Anonymity of the N.T.

[liamconnor]

Many posts point out the numerous claims made in the N.T. that fail to identify the one making them.

The gospels are all anonymous. Paul mentions 500 individuals who saw the risen Jesus, but gives not a single name (though, and it is rarely appreciated, he gives two names at the end of Romans).

A great deal is made of this by skeptics. But we may ask, why?

QforD:

Suppose that each gospel begin with a prologue in which the author identified himself with some specificity: I, John Mark, disciple of Peter; Luke, physician to Paul the apostle to the Gentiles; John, brother of James, the Lord's beloved. Or in 1 Cor. 15 "and then he appeared to more than five hundred at one time, of whom Claudius, Epenaetus, and Andronicus have served you well; greet Janius, the Lord's apostle, as he continues with you to strengthen you."


Would this really make a difference to skeptics? Or would skeptics slide on to another critique? What would that be?

[Justin108]

Many posts point out the numerous claims made in the N.T. that fail to identify the one making them.

The gospels are all anonymous. Paul mentions 500 individuals who saw the risen Jesus, but gives not a single name (though, and it is rarely appreciated, he gives two names at the end of Romans).

A great deal is made of this by skeptics. But we may ask, why?

QforD:

Suppose that each gospel begin with a prologue in which the author identified himself with some specificity: I, John Mark, disciple of Peter; Luke, physician to Paul the apostle to the Gentiles; John, brother of James, the Lord's beloved. Or in 1 Cor. 15 "and then he appeared to more than five hundred at one time, of whom Claudius, Epenaetus, and Andronicus have served you well; greet Janius, the Lord's apostle, as he continues with you to strengthen you."


Would this really make a difference to skeptics? Or would skeptics slide on to another critique? What would that be?

I often ask why the Book of Revelation is accepted as Biblical canon. Unlike the Gospels, Romans, Corinthians, etc., the Book of Revelation is entirely the claims of one man. He saw things that no one else can testify to. None of which the author of Revelation says can be tested or scrutinized in any way. So why believe any of them? The most common answer I get from believers is "because Revelation was written by the apostle John". The entirety of their trust in Revelation depend on the apostle John being the author. If John is not the author, then the only argument there is to support Revelation disappears. So why believe the Book of Revelation? Why not reject it as the ravings of a mad man?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

"John told me that Sue was seeing Frank" is more convincing than "Someone told me that Sue was seeing someone new."

[JP Cusick]

The gospels are all anonymous. Paul mentions 500 individuals who saw the risen Jesus, but gives not a single name (though, and it is rarely appreciated, he gives two names at the end of Romans).

A great deal is made of this by skeptics. But we may ask, why?

In those times Rome was persecuting any dissension including the sect of Christianity, so to give out the names could get those people executed by the Roman brutes.

It is very likely that before Paul got executed then the Roman probably demanded of Paul to give names for the Romans to tract down.

Would this really make a difference to skeptics? Or would skeptics slide on to another critique? What would that be?

It would not make any difference.

And I say they already slid onto other criticisms and denials.

[DanieltheDragon]

The gospels are all anonymous. Paul mentions 500 individuals who saw the risen Jesus, but gives not a single name (though, and it is rarely appreciated, he gives two names at the end of Romans).

A great deal is made of this by skeptics. But we may ask, why?

In those times Rome was persecuting any dissension including the sect of Christianity, so to give out the names could get those people executed by the Roman brutes.

It is very likely that before Paul got executed then the Roman probably demanded of Paul to give names for the Romans to tract down.

The first book burnings did not occur in the Roman Empire until after Constantine I a Christian emporer. There was no squad that tracked down Paul and other Christian leaders.

We do not know how Paul died but as a Roman Citizen when the Jewish authorities wanted to put him on trial he exercised his right to make an appeal to the emporer hence his two years of house arrest in Rome. It wasn't the Romans who were persecuting him....

Rome has a rich history of inclusiveness of other religious practices and customs. It was part of their conquer and expansion strategy.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

adds to the mystery don't it!

[JP Cusick]

The first book burnings did not occur in the Roman Empire until after Constantine I a Christian emporer. There was no squad that tracked down Paul and other Christian leaders.

When the Roman army sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE, then we can believe that the Romans burned the Jewish and the Christian documents without any regard for posterity.

We know from the Gospel that when Jesus was crucified that then the Apostle Peter denied knowing Jesus out of fear that the Romans would grab him too, so that is a fear of persecution whether it was a justified fear or not.

Rome used fear as its means to control the population, just as Jesus got crucified on top of a hill so then everyone all around could see and get the message as a threat to any who dared.

In the year 73 CE, Rome crucified some 6,000 slaves who rebelled, and they lined the 6k along the road for all to see.

So there was always a threat of persecution in any part of the Roman empire even when the people did nothing to deserve it.

We do not know how Paul died but as a Roman Citizen when the Jewish authorities wanted to put him on trial he exercised his right to make an appeal to the emporer hence his two years of house arrest in Rome. It wasn't the Romans who were persecuting him....

Paul was a Jew and a Roman citizen, because before he became converted to Christ then he was the chief persecutor of the Christians.

It probably took the Romans 2 years to figure out as to just who had Paul really betrayed since it could be said that Paul had betrayed the Jews and betrayed the Christians and at last he betrayed the Romans.

Rome has a rich history of inclusiveness of other religious practices and customs. It was part of their conquer and expansion strategy.

The Romans looted the Jewish Temple when they sacked Jerusalem - so that was not religious inclusiveness.

The Romans fed Christians to the lions and other forms of brutal execution - so that was not religious inclusiveness.

The Romans changed the Greek religion into Roman Gods - so that was not religious inclusiveness.

Then Rome took over Christianity and then began a new round of religious persecution under the guise and claim of Jesus Christ - so that was not religious inclusiveness.

So please do give some example of Roman tolerance for religion?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]

When the Roman army sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE, then we can believe that the Romans burned the Jewish and the Christian documents without any regard for posterity

You are referring to the Jewish rebellions. Yes after Rome conquered Judea it became Roman Judea for the first 100 years or so there were many rebellions that Rome put down. These were not about Religion for the Romans but about asserting control over the territory. They had no reason to burn Jewish and Christian documents that simply wasn't their shtick. Absorbing a religion into the empire was a way to pacify a culture. Hence you were free to worship any God or gods. The Jews of Roman Judea wanted to be free of Roman control so for a period of time there were many rebellions against Rome.

You are simply making things up about book burnings. As the Romans tried to preserve literature rather than destroy it. Please provide actual evidence of them destroying literature with the intention of squashing a religious group and you could change my mind.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]

Paul was a Jew and a Roman citizen, because before he became converted to Christ then he was the chief persecutor of the Christians.

It probably took the Romans 2 years to figure out as to just who had Paul really betrayed since it could be said that Paul had betrayed the Jews and betrayed the Christians and at last he betrayed the Romans.

I am sorry your thought process here is a little jumbled are you trying to say:

1. Paul was a Jewish Roman Citizen before he was a Christian
2. During this time he was the chief persecutor of Christians

Are you implying he did this for Rome?

I don't see how it could be said that he betrayed the Christians or the Romans. I can see how it can be said he betrayed the Jews. Please elaborate on this. Please keep in mind it was the Pharisees not the Romans putting Paul on trial. They literally had no stake in the case.

[JP Cusick]

You are referring to the Jewish rebellions. Yes after Rome conquered Judea it became Roman Judea for the first 100 years or so there were many rebellions that Rome put down. These were not about Religion for the Romans but about asserting control over the territory. They had no reason to burn Jewish and Christian documents that simply wasn't their shtick. Absorbing a religion into the empire was a way to pacify a culture. Hence you were free to worship any God or gods. The Jews of Roman Judea wanted to be free of Roman control so for a period of time there were many rebellions against Rome.

Sir - your history is severely flawed.

The reason for the Jewish rebellion was because the Romans ordered a statue of emperor Caligula as the God to be placed in the Temple - and that is what started the Jewish rebellion in 66 CE.

The Romans were barbarians and savages as was their empire.

You are simply making things up about book burnings. As the Romans tried to preserve literature rather than destroy it. Please provide actual evidence of them destroying literature with the intention of squashing a religious group and you could change my mind.

The Romans burned the great Library of Alexandria.

Of yes I know that history claims that was an accident - but they did burn it down - and another "accident" was that the Romans did not save anything from inside the Library.