₦airaland Forum

Who are the apologists for the New Covenant willing to stand up for it here, if Paul could not?

Example 1 - Hebrews 2: 9

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
In the many older manuscripts the phrase "apart from God" appears instead of "by the grace of God". Why would scripts have made this change?  Did they have an agenda to further?

Example 2 - Luke 22:  43 - 44

43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

These verses are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke and the occur in no other Gospel.  Did the scribes take them out of the text because they found them strange or did they add them because they found them necessary?

Example 3 - Luke 24: 12

12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

This verse is not found in some of the most important manuscript and contains " a disproportionate amount of words and grammatical characteristics not found in Lukes Gospels (or in Acts)" - Bart Ehrman.


More examples to follow!

Can Paul be trusted? Can the bible be trusted?

Anyone had any thoughts about this framework?

Look at this thread where I discussed the origin of Christianity.

Check out this for the origin of Christianity

I wrote the following:

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

And your response was the following;

pilgrim.1:
That is simply a gnostic claim, and it would be confusing issues for yourself.

How is this a gnostic claim?  Gnosticism makes no claims about who wrote the bible or gospels.  How is this gnostic claim?

pilgrim.1:
And you argued earlier that "the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus"? Secular disputes may run round in circles, but scholarship does not bear the hallmarks of inconsistencies. Take, for instance, the secular argument for Marcion - he did not write Paul's epistles: but secularists do not deny Marcion's editing Pauline epistles. This cop-out to deny the authorship of the epistles does not tell us anything about who could have been the real authors.

How does that invalidate the point I made about Paul's lack of knowledge about the human Jesus?   Although there are some disagreement in the scholarly community about the authorship of some of the books ascribed to Paul, I have not raised that here.  So where have I deny the authorship.  If you were refering to this statement, then technically you have a point. This statement is not very well defined and specific;

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

I should have said:

None of the disciples (the 12) wrote any of the books of the gospels. Some books bear their names, but the earliest gospel (Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

pilgrim.1:
There you have your answer, and I wonder why you sound desperate to just grasp at anything to make a point and yet make none. Dear huxley, Christianity does not mix with Docetist paganism. . . you can't even look into the texts of the New Testament there and defend that idea. Even today, new heretical doctrines are emerging within mainline Christianity - we are familiar with the sad case of a shade of prosperity gospel that is neither prosperous nor a gospel. But does that mean that these fellows who preach these forms of doctrines are actually promoting the NT doctrine of salvation and grace?

Why the emotional posturing? Why the use of words like "desperate", "grasping", etc.  Can you not debate without such emotionalism?

The earliest Chriatian apologist admitted coping a great deal of their beliefs from pagan cults of the day. Have you ever heard of the apologist called Justin Martyr, from whom the word martyr is derived.  Have your seen his defense of Christianity where the concept of Diabolical Mimicry in Anticipation is expounded?

pilgrim.1:
I guess you forgot that Arius was a late comer and did not write the texts that are found in the NT? Those texts were written by the apostles who preceded him by no less 200 years, no? I wonder how people miss these simple issues and argue just about anyhow.

For same reason that even in our current times there are diversities of opinion in simple matters in our own day - even when it is not related to Christianity.

None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

No new testament scholar, religoius or secular disputes the above fact.

Arianism did not arise out of a vacuum. before Arian gave full expression of his idea, he would have been expose to nascent forms of docetism circulating in the empire. Remember, docetism had full expression in most of the pagan cult of the time.

pilgrim.1:
How "early" was Arius (256?-336) if he only arrived in the 3rd-4th century? Were there no well defined doctrines of the Christian Church before Arius?

Early enough for this doctrine to greatly influence the later formation of Christian doctrine, the Catholic Church, the Church councils, etc, etc.

Yes, the was no single central doctrine of the Church at the time. In fact, that was why Constantine was persuaded to unify the church doctrine by organising the Council. Present at the first council was a strong contingent of Arians. In fact, this issue was not settle until about 100 years later.

Why would there have been such diversity of Christologies in the first 300 years, when these people were so close to the events?

Now, if your lived in the first 450 years of the common era (CE), how would you have determined what was true amid the claims of the various followers of Jesus.  These were the competing sects:

Marcionism
Nestorianism
Docetism
Apollinarism
Arianism
Proto-Catholics
Gnosticism
Ebionitism
etc
etc

These groups had very diverse and conflictting ideas about the nature of jesus;

For instance, Arianism, which had deep roots in the earlier Jesus movement, did not believe in a corporeal and physical Jesus, but a spritual being.  If Jesus was not flesh&blood, he could not have suffered for the sins of mankind, said the proto-orthodox Christians.

It is worth remembering that many of the early Christian fathers were Arians.  In fact, the leading Church father and mastermind behind the Council of Nicea, Eusebius, was an Arian, before he changed side.

If Jesus's life had preceeded these early xians by not more than two generation, how come it was unclear what his true nature was?

It is even made more lamentable by the fact that in the 2nd century there were church fathers and bishops who demonstrated no knowledge of an earthly Jesus, even in situation where it might have played strongly in their favour to do so.

In fact, the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus, but the spiritual being.

Wasn't the New Covenant (NC) supposed to have "abolished" the Mosaic laws of the Old Covenant (OC)? Who was the NC available to? Were Jewish Christians beneficiaries of both the OC and the NC, or just the NC?

Now, read the following verses, taken from Acts 21, to get a sense of my questions above:

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Basically, Paul, upon being confronted about his teaching of quintessence of the NC, backs down and performs OC rituals and cereminies. Why did he do this? Did he not believe in what he taught?

As if that was not OC enough, Paul even goes to the Temple and anounces the day of the end of the purification ceremonies, on which day offerings would be given. Are these not OC ritualims? Basically, he is showing complete allegiance to the OC here.

Did Jesus come to save only the already saved?  Did Jesus not personally say that he came for the sinners such as "Tax collectors"?

Did Jesus specifically direct some of his message only to those who were already born again?  If he did, what are these?


Check these out:

Mark 2:
13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them.
14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.
16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

DavidDylan:
doesnt seem you read my post at all. Here is what i said again - if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them.

Paul wasnt "reversing" anything in Romans. He was simply clarifying the fact that God considers divorce among those who are saved a sin! The unsaved is already a sinner anyway so divorcing 200 times in 5 minutes wont make much of a difference.
When the sinner becomes saved he becomes a NEW CREATURE, OLD THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY . . . He starts a new life in Christ . . . his past divorces (of course there will be physical consequences) are wiped out and he is free to marry a fellow believer again.

Jesus main a statement that is as clear as the nose on your face, namely;


Matt 5: 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

You are arguing that this was only binding to those you are born again.  That is an ad hoc statement, as you have not shown why this might be the case.

For instance, Jesus also said:

1)  You love neighbour as yourself (Matt 5: 43) - Was this binding only to the saved?

Was Jesus entire teachings directed only at those who were already saved?  If so,  what is the point?  


How do we know which parts of his Jesus were meant for the saved and which for the unsaved?


You also failed to address my point about the standard of people for people before Paul came into the scene.  Paul did not become converted and write until about 50 - 60 CE, about 20 years after Jesus's dead.  If Paul addressed these issues in Romans and Corinthian, Pauls views would not have become wide knowledge amongst the Christians until after about 325CE, after the council of Nicea.  Some for many hundreds of years Christians would have lived without the benefit of Paul's teachings.

Why would God arrange for such a cruel injunctions as this to pervade for hundreds of years before being "abrogated" by Paul?

By the way, where is this addressed in Romans and Corinthians?  Chapters and Verses, please?

DavidDylan:
The first gospel preached to the unsaved is about the need for salvation. You can't be preaching civics lessons to an illegal immigrant. He must first regularise his status first before you start talking to him about the penalties for voter fraud.

The same way the commandments of God are meaningless to a man who is unsaved. You're just putting the cart before the horse.

Your brother has a bible and claims to be born again. He is free to either follow the bible or follow ur advice.
One thing you also have to note is this . . . if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them. This issue is dealt with in Romans or Corinthians.

Now that the woman is saved she is free to marry again.

Yes, but according to Jesus, anyone who marries her commits adultery.  Who would want to touch a woman like that.

Mind you, if Jesus said these words, that is Matt 5: 32, there would have been said on or before 33CE.  Romans was not wriiten until about 55 - 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus's injunction.  We have no record of Jesus reversing this position.

So, in the intervening year, that is 33 - 60 CE, when Romans did not exist, was the bar on remarrying of divorce ladies likely to have been binding?

By the way, what gives Paul authority to abrogate an injunction made by God?

Have added the injunction barring the divorce from remarrying as a core Christian value.

DavidDylan:
Look huxley, there is an important thing to establish here:

1. the unsaved (like you sir) have no business with the laws of Christ. You can divorce yourselves 900 times, when you die go to your own specially created heaven or wherever you think dead people go.

2. That verse speaks as it were to a couple that regards itself as born again. The warning is meant for them not the rest of society.

This is quite new to me. I thought Jesus also said "Go and preach the gospel to all nations and all peoples"

So this verse was only meant for those who have already converted to be born again? How did you come to that understanding?



Are there other "Good News Message" that were only meant for the born again.

OK, let me grant your position. Supposing a born again man meets a born again woman who is divorce. (in fact, my very own brother is in this position). Would it be adultery for him to get married to her?

DavidDylan:
the problem with your "questions" is that they are perpetually "vague" so as to give YOURSELF ample room to maneuver in case you get stuck.

you read your own bogus "question" again . . . you quote a verse that expressly talks about LUST and then ask a question about physical attraction.

You talk as if these are totally unrealistic scenarios. Are these not the issues that face everyone of us? Are these not the issues that Christian agonise over?

Look, I have been a Christian, I live essentially amongst them, I listen to their conversation, I see them agonise over these issues. So what is wrong in asking them on this forum?

stillwater:
Hehehe

Just as expected. I would have been more surprised if you had attempted a proper answer. Just as expected, you couldn't.

it depends. You have many approach to take:

1) Cut out the barbaric Old Testament and just stick with the New Testament, as Marcion, one of the first Christian scholars did.

2) Cut out the confusing New Testament and stick to the Old testament, as the Jews do.

3) Accept both old and new and play mental gymnastic to cope with the inevitable cognitive disonance of having these two irreconcilable books together.

Jesus is known to have said:

Matthew 5:

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

If this an injunctions against the marrying of someone who has experienced a divorce in their life, even if they were not the culpable party in the divorce?

Is such an injunction calculated to inspire love and harmony in the society?

Where have I suggested that lust was the same as physical attractiveness towards someone?  With respect, I don't think I did.   I deliberately left it open and vague to give the question more latitude in terms of how respondent might understand it.

Look at my questions again.  I deliberately separated out the questions, so that hopefully they could not be miscontrued. But alas, some people still could not understand:

Matthew 5 27 You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.  28    But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart'.

In view of the above injunction from Jesus,  how do Christians make their choice about their future partners if they cannot lust after their partners?

What would make you choose one person over another as your partner? Is physical attractiveness to that person one of those things that would influence your decision?

Danke:
Huxley likes problem,hiding under d shadows of " i want to learn more" when we all know that hes mind his locked up against christianity

huxley since u don't like xtianity ,y on earth do u spend quality time reading d bible?what is it about christianity that draws u to the bible

we have refused to follow atheism ,so if u like hang yourself,who cares

Can you try and answer the question, or are just sheepishly following this desert barbaric dogma without engaging your thinking faculties?

DavidDylan:
I understand his many problems. He's not mistaking attraction for lust, he is making the deliberate attempt to conflate both without which he'd have no legs to stand on.

We've seen worse.

You have not shown how I am conflating attraction and lust.  None of your answers have revealled that.  

I am simply asking -


If I am a single male Christian individual.  Is it wrong or a sin for me to lust after a single or a married woman?  If I do, what sin have I committed?


What is hard in that question to understand?

As much as you may try to calumnise me, I does not really bother me.  I am simply trying to get the meaning of the text and see how widely or narrowly it could be applied.

DavidDylan:
Your starting premise is already flawed and is evident of a mindset that is bent on forcing his own warped opinions unto a subject that is clear even to the blind. Jesus Christ did not "supposedly" say that, it is recorded that He indeed made that statement.

Let's take it, arguendo, that Jesus indeed say this. How wide ranging is it?  I asked if it also covers the scenarios I presented, and you said that it did not.  Fair enough.   Then I asked, if it did not cover those scenarios, then this verse, as it is presented, does not:

1)  bar a single man lusting after a single or married woman.  Is it then sinful for a single man to lust after a single or married woman.  The single man cannot have commited adultery since he is single.  Nor does the woman have committed adultery if she was unaware and uninvolved with the man's lust.

DavidDylan:
Adultery from the part of the woman.

Are you suggesting here that a married woman who is the subject of a man's lust is also guilty of committing adultery?   What if she was unaware of the man's lustful interest in her?   Is she still guilty of adultery?

DavidDylan:
A casual read through the bible shld tell you that it is not simply talking about men only when you seem terms such as "he", "him".

By your "logic",  let see if we can use him/her, she/he interchangeably in the Verse 32, presented below. Let us ignore the fact that this is a particularly cruel injunction.

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Do you also accept that we could swap the masculine and feminine words here and still retain exactly the main thrust of the idea Jesus was trying to present?

DavidDylan:
As usual when your poor scholarship and hypocrisy is exposed you start running in circles.

KunleOshob was right, the bible does not use "fornication" and "adultery" interchangeably. They mean explicitly different things. Christ's mention of the term "adultery" in that verse means either one of the parties (the man lusting or the woman he is lusting after) is married.

OK, let us examine what Jesus is supposed to have said.  This is it again:

huxley:
Matthew 5
27 You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart'.

You are claiming that this only applies to a married man lusting after a single or a married woman?  Although it says nowhere that it is only for a married man, I shall take it as being implied from the use of the word "adultery".  All good and well.   But that still leaves my other question unanswered, namely;

What if a single man lusts after a single or married woman?

If he lusts after a single woman, does he commit fornication? Can fornication also be committed in the man's heart without direct sexual contact?

If he (a single man) lusts after a married woman, what has he committed -  fornication of adultery?

Further, can you turn this injunction around so that it reads:

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a man lustfully has already committed adultery with him in her heart'

KunleOshob:
Pastor huxley, you mix u issues again, in the verse you referenced to the term "adultery" was used. In other wards Jesus was talking about lusting after a married woman and not a spinster. Adultery can only be commited if at least one of the people involved is married. So the issue of future partner does not arise within that context.

Interesting! How were you able to derive exactly what Jesus meant form these plain and simple words? As far as I can see, nowhere in the context does it suggest what you just said.

OK, let me humour you for a moment. Supposing your interpretation was right. Does it mean that it is not a sin for a single man to look lustfully at a single woman?

Matthew 5
27 You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart'.

In view of the above injunction from Jesus, how do Christians make their choice about their future partners if they cannot lust after their partners?

What would make you choose one person over another as your partner? Is physical attractiveness to that person one of those things that would influence your decision?

pilgrim.1:
You seem to revel in news like this. . . the only problem you may have to explain to yourself is why even atheists divorce at all. It is not a matter of whose divorce rate is higher - it is a question of honestly examining your own heart before pointing fingers at others.

Unlike the religions, atheism has nothing to say about how one should lead one's life.   So failure of atheist marriages cannot be put on the doors of atheism.

The same cannot be said of religions.  All religions prescribe a certain code of behaviour. So if religionists fall short of the desired behaviour, it could be down to one or more of the following;

1)  A failure or deficiency in the religionist
2)  Unfairness and unrealistic nature of the code
3)  Both of the above.

Nearly all Christians say the pledge "What God has put together, let no man put asunder"  when they tie the knot.  Essentially, they dedicate their union to God, in the company of their families and friends.  So given that these marriage were dedicated to God, why would God let them to fail?

A perenial refrain from the religious camp is the belief in God is essential for a balanced, well-adjusted society. That belief in god gives purpose and meaning in life and that conversely a lack of belief results in a life devoid of meaning and purpose.  That a life lacking in belief in God spells doom and ruination of societal morals.

Humans, as a species  have only been around for about 200000 years, compared to some other animals, say the crocodile that have lived on the planet for millions of years.  For most of the 200000 years, humans have been dogged by many forms of irrationalisms. Only in the last about 400 years can we truly say that we are emerging from the darkness of irrationalism, thanks mainly to scientific rationalism.  We are getting a better and better understanding of our place in the grand scheme of reality.

In the darkness of irrationalism, humans perpetrated all manner of hideous crimes and violence on their fellow humans and other animals. From cannibalism, human sacrifices, infanticides,  genocides, ethnic cleansing, enslavements, etc, etc. Almost all human cultures worldwide have practices all or some combinations of these.  Even with the enlightenment of rationalism, there are sadly some parts of the world today were some of these are still practices. Humans still have a long way to go.

Unfortunately there are still many impediments to the widespread eradication of irrationalism today.  The most insiduous of this is dressed up in sheep's clothing nowadays.  However, not long ago, it was not ashamed to bare its unclothedness out in the public for all to see.  If you guessed it was religion,  then you guessed correctly.

Yes, the religions were unabashed about perpetrated some of the most hineous and reprehensible crimes in history.  A look at the Bible will reveal a litany of deed and misdeed by God or in the name of God.  The religious counter that a society without God could be equally prone to violence and inhumanity at best or at worst completely degenerate.  They point their finger at some of the 19th & 20th century regimes such as Communist Russia under Stalin,  Hitler, Pol Pot,  the Regime in North Korea.  Granted, these were (and are) particularly inhumane political regimes that were responsible for millions of deaths.  They contend that these were atheistic regimes and that philosophical atheism should be culpable for these crimes, if the religious are to be responsible for the crimes of religion.

Be that as it may, by what standards are these two systems (religion and atheism) compared.  In this post, I want to propose a framework for comparing the two systems.  This framework will include the following:

First, I want to float these questions and leave them hanging while I set out the elements of the framework.

How valuable is a human life?  To whom is such a life valuable?  Is the loss of one life less regretable than the loss of 10 lives,  100 lives, 1 million lives? From a religious perspective, would God be less tolerant of someone who takes away one life than a mass murderer?

Now, the elements of the framework I want to set out are:

1)  Categories of killings and crime
2)  The motivations and rationale behind the killings and crimes
3)  The body counts
4)  Redress and Justice

1)  Categories of killings and crime

Under this heading, I want to categorise the crimes of both parties, the religious and atheistic side.   I can think of the following categories:

A)  Killing and crimes performed by direct by God, willy nilly, on his whimp
B)  Killings ordered by God but carried out by people working for God.
C)  Killings ordered and carried out by man in the name of God.
D)  Killings not ordered by God, but organised and carried out by man.
E)  Killings and suffering caused by negligence and omission

Now, religious killings and crimes display all four categories identified above.  The bible, for instance, describes God killing the entire population of the earth bar a single family, commanding Moses to exterminate several tribes, Moses acting on his own volition to kill in the name of God and other ad hoc killings. 

I submit that the killings and crimes of the atheistic would come under D.  Under this you would find the killings of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, etc.

2) The motivations and rationale behind the killings and crimes

Under this heading, I want to examine the reason and driving thinking behing these killing.  Where these killings the result of erroneous thinking or were there the products of good sound reflections.

Under Category A above, the is no culpability on human's part, as the killings are all executed by God himself.  All the thinking would have been carried out in God's mind and he alone would be held responsible for these killings and crimes.

Under category B,  a votary of religion who thinks that they have been instructed by their God to undertake certain acts would feel some obligation to obey his God.  In this case, the motivation is to serve God and to be seen to be obedient to their God.  So the motivation is service to God.

For C, there is also a desire to please God and glorify his name by following doing things that it is hoped will please God. The killing of Servetus is a case in point.

Under D, such killings are usually carried out for a variety of reason - political, sheer malice, business driven, egotism, etc.  The main motivation is sheer human wickedness.  The crimes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot fall were motivated by all or some of these factors.

Under E, I would class the insiduous effects of religious opposition research that could alleviate human life and save many lives.  The opposition to the use of condoms, stem-cell research, other medical intervention, etc, etc. In modern times, this is probably the most pernicious.


3)  The body counts

This brings me back to the questions I left floating earlier - questions about the value of human life.

I would like to deal with that by posing the following conundrum:

Supposing there exists in a certain community a serial killer who carries on killing all his imfamous career without being apprehended. Supposing also that some of his victims are never found and some are never even thought missing or dead. His crime spree runs on for decades and he appears ordinarily as a good and law-abiding citizen.

From a religious perspective, does it matter that he never got caught? Does it matter how many people he killed - one, two, twenty, 100 or people? At what point would God say - "That is it. This guys is well out of order"?

Basically, I want to argue that body count arguments are not very sound arguments unless both sides are prepared to state categorically a threshold beyond which any killings would be classed as particularly reprehensible. 

So under this framework, unless I see a better argument,  the body count element is essentially immaterial.


4)  Redress and Justice

Still thinking about this one .




So what do you guys think?

Christian bible scholars of recent times have been applying techniques of textual analysis to their holy book, the bible, in an effort to tease out meaning from the text. They claim that the ordinary obvious meaning are not sufficient to derive a full understanding of the text. Thus techniques such as exegesis and hermeneutic are being increasing used by some to derive "meaning" from the plain text.

Now, the question is - what meaning would these text have had to their immediate audience when they were first penned? Would the writers of these document have felt an overwhelming need to couch their compositions in obscure and incomprehensible language decipherable only to those with skills in textual analysis?

How would a 100 BCE man have understood Genesis, Daniel or Leviticus. Would he have need skills biblical exegesis?

Most of what is called the bible was not compile into one book until hundreds of years after the composition of the individual books. The Septuagint, essentially the Old Testament, was the first to be compile. Before such compilation, a reader of Nehemiah would not necessarily have had a copy of Daniel or Genesis as well. These books were produced in different times, spaning hundreds of years, by different people, in different socio-cultural and political environment.

To turn to the new testament, the earliest documents were produced by Paul, in the mid to late 50s CE. None of the direct cohorts of Jesus produced a surviving book, although some of the books of the NT are named after them. The earliest gospel was written about 70 CE and the latest is datable to about 120 CE, many decades after the events they describe.

Book publication technology was nothing like it is today and book production was expensive. Thus very few copies of these documents existed in the first few decades of the Jesus movement. Such was the paucity of books and knowledge that in the first and second century, there were many leading Christian Bishops who had never heard of the prime events in Jesus life, such as his virgin birth, crucifixion, ressurection, etc. To these Bishops, Jesus was a mythical figure not dissimilar to the plethera of gods in the paga cults.

The apostle Paul wrote letters and epistles to the various Christian communities in the Roman empire, communities he may have help found. These range from cities as Galatia, Thessolonia, Corinthia, Rome, etc, etc. These documents were dispatched to these cities as a means of informing them about the central tenets of the nascent Christian movement. Incidentally, these letters were soon regarded by their followers as containing key doctrinal information, given that there were no standard text, code into which were enshire the fundamental precepts of Christianity. These early readers of Paul's documents did NOT have copies of the gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) to cross-reference. These gospels would not be written for another 20 - 70 years. Further, given that documents production was a difficult and expensive affair, these letters would not have been copied and distributed until many years after they were first penned.

Thus it can be savely assumed that the first readers of the letters to the Galatians would not have known, much less read the letters to the Corinthians or Thessolonians. Would they have missed out on key doctrinal information, requisite for their salvation? You bet. Basically, different doctrinal issues were addressed to different audiences at different times.

These books, letters, epistles remained as single stand-alone and isolated documents for nearly three hundred years, until Constantine urge the Christian leaders to produce a definitive book for the movement in the early 4th century. None of these documents were intended to be compiled into a book. There is no evidence that Paul himself had a record or compilation of all his letters.

Now, why is the foregoing important in view of biblical exegesis? Is is important in the following way;

1) How would the early readers of these documents have understood them? Would they have required modern-day exegetical techniques?

2) If you were a scholar or Christian in Rome or Galatia around 100CE, with ONLY copies of Romans and Galatians available to you, what understand of the grand-scheme would you have arrived in the absence of the other documents? What would have been your understanding of Paul's position with regards to the question of sex and marriage discussed in Corinthians?

Given that these documents were not intended to be read as we currently do today, any for of exegetical analysis that treats them as a single coherent text is badly wrong-headed.

Funny, Funny, Funny.

God Kill 40 thousands and more in the bible. The "loving" god of the bible killed these people and ordered even more. The total dead toll ascribable to god runs in the millions. This is god herself killing his own "beloved" children.

Now, answer that.

Didn't quite get it - How long had he been dead? A week, a month, or a year? If he had been dead months or years, could he still have been raised?