciples as characters in a story. I am beginning to understand his frustration.

Yes jar. I am aware that I typed the word "invention". You unforunatly completely missed the point of what I was trying to say by focusing on a word choice.I guess I had a false hope for salvaging the conversation. You seem to be treating me as an opponent despite the fact that I was merely trying to act as a mediator of a misunderstanding.

Not to reply to Percy but rather to springboard off his comment, this is also what I understand PaulK to be saying. I would be greatful if he could at least confirm that. I have waning hope that it would matter to the discussion but the hope is still there.

I didn't mean to say you are being defensive. I mean that it is more difficult for you to support a convoluted theology that accepts all of the works rather than the simpler (and better evidenced answer IMO) that some of the writings just don't belong. It might feel like you have it all worked out to you, but to me it looks quite a bit like an abstract mess with little remaining value as a faith.My thinking in this vein comes from the last step in my own deconversion. I was looking for a core of legitimacy in which I could build a new faith. It seems like what you are doing is presenting a central abstraction of truth derived from the whole. You took a different path. I can't be to critical because despite confronting some of the same serious issues I did, you kept your faith and seem happy about it. I just can't go where you are because of the mental contortions I feel I have to make in order to do so. Its possible, but I still don't think it could have been any WORSE than what did result including rather virulent anti-semitism. To say that the murderous religious bigotry would have been slightly worse is not saying much.My point was more geared toward speculating what Christianty may have been like without the pastorals, without the addition of 1 Corinthians 14:34, without Hebrews, without the gospel of John, without Revelations. You could build a rather egalitarian faith with the real Paul's branch of theology.As an editing note, I am not responding to some stuff just to refocus because I believe that some of the core discussion points have been quote fragmented. Your points have been noted though. You missed my point. I am talking about the 2 Thes. writer's motivation for what he said, "to the effect that the day of the Lord has come." My point is that people really believed that this was it, that they were living in the "day of the lord". The writer's motivation is clear, his intention is to DISPELL them of that notion. The language is very plain. He says, "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed."It seems really odd to have to nit-pick on this point but I think it is important because you are clearly presenting a different motivation for the letter that what is plainly read. Your point about Luke is well taken. I'll only note that you agree that many Christians presumed that the second coming would be in their lifetime. Paul seem to be one of them and if he was, it goes to my point that he had cause to write to people about concerns reagarding the second coming.A further point which I haven't thought of until now is why Paul and the Thessalonians, in terms of their theology, would be overly concerned with the Jewish revolt.Overall, I still don't get the connection to the revolt. I think it is more correct and MUCH easier to interpret Paul as talking about parousia. I simply disagree and having seen nothing to convince me that Paul is not talking about a literal "day of the lord." I understand your pulling that phrase from the OT and what it meant in that context but in THIS context, right after Paul just finished talking about issues of parousia regarding the already dead, to try to say that the "day of the lord" means anything other than Jesus' actual return is mind melting apologetics.You cannot divorce chapter 4 from chapter 5. You are proposing such a sharp change in topic between them that I think anyone should be suspect. Furthermore, I go back to my overarching question, to what end? What do you gain by this convultion of interpretation OTHER THAN harmony with disputed text?This next part of the discussion gets really weird for me and I think we very much need to clear this next bit up... He is not writing a letter to tell them it had already occurred! Somebody else did that! This letter is a rebuttal. He is writing a letter to make sure they know that it has NOT OCCURRED!Lets break it down:

• Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him - How is it possible for you to read this and say with a straigt face that it "can't be referring to Christ's return?" Its right there in his words!
  
• we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us - Someone else was telling them stuff. Wrong stuff that would cause them to be upset, "alarmed", "shaken in mind".
  
• to the effect that the day of the Lord has come - Someone else was saying that to them and "Paul" is writing THIS letter to correct that problem.
  

All of that is one complete thought. One sentence.If you are right, what does, "concerning the coming of our Lord" refer to? Something else? The previous quote was from 2 Thes. and you're jumping back to 1 Thes... What gives? (by the way, I prefer ESV) And I am further confused in that you seem to be acknowledging that 1 Thes 5 here is talking about parousia.... Am I in the twilight zone? Did you not just a few words back go to great effort to connect 1 Thes. 5 to rather mundane "social turmoil". I want to let you know that I value our discussion. I look forward to your replies eagerly because you make me think a lot harder than I do on my own. Frankly though GDR, your search for truth in an ambiguous world seems to be proceeding by first making the world unnecessarily more ambiguous.I can guess why. Ambiguity is a great place to hide uncomfortable truths. If there can be doubt about a fact or a plain interpretation, then there is intellectual room to house this robust and inclusive discription of theology.I don't think that way. Where there is an uncomfortable or uncertain truth I increase my skepticism. Discrepancy give cause to be critical, not more abstract.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Sorry once again for the late reply. Life is ever busy. Bravo! I understand where you are coming from especially when you say that you root your understanding in your belief of the resurrection. I am okay with that. That doesn't bother me. But I don't think starting there rescues the situation. The gospels could be an accurate reflection of the life of Jesus and his resurrection and the Paulian tangle of pseudo-scripture could be wrong ... independently. I am beginning to understand what you mean when you say the word 'context' and I don't think we are using it the same way. You are using it in the sense of some kind of "contextual inerrancy". What I mean is that rather than let the books themselves set the context, you provide the context based on your foundation as you described in the lengthy part at the top of your reply. Paul talking about parousia in Thessalonians does not violate the context of the book, the time frame, the other information we know about Paul and early Christianity, etc. But it apparently DOES violate the context with which you have formed your belief.You have not yet showed me WHY it does, I don't know why the truth of the resurrection is in any way offended by Paul being wrong and his successors being forgers. It seems like you should be perfectly capable of maintaining the essence of the belief you described above without the strange contortions such as claiming that Paul in 2 Thes. isn't talking about the return of Christ despite how explicit it is.I cannot fathom how you are able to make this single and very straightforward verse so obscure.You say: Then why does he start the sentence with, "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him"?You keep repeating this line from NT Wright that it would be somehow absurd for the Thessalonians to believe that they were living in the kingdom of god. That it is absurd to think that they would spiritualize the original message from Paul after waiting so many years for the "end of the space-time universe" IF THAT IS EVEN WHAT THEY BELIEVED!Not only does your explanation make a mess of the meaning of that single sentence, your entire ability to create such a distortion rests on an unknown assumption of the particular faith of the Thessalonians.You speak so highly of context but you are not just ignoring the context of the book and the body of work attributed to Paul, you are ignoring the context of the single sentence....Even IF you assume authorship, the interpretation that Paul was simply disabusing the Thessalonians of the notion of a non-physical kingdom of god is far more straightforward AND does not conflict with your previously stated beliefs! So why go down this road? The only reason I could possibly see would be to rescue Paul from himself ..... and to rescue the legacy of a faith build on forgery.Why not just dismiss the forgery? There is plenty left as you even state yourself that the foundation is in the gospels and the resurrection.