Backwards logic
Most scholars of the New Testament today subscribe to a theory that Paul and most of the New Testament was not written by the traditionally named authors. Why?
The scholars see that many of the texts contain advanced doctrines and indications of developed Church organization, and they do not believe that was possible in the earliest Church. Why?
The scholars have devised a logical theory that Christianity developed over a long time. Why?
They believe that it is more reasonable that Christianity developed by accidental means. Why?
They do not think that anyone would purposefully posit a radical theology like Christianity, and certainly Jesus could not. Why not?
Well, that part is unclear, because we have many examples of radical theologies being invented whole-cloth at once. In fact, most of the Gnostic religions were invented exactly in that manner. But scholars will not allow Jesus to create theology, nor the apostles for that matter, and so they ascribe the texts that offend their theory to later disciples of disciples.
They are defending their theory by censoring the evidence. They give this censorship a cloak of reasonability, but to be clear this methodology cannot be tested nor proven. The method only acquires authority and respectability by popularity amongst the scholars.
This is editing the evidence to fit the theory, which is clearly a fallacious method. It is backwards logic.
What if the New Testament is written mostly by the attributed authors? These scholars will never know because they have set aside the evidence.
Jesus Christ Divided starts with the opposite assumption--- that the traditions are probably right. Mostly, the texts themselves prove this assumption correct through an unexpected coincidence of details, although not entirely. But the backwards logic of modern scholars has been completely undermined by finding a narrative that does not exist until the texts are placed in order.
Without support for a long, slow development of ideas, the only conclusion left is that Jesus and the apostles were in fact Christians of a kind or another. And one of the texts, Revelation, states it plainly, once it is put in its proper context.
amazon.com/dp/B00JBPPYF6
The scholars see that many of the texts contain advanced doctrines and indications of developed Church organization, and they do not believe that was possible in the earliest Church. Why?
The scholars have devised a logical theory that Christianity developed over a long time. Why?
They believe that it is more reasonable that Christianity developed by accidental means. Why?
They do not think that anyone would purposefully posit a radical theology like Christianity, and certainly Jesus could not. Why not?
Well, that part is unclear, because we have many examples of radical theologies being invented whole-cloth at once. In fact, most of the Gnostic religions were invented exactly in that manner. But scholars will not allow Jesus to create theology, nor the apostles for that matter, and so they ascribe the texts that offend their theory to later disciples of disciples.
They are defending their theory by censoring the evidence. They give this censorship a cloak of reasonability, but to be clear this methodology cannot be tested nor proven. The method only acquires authority and respectability by popularity amongst the scholars.
This is editing the evidence to fit the theory, which is clearly a fallacious method. It is backwards logic.
What if the New Testament is written mostly by the attributed authors? These scholars will never know because they have set aside the evidence.
Jesus Christ Divided starts with the opposite assumption--- that the traditions are probably right. Mostly, the texts themselves prove this assumption correct through an unexpected coincidence of details, although not entirely. But the backwards logic of modern scholars has been completely undermined by finding a narrative that does not exist until the texts are placed in order.
Without support for a long, slow development of ideas, the only conclusion left is that Jesus and the apostles were in fact Christians of a kind or another. And one of the texts, Revelation, states it plainly, once it is put in its proper context.
amazon.com/dp/B00JBPPYF6
No comments have been added yet.
