Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?

[Mithrae]

I'm sure this has been done many times, but I haven't seen one in my last month or two here so having just written some comments on it I figure I'll open a new thread too.

Please note that this thread is about the opinions of the earliest Christians and authors of the Tanakh; to discuss how they viewed their evolving religion, not to attack Christianity - there's plenty of other threads for that.

• Hi Roger and welcome to the forum There's no particular orientation to the forum as a whole - we've got folk from all sorts of Christian denominations as well as from non-Christian religions, non-religious theists, atheists, ignostics, agnostics, agnomists and probably everything else in between. I myself haven't been a Christian since more than thirteen years ago, but I think it's more educational, enjoyable and constructive to look for ways in which traditional religious beliefs might be tweaked into more modern, rational understandings; rather than just crudely and (in the case of this thread) rudely bashing on traditional beliefs using an equally fundamentalist mindset.
  
  On your point specifically, many Christians don't share the idea that the bible is a perfect Word of God - Jesus is the Word of God, after all - and in fact that doctrine is seemingly contradicted by the bible itself as merely a relic of the old covenant, when God's people did not want his direct spiritual guidance. And even from that old covenant perspective, there's a pretty stern warning in Deuteronomy against considering things to be the word of God when they are not spoken in his name (as most of the bible is not) or are seen to be untrue (which some such as these gospel contradictions obviously must be):
  • Deuteronomy 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
    
    Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,� declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,� declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,� declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.�
    
    2 Corinthians 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
  Since the doctrine of biblical inerrancy also leads to all kinds of irrational attempts to justify contradictions and oppressive teachings found in some parts of the bible, I'm more than happy to promote a more accurate view of the 'new covenant' as a much better alternative

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Mithrea, I am well aware that you have a sharp mind. However, in this case I think that your wittiness may have outwitted me. I am not completely sure what you want to debate.

Are you trying to debate what the biblical authors and other early Christians thought about what we now call the NT?

Are you trying to debate inerrancy itself?

Or are you bringing up the idea of a scripture-free concept of Christianity?

You may have to simplify this for us simple-mind folk.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Mithrae, I am well aware that you have a sharp mind. However, in this case I think that your wittiness may have outwitted me. I am not completely sure what you want to debate.

Are you trying to debate what the biblical authors and other early Christians thought about what we now call the NT?

Are you trying to debate inerrancy itself?

Or are you bringing up the idea of a scripture-free concept of Christianity?

All three of those, yes, or in the third case at least a more realistic perspective on what 'scripture' means. The notion of biblical inerrancy seems to be obviously incorrect (eg. contradictions in stories of angels at the tomb), but I think it's fairly clear that it was a non-biblical doctrine to begin with: Only a few parts of the bible claim to be anything along the lines of the 'word of God' (eg. the OT prophets), so making that claim for them when the authors themselves did not do so seems problematic. Furthermore at least one of those OT prophets evidently looked forward to a new covenant in which God's guidance for his people would be more direct, written in their hearts and minds, rather than on stone or paper. NT authors such as Paul, John and the author of Hebrews seem to have shared that perspective.

So whatever value there may be in the written experiences and opinions of earlier Christians and Jews, imagining them to be infallible or a primary vehicle of God's communication seems to have more than the merely intellectual problems of contradictions and dubious claims which critics more commonly raise.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 10 by rogerg]

The Word of Revelation from One-True-God could belong to any period of time. It could belong even to before the creation of time and space. Anything whether belonging to the seen or to the unseen realms is in the knowledge of God and He may reveal it to some person at His entire discretion :
[9:105] And say, ‘Work, and Allah will surely see your work and also His Messenger and the believers. And you shall be brought back to Him Who knows the unseen and the seen; then He will tell you what you used to do.’
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 9&verse=96
Regards

[rogerg]

Hi Mithrae

Thank you for the welcome. I'm hoping that with your permission we can have an ongoing dialog regarding things spiritual from time to time. However I can be kind of dense so please bear with me but I'll do my best not to be too burdensome. Anyway, in reviewing your reply I was unable to find a problem with the verses included so I've probably missed your specific point. Are you using them in some manner as validation that the biblical writers (whom most Bible believing Christians consider to be prophets) lied and/or prophesized falsely? At your convenience if you would be so kind, please illuminate further.
Thank you
Roger

For one example, all four gospels give different accounts regarding the angels at the tomb of Jesus:
- Matthew has one angel descending outside the tomb
- Mark has one "young man" waiting inside the tomb
- Luke has two men in dazzling clothes suddenly appear inside the tomb
- John has two angels meet Mary Magdalene alone, after they'd told the disciples and Peter and John had seen the tomb

The authors don't claim to be prophecying and they may not have been deliberately dishonest, but it's obvious that at least three of the accounts are inaccurate in those details. Deuteronomy suggests that if something is not spoken "in the name of the Lord" or is not true, it is not the word of God: These gospel accounts miss both of those criteria. So why do Christians call them the word of God? The authors were not false prophets, just fallible human beings trying to tell a story they considered critically important. But people who declare those stories to be the word of God when they obviously are not, well, that does seem to be false prophecy.

Hi Mithrae

- Matthew has one angel descending outside the tomb
- Mark has one "young man" waiting inside the tomb

I haven't spent a lot of time with these verses before therefore I may have easily missed it, so would you kindly point where the Bible says the rock was outside (not inside) the tomb? I've looked but was unable able to find that distinction made anywhere. If it was inside, then the contradiction you mentioned above wouldn't be valid and these two verses would harmonize correctly, wouldn't they ? I guess there could be other solutions to this particular contradiction but it seems a good place to start

Appreciate your help.

Thanks
Roger

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 14 by rogerg]

• Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?â€� 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
  
  Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

[rogerg]

[Replying to post 14 by rogerg]

• Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?â€� 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
  
  Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

I believe that I did read those verses and it seemed to me they do not answer the question. Would it be possible for you to point out specifically where in them we can find that the rock was outside the door ?

Thanks
Roger

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 14 by rogerg]

• Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?â€� 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
  
  Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

I believe that I did read those verses and it seemed to me they do not answer the question. Would it be possible for you to point out specifically where in them we can find that the rock was outside the door ?

Thanks
Roger

It wasn't just any old little rock, it was a "very large" stone blocking the entrance, as both Matthew and Mark record. It would hardly be blocking the entrance if it was small enough to roll in and out at will. Maybe you're somehow trying to convince yourself that it was blocking it from the inside, without bothering to consider how it would've got in there in the first place, or how people closing the tomb would drag it back into position. Mark says that the stone was rolled away, not rolled in, and that the women saw it before they'd arrived. Matthew says that the guards outside the tomb lay stunned by the presence of the angel sitting the stone after it'd been rolled back.

Ignoring the overwhelmingly-obvious contradictions - such as Matthew's earthquake and guards, or Luke's two angels suddenly appearing once the women were already in the tomb, or John's angels appearing much later still - in order to merely play games, pretending that you don't see the marginally-less-obvious of the four doesn't really do you any favours.

But I think I understand; it's difficult to come to terms with the incorrect indoctrination of Christian traditions. It certainly was for me. So if you're interested in honest discussion, perhaps it would be better to look first at the passages from Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and so on: Don't think of it as losing a church doctrine of biblical perfection, but rather as gaining a better understanding of what the bible says about the New Covenant.

"Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

[rogerg]

[Replying to post 14 by rogerg]

• Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?â€� 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
  
  Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

I believe that I did read those verses and it seemed to me they do not answer the question. Would it be possible for you to point out specifically where in them we can find that the rock was outside the door ?

Thanks
Roger

It wasn't just any old little rock, it was a "very large" stone blocking the entrance, as both Matthew and Mark record. It would hardly be blocking the entrance if it was small enough to roll in and out at will. Maybe you're somehow trying to convince yourself that it was blocking it from the inside, without bothering to consider how it would've got in there in the first place, or how people closing the tomb would drag it back into position. Mark says that the stone was rolled away, not rolled in, and that the women saw it before they'd arrived. Matthew says that the guards outside the tomb lay stunned by the presence of the angel sitting the stone after it'd been rolled back.

Ignoring the overwhelmingly-obvious contradictions - such as Matthew's earthquake and guards, or Luke's two angels suddenly appearing once the women were already in the tomb, or John's angels appearing much later still - in order to merely play games, pretending that you don't see the marginally-less-obvious of the four doesn't really do you any favours.

But I think I understand; it's difficult to come to terms with the incorrect indoctrination of Christian traditions. It certainly was for me. So if you're interested in honest discussion, perhaps it would be better to look first at the passages from Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and so on: Don't think of it as losing a church doctrine of biblical perfection, but rather as gaining a better understanding of what the bible says about the New Covenant.

"Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

"Maybe you're somehow trying to convince yourself that it was blocking it from the inside, without bothering to consider how it would've got in there in the first place, or how people closing the tomb would drag it back into position"

Actually what I was trying to say was the rock was IN the door and then pushed forward into the tomb to reopen it. If it was much larger than the size of the door, I don't think they would have been able to effectively seal the tomb (per Pilates command) the day prior as they had done. BTW I don't believe sealing to be the same as closing(closing is what a large rock in the front would have done) since an unsealed very large rock could have been moved during the night by His disciples with no trace, and then Christ's body removed, and then the rock rolled back -- exactly what Pilate and the Jews were afraid of, and didn't want to have happen.

Matt 27:66
So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

"It wasn't just any old little rock, it was a "very large" stone blocking the entrance, as both Matthew and Mark record. It would hardly be blocking the entrance if it was small enough to roll in and out at will"

I believe that Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James were the only ones worried about being able to move the rock. The Apostles voiced no concern in that regard (at least none that I could find) so the rock could not have been immense.
Your reply implies an assumption about what "very large" actually means, but the approximate dimensions or an insight of "very large", aren't given either implicitly or explicitly in the Bible - so it is a very large assumption to make and one that you use as a basis for the rest of your arguments.

"Ignoring the overwhelmingly-obvious contradictions - such as Matthew's earthquake and guards, or Luke's two angels suddenly appearing once the women were already in the tomb, or John's angels appearing much later still - in order to merely play games, pretending that you don't see the marginally-less-obvious of the four doesn't really do you any favours."

God did not write the Bible to be easily understood. There are many apparent contradictions that can easily be located if we don't read closely enough or skim along its surface. God's admonition is that no verses of Scripture is of any private interpretation and that the spiritual must be compared to the spiritual to find biblical truth.
As pertaining to other "contradictions", I guess we'll have to go thru them individually. Not that I'm a genius or a biblical scholar or anything (as I'm sure you can tell) but I think that most of them are reconcilable.

[paarsurrey1]

Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?

NT Gospels were anonymous verbal narratives*, adopted and doctored by Paul**, his associates**, and the Church**, and named after apostles^ just for credulity/ credence. Right, please?
Regards

___________
*https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scho ... e-gospels/

**"All the Gospels are Anonymous Until 180-185CE":
http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html

^https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... s-literate

[rogerg]

Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?

NT Gospels were anonymous verbal narratives*, adopted and doctored by Paul**, his associates**, and the Church**, and named after apostles^ just for credulity/ credence. Right, please?
Regards

___________
*https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scho ... e-gospels/

**"All the Gospels are Anonymous Until 180-185CE":
http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html

^https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... s-literate

Hmmm. Ok. So tell me then -- what would motivate Paul to do that ? Do you choose to discard God's mercy and grace thru Christ so easily which is God's gospel message thru Paul?