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

I would agree that it an open question as to whether or not Paul directly wrote those letters. They may have been written by other authors from other material from Paul, from listening to Paul or just from understanding what Paul taught and replicating it as best they could.

It is a very long way from practically everything. Luke says that Joseph took his family to Bethlehem because of a census. Matthew just said that He was born in Bethlehem with no explanation. Where's the conflict.What are you basing the 10 years on?Frankly even if there is a conflict so what? Details around the birth of Jesus likely would have varied by the time the Gospels were written. Actually we don't know what Josephus' sources were. Yes we know his biases, but even knowing his biases isn't going to give us certainty about where his biases caused him to get it wrong. I agree that the Gospels can't be verified from non-Biblical sources. However they were written by 4 different authors with the epistles supporting the resurrection and the message. Once again, I don't agree that the details that vary make any real difference unless you are trying to prove that God dictated it word for word. That is an opinion. You have yours and I have mine. I agree that I can't say that the Gospel writers definitely had good sources, but you can't say that they didn't. The Gospels were written some time after the resurrection so it isn't surprising that there are differences in the details. Frankly if there weren't differences I think that there would be a great deal more reason to be suspicious.

Of course it's a "heart thing". You can't command someone not to covet, and you can't make a decision not to covet. It is a heart thing when you can find joy in what someone else has even when you don't have it yourself. I would say yes, but once again I don't see it as God informing Moses directly, (although I suppose it is possible but frankly I don't see that it makes any difference one way or the other), but just by planting an idea in his mind or speaking through to his imagination in what was likely non-specific ideas.IMHO as a Christian, my understanding of what God is doing is that by working through the hearts and minds of His created beings He will bring about a world where unselfish love demonstrated in forgiveness, mercy, kindness and perfect justice is the norm. All evolutionary processes have to start somehow and somewhere. I see the 10 commandments as one of the early steps along that revolutionary path.

Nonsense. No where does it mention or even hint at finding joy in what someone else has even when you don't have it yourself. That's just stuff you are making up.That part of the commandments was meant to keep peace in the tribe. But again, that is totally irrelevant to who the authors of the various stories were that made it through the writing, editing, redacting, selecting process.Working through hearts and minds says nothing about authorship of Bible stories.Edited by jar, : fix quotebox

If your neighbour has a car that you've always wanted, it seems to me that the only way not to covet is to be happy for him. However, it doesn't matter.As far as making things up, I'm expressing my understanding of things which is what we all do. Well the topic is about authorship, but also how our conclusions on authorship affect our understanding of the nature of God and the human relationship with Him.If God planted the idea that we should be content and not be jealous of what other people have in Moses imagination or maybe his conscience, and then later on Moses puts it to words then who is the author? I'd say Moses but the original idea comes from God.

Again, that is just supposition piled on supposition.Small tribal societies can't survive if the members are not getting along and so it is reasonable to try to keep inter-family squabbles from starting. One way is to say that you can't want your neighbors wife or goats or tent or donkey.

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?

quote:

---

It is a very long way from practically everything.

---

I think everything but the Resurrection is close enough to practically everything.

quote:

---

Luke says that Joseph took his family to Bethlehem because of a census. Matthew just said that He was born in Bethlehem with no explanation. Where's the conflict.

---

Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem and only leaving for Nazareth after they return from Egypt.Luke as Mary and Joseph as residents of Nazareth, only visiting Bethlehem for the census (and doesn't even give a valid reason for residents of Galilee to have to go to Judaea for a census anyway).

quote:

---

What are you basing the 10 years on?

---

The fact that Matthew has Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great, and Luke has Jesus born in the census of Quirinius, taken after the deposition of Herod's successor, Archelaus. Archelaus was deposed in the 10th year of his reign...

quote:

---

Frankly even if there is a conflict so what? Details around the birth of Jesus likely would have varied by the time the Gospels were written.

---

The point is that the stories differ so much that one of them must be badly wrong. So wrong that we should take it as a fiction, at most loosely based on fact. (And thus we can conclude that if there was any "Divine Inspiration" it did not make the Gospels historically reliable, at all.)

quote:

---

Actually we don't know what Josephus' sources were. Yes we know his biases, but even knowing his biases isn't going to give us certainty about where his biases caused him to get it wrong.

---

That's untrue. We know that he had personal experience of the Jewish War. We know a number of the sources that he used such as Nicolaus of Damascus.And of course, knowing his biases allows us to anticipate where he may be inaccurate - it's a lot better than simply assuming that he is unquestionably correct in every claim that he makes.

quote:

---

I agree that the Gospels can't be verified from non-Biblical sources. However they were written by 4 different authors with the epistles supporting the resurrection and the message. Once again, I don't agree that the details that vary make any real difference unless you are trying to prove that God dictated it word for word.

---

But since you obviously don't know what the differences are - or even care - how can you say that they are just details ?And it's obvious that we aren't just talking about the sort of minor details that an eyewitness could get wrong. We are talking about things that nobody who was there could possibly have got wrong.

quote:

---

That is an opinion. You have yours and I have mine. I agree that I can't say that the Gospel writers definitely had good sources, but you can't say that they didn't. The Gospels were written some time after the resurrection so it isn't surprising that there are differences in the details. Frankly if there weren't differences I think that there would be a great deal more reason to be suspicious.

---

By which you mean that I have the Bible as it actually is, and you have your opinion of what the Bible ought to be. It seems obvious which is the sounder basis for evaluating the text.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

And yet you don't really explain why. Which is odd, seeing as there is nothing at all unusual about the ten commandments.Prohibitions against theft and against murder are pretty much universal features of every list of commandments any religion or culture has ever dreamed up, and are part of just about every moral code or philosophy.False witness is explicity forbidden in the Code of Hammurabi (it's actually the very first commandment), so is clearly a part of the standard laws and moral codes of the Anicent Middle East.The idea of a Sabbath - a holy day in which you can do no work, is also a standard part of Middle Eastern tradition. Every seventh day in the Babylonian calendar was a holy day in which certain activities were prohibited. Even the word 'Shabbat' may be related to a Sumerian word used to refer to the 15th day after the new moon, considered an extra-special rest day when sacrifices were made to the gods.'Honouring your father and mother' is hardly a special idea. I don't know anything specific about traditions in the regard in the milieu the ten commandments were written, but respecting your elders is a major part of Confucian teachings. I find it very hard to believe that the idea was novel to the authors of the Ten Commandments.Adultery is, once again, commonly prohibitied by legal and moral systems all over the world. Adultery was punished by drowning under Babylonian law.The prohibition against taking other gods is just a declaration that Yahweh is Israel's god. Hammurabi's code starts by saying that the god Marduk has dominion over Bablyon. Again, standard stuff.So what's left, exactly, that sets this code of rules apart as a significant departure from cultural norms. All we've got so far is a listing of the exact cultural norms that existed the in the region. All that's left is idolatry and the instruction not to covet. If you think one religious quirk (idolatry), and the idea that it's wrong to want to steal as well as just to steal, constitute a severe departure, then I have to ask how you define 'severe'.

From a strictly human perspective you can't legislate feelings. How do you tell someone not to want something somebody else has and resent them for having it? Again from a human perspective, all you can do is pass laws against them acting on their feelings.

I don’t actually agree with your understanding of the 2 quotes. The quote from 1 Thessalonians is talking about what happens when time comes to an end, in 1st century Jewish apocalyptic language based on Daniel 7. As you pointed out the Thessalonians were dying and the question was about how to deal with the death of their families and friends.

quote:

---

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope

---

In the pagan societies around them there would be extravagant mourning and hopelessness for the families of those who have died. Paul is simply telling them that those who are alive when Christ returns will not be at an advantage to those who have already died.

quote:

---

15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

---

In your quote from Thessalonians 2 Paul is not talking about Christ’s return but about their political situation vis-a-vis the Romans.

quote:

---

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 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, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

---

When Paul talks about the day of the lord is not talking about Christ’s return but using it in the sense that OT prophets did to refer to climatic political catastrophes. Obviously Paul can’t be talking eschatologically because if Christ had returned the Thessalonians wouldn’t need a letter to tell them about it. Paul is only talking to them about Christ’s presence in their worship in the same terms that churches do today.

quote:

---

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

---

The man of lawlessness is obviously the Roman emperor. Earlier around 40 AD Caligula had put a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple and he is suggesting that the current emperor might do the same. He is simply telling them that the rebellion hadn’t as yet started and that the political catastrophe that would result from that rebellion hadn’t happened yet.The thing is that much of what 21st century westerners understand from the Gospels to be about end times is actually about Christ’s political message opposing armed rebellion against the Romans.

But it only says "don't want what your neighbor owns", not "don't want a wife, or donkey or goat". It says don't want the exact object your neighbor already has, but it's fine to want one just like it or even better.It has NOTHING to do with feelings and everything to do with behavior.

There is also a consistent message of what Jesus did and had to say. I agree that there are some confusing bits but these books were written in a different era and context than anything we know today. So where's the conflict. Both those statements can be true. I would add that these events happened 30 years prior to the Jesus' ministry and there is no particular reason for anyone to record these events and so I would expect that there would be discrepancies anyway. I wouldn’t take it as fiction but it is about the writers reporting on events that happened years earlier and that their sources for the information themselves would not have had first hand knowledge. I suppose the only source would have been Mary as there is no further mention of Joseph in the Gospels we can only assume that he was deceased by the time Jesus was 30.AS far as Divine Inspiration is concerned it is contention that the Gospel writers were inspired to write down what they knew, not that they were told what to write. I’m not denigrating what Josephus wrote but, as you agree, he would have had sources for what he wrote in The Jewish War. Certainly he had some first hand knowledge but he couldn’t be everywhere at once. The sources that he used to write about the war where he had no first hand knowledge would have had their biases as well. Also of course Josephus was very concerned about looking after his own hide. He was extremely political. No I’m not. I’m attempting to understand the Bible as an historical document. Yes I’m approaching that as a Theist for which I gave the rationale in the OP.

I agree with all of that and incidentally that is a great post.My point though is that the societies that the Jewish people interacted with, as well as the Jewish people themselves to a very large degree were looking for a God that would be on their side in battle. The 10 commandments have a different flavour to them. IMHO mankind is evolving spiritually towards the world of new creation that Isaiah, Jesus and Paul talk about. I see the 10 commandments as one early aspect of that spiritual evolution.Now God may have chosen the Jewish people to be the bearers of His message to the world it does not mean that He wasn’t working in the hearts, minds and imaginations of all people. We still see that today. There are many non-Christians who are adhere to the principle of unselfish love far better than many who profess Christianity including myself.

You quoted me out of context. I said: The resenting part of it is the problem and that is a feeling.