"Matthew-Mark-Luke-John-Acts-Romans..." Nope The very FIRST book of the NT is I Thessalonians with Galatians and I Corinthians to follow. 
One of the "ah ha" moments of my understanding of the NT came when it dawned on me, through much study, that the majority of the NT is about the Apostle Paul and not Jesus. | | |
|---|
| | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul; Generally Accepted | | | Traditionally Paul, Disputed by Many Scholars | | | Traditionally Paul; Disputed by Many Scholars | | | Traditionally Paul; Widely Disputed | | | Traditionally Paul; Widely Disputed | | | Traditionally Paul; Widely Disputed | | | Traditionally Paul; Widely Disputed |
It is the story of Paul for the most part and his interpretation of Jesus, who for him was more hallucinatory and cosmic in nature than the Jesus brought down to Earth by the Gospels which came later after Paul died. Galatians makes the dispute between the Jerusalem Apostles and Paul very clear. They were not on the same page and did not preach the same Jesus. Paul notes that he learned nothing from them and that anyone that did not preach his version was to be accursed. The traditional order of the NT books is deceptive and does not reflect historical realities. The impression that the Gospels were first then Acts leads to Paul is exactly reversed from reality. Simply put, Paul lived, wrote and died before any of the Gospels were ever written, including Acts. All his authentic, and only 7 are considered actually written by Paul, were written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Paul died around 65 to 68 depending. Acts ends with Paul under arrest but not dead. Perhaps because the author did not know when Paul died or the circumstances were too embarrassing to put into the story. Ephesians and Colossians are Pauline like but written after Paul died. It was not uncommon for a follower to write in the name of and in the style of Paul to convey what Paul may have said or taught if he were still alive, which he wasn't. 2 Thessalonians, I and 2 Timothy and Titus are considered by few to be written by Paul due to their late date. (See below) Hebrews, James, 1,2 3 John, Jude and Revelation came much later and were not Pauline. James, with a theme of "show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works" may have been a rebuttal of Paul's views in Romans. James and Paul were not birds of a feather and did not flock together. Many do place Revelation as a failed prophecy written in the Summer of 69 CE , and not into the 90's CE, to encourage those under siege to Rome in Jerusalem to hang in and that Messiah would defeat Rome in 3 1/2 years. As it turned out, the Romans defeated the Militant Jews and Zealot Christians in 3 1/2 years from 70 CE to 73/74 CE ending with the fall of Masada. Revelation can also bee seen as presenting Paul, hated by the Jewish Christians, as the False Prophet and Apostle of Ephesus, which they are commended for rejecting by Jesus. and Vespasian as the Beast of the Day destroying Jerusalem. Big topic but fascinating and more reasonable a view. ====================== So of the 13 books attributed to Paul, only 7 are authentically Paul. The dating of Acts, which appears to tie the Gospels to Paul is in dispute. https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/when-was-acts-written This article concludes Acts to have been written between 60 and not later than 70 CE The Gospels dating is widely disputed but placed generally between 66 and 110 CE, with Mark just before the Fall of Jerusalem and the rest after. - The earliest date Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in CE 62.
- The latest date Acts could have been written would have been immediately prior to the first references to the book from other literature. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.13.3; 3.15.1) contains some indisputable citations, as does Justin Martyr in Dial. 103.19. They were writing around AD 160, so that the latest possible date is around AD 160.
That gives us a range of possible dates between AD 60 and AD 160. ================= All this to point out that Paul comes first and his Christ was not earthly as portrayed in the Gospels yet to be written after his death. He knew no earthly Jesus, tells no stories about him and never quotes him because all that had yet to be written in the Gospels. The Gospels are placed first in the NT to give the impression that Jesus came to Earth, lived, died and rose again. AFTER this comes Paul, real and forged in his name books, and the Church writings. This is simply not so in the timeline of Paul. In reality and after Paul, Jerusalem Falls and the Gospels and a pacified Messiah Jesus and Orthodox Judaism emerges from the rubble evolving into the Pauline/Gentile version rooted in Roman Catholicism, with the Reformation included, to this day. The Jewish Christian Church, under Peter, James and John falls into oblivion.
| 
32 comments:
Ap-Paul-ling.
So "through much study," spiritual failure Dennis Diehl has a "ah ha" moment," and concludes that the bible is a fraud. Dennis has become Banned's court jester.
God is the one who allowed the books to be in the order they are in. He is the one who reveals His truth and teaches those He calls. Man, even with satans help, cannot stop the fulfilment of God's objectives.
Whether it be a song, a novel, or an official document like the Constitution, I would say that success is determined by the finished product, and not the order in which they were written or the number of people involved. When listening to a song or reading a book, we don't worry about those technicalities. They are not important.
The power and validity of Scripture is not determined by the individual writers or the order in which they wrote, but by the One who arranged it for our reading and learning, God Himself (see 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
If the Bible is not what it claims to be, then it is the biggest fraud and conspiracy ever hoisted upon mankind, both past and present. That kind of ruse would require a mastermind, a Satan, and not just a band of sheepherders sitting around a campfire, who lacked the imagination, skills and opportunity to pull it off. Which is it Dennis?
".......the Romans defeated the Militant Jews and Zealot Christians in 3 1/2 years from 70 CE to 73/74 CE ending with the fall of Masada."
********
Could be Daniel's 1335 days, 1290 days and the 45 day siege of Masada, Ab 10, 70 CE to Nisan 15 (Josephus, Wars,VII,IX,1), 74 CE.
If the Bible is not what it claims to be, then it is the biggest fraud and conspiracy ever hoisted upon mankind, both past and present. That kind of ruse would require a mastermind, a Satan, and not just a band of sheepherders sitting around a campfire, who lacked the imagination, skills and opportunity to pull it off.
You can say exactly the same thing about the Koran. So, by your logic, we have to conclude that Satan pulled off one or both of those holy books. And if Satan is responsible for one of them, who's to say that he isn't responsible for BOTH of them?
Let's not forget that there is a heck of good message and excellent principles of life contained within the books of the New Testament! It is good to have a historical overview of the creation and assembly of these documents, although so much of this is actually the subject of debate amongst scholars.
The history is a function of how you use it. It could enhance the absorption and application of the principles established and taught, or, I suppose some could use it in an attempt to invalidate the entire testament. You know, "One man's meat is another's poison." Nearly everything in a universe of matter, energy, space, and time is polar. There will always be good and bad!
BB
Dennis,
We have discussed this before, and your version of Church history is closer to the Armstrong/Tabor model than mine. You are correct in asserting that the first epistle to the Thessalonians was the earliest writing available to us from the Christian era (see Gerd Luddemann). Although, most scholars believe that there were embryonic gospel accounts floating around prior to those included in the New Testament Canon (and Mark is widely agreed upon as the first with both Matthew and Luke using that one as a source). Likewise, most biblical scholars agree that John was written last and looks at the life of Christ from a completely different perspective.
As you well know, however, most scholars reject most of the other conclusions which you have put forward in this post. Although I consider Dr. Tabor to be a brilliant scholar and original thinker, and I have gained many positive insights into the history of early Christianity through his research and writing, it would be foolish to adopt his revisionism hook, line, and sinker. Yes, the evidence is clear that there was a great deal of tension within the early Church over whether or not Gentile Christians should be required to observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel. Nevertheless, I believe that the evidence also demonstrates that Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John reached the same conclusions with regard to that question - that Gentiles would NOT be required to become Torah observant Jews. Galatians certainly does demonstrate Paul's exasperation with those Christians (which included some of the leadership at Jerusalem) who continued to believe and preach that Gentiles should be made to adopt Torah observance.
Finally, Paul's writings do demonstrate a fundamental understanding of the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul mentioned the account of the last supper in his epistles, his sinless life, his teachings about the Two Great Commandments, salvation through him, the fact that he was crucified and resurrected, and that he will return someday. As for the authorship of the epistles attributed to Paul, there is a great deal of room for differing opinions. Yes, there is wide agreement on the undisputed epistles, but textual criticism of the disputed epistles must also take into account that Paul frequently employed a secretary to write his epistles (and this could account for some of the differences in writing style, vocabulary, and grammar).
Dennis:
I have just about read the Lonesome Dove Series. I have one novel to go. I read them in an order that suited me, however. I was confronted with two timelines. One was the series in publication date order. The other was in the chronological order of the events as they logically flowed in the novels. I followed my own strategy and do no feel I was hurt by it. I could integrate the arc of the story in my mind. Likewise, I am not daunted by how the New Testament books were "published."
The rest of what you cite come from the standard portfolio of controversies concerning the New Testament. You just aligned with a certain side in each controversy. In short, Ephesians and Colossians were written by understudies to Paul. James and Paul represent two perspectives on the same soteriology. They do not represent two different soteriologies. I could argue this and I think the delta between the two is very small. Revelation maps to many events around 70 AD and thereafter. It is not a failed prophecy because it prophetic purview has not ended. And Jesus did come quickly. The Kingdom of God is present on the earth now, in contravention to the Armstrongist view, residing in his followers, the Temple, who know he is the King.
A pitfall is this. Garrison Keillor said that Lake Woebegone was a Lutheran town. Everyone was a Lutheran ( there were a few Catholics). Even the atheists were Lutherans because it was the Lutheran God they did not believe in. I am a Christian and I still struggle with points of indoctrination that were impressed on me by Armstrongism. I have heard people who were once Armstrongists that are now professed Christians (and I believe this) who still talk in Armstrongist concepts and vernacular. It takes years of purgation. If you think that the Kingdom of God is something that begins at the future return of Christ and extends for a Millennium, the statement "I come quickly" becomes a conundrum when it needn't be.
Scout
It is very helpful to consider the time of writing. For example, many scholars believe a dating of 48-49AD for the earliest written books of I Thessalonians, galatians, and James. They consider that Paul and James were writing about the application of Law and works in the New Covenant. Without knowing the time of the writing, some may believe James is written later than Paul's writings based on its location in the Bible.
But, instead James was written before the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council, and it was James who made the final decree and took a position similar to Paul's wherein he also says that circumcision and the Law are not requirements for the gentile Christians.
I fully accept that II Timothy, Ephesians, Philippians,, Colossians, and Philemon were written by Paul while in prison. It makes sense to me that the only books that were written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD were John's epistles. To set later dates is unlikely as the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a pivotal event and would have been mentioned.
My rebuttable two cents.
Anon 828
The subject of the post is the Holy Bible, not the Koran. I have no interest in that.
To suggest the Bible is NOT the word of God necessitates it being the word and compilation of men over a period of centuries, which would be a feat in itself considering what it would require to do it. Add to that the deception of billions past and present, small and great, which would make it the greatest conspiracy theory of all time. But we don't believe in conspiracy theories do we?
I'm saying, it would require a Satan to pull that off, something no atheist would admit to. They also wouldn't admit, as I believe, that it would require a Christ to invent a Christ. Think about it.
I agree, BP8. However, I've run across people in past discussions who believe that two of the great record-keepers of all times, the Jews, and the Catholics, pulled off exactly what you say would have been required. Obviously, according to the theory, the two groups would not have been in cahoots. The Catholics allegedly usurped and added to what the Jews had already established, radically changing the narrative. Ironically, this syncs (sort of) with HWA's theory of Catholics hijacking what had begun as a Jewish Christian movement, so when COGlodytes become atheists, this theory is almost a prefabricated solution for them.
Another reason why recorded histories of the early centuries of Christianity are so very significant.
BB
I’m gonna get yelled at for weighing in here, but I was the one here who can be held to account, I don’t care.
Pro: Good noting Ephesus rejecting Paul (2Tim). The heavy emphasis on Paul in NT sports, my contention that Paul basically saved Christianity from dying out as an unworkable Essene fringe.
Con: Even limiting to the seven books excepted as being of Pauline authorship, Paul did indeed write of Jesus as having been human.
Seeking clarification:, Interesting statement about a “pacified Messiah Jesus.” Jesus — historical character — was a Essene was non-militant. Someone explain this exactly before give further analysis.
Suggestion to writer: In debunking the Bible, concentrate on Jesus’ Essenism and Essenes’ questioning of OT integrity along with the Pauline emphasis. Take out the NT first.
Indeed, BB. Darrell Conder is the classic example, at least to the degree of rejecting the Bible. His stuff reads like he was so uber-obsessed with Simon Magus theory that even the fall of the entity that got that theory going didn’t shake him of it.
The first verses of I/II Corinthians note Paul had co-writers for those books. Yet no one seems to mention them - like they don't exist.
In any case, "The Right Way to Read the Bible" is to read Genesis first. So said Rick Shabi in a UCG video last summer.
Byker Bob 1159 writes of "people who believe that the 2 great record keepers of all time pulled off exactly what (I) say would have been required"!
You are correct, I was thinking that very thing when I was writing the comment. But my point really wasn't about distorted history. I was questioning the ability of a carnal people over a vast period of time and under less than ideal conditions, collaborating together to produce a holy book consisting of 2 distinct parts, which tells a unique story that makes sense, offers hope to the helpless, and gives a non flattering perspective on the the origins and evils of mankind and civilization. If the aim was to establish a universal religion then I think they went about it the wrong way, for the book is not constructed in a way the carnal mind would naturally embrace.
I ran an internet search on " how is the Bible unique " and came up with quite a compelling list that would be virtually impossible for mortal man to fulfill. When one considers the different authors from various backgrounds over centuries, the variety of literary genres, the central theme which spans both testaments, the historical impact, and the lives comforted and changed, what logical conclusion can be drawn other than this book is the product of a Divine, not human, mind? Did a carnal mind come up with the concept of a Jesus and salvation through Him? Who came up with the Golden rule, the sermon on the mount, the 10 commandments, the 2 covenants, and the anticipation of a "restitution of all things"? If these ideas are purely human, then they are the greatest that man has ever or will ever produce!
Armstrong's theories on the Catholics were based on the premise that time had been lost and history was distorted, which resulted in false interpretations of Scripture, leading to Christianity's deception. But even there he was always willing to give Satan the full credit for being the overall instigator and villain. Revelation 12:9 was one of his favorite scriptures!
That’s a stretch. Both start with Paul, claiming to be the source. 2Cor1:13 comes closest to your point: “For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.” But the next sentence goes back to first person singular. It does suggest he discussed what to write with others. That might be noteworthy — that a given piece of scripture was indeed to a degree a collaborative human effort. (But that actually hurts the whole “inspired scripture” case for the NT. As does 1Cor7.)
When I was deployed, we would receive ”letters to the troops” from school students back home. I and others would write responses “for the soldiers of the 35th Infantry Division in Kosovo” or “of KFOR9” or however it was we put it. It doesn’t mean all of us got together and each wrote a little section of the letter. We were a little busy for that. It was one person writing on theoretical behalf of all. (We also had to be careful not to say we were writing for the unit, as that would suggest we had authorization from commanding brass.) That is more what the tail end of those epistles sounds like.
“I write this greeting with my own hand” at the end of 1 Cor suggests Paul dictating to another person happened with the rest of the epistle, not that another person or persons composed parts of it. That is actually the opposite of “co-writers.” That might also factor into the “we” in the epistles.
Of course, keep in mind that my own bias calls for scripture to be read as tightly as possible, as I am not a believer. Nonetheless, that is an honest assessment. I have sought to be objective. I hope others will do so as well.
RE: 08/13/25 312AM
So your saying that God worked through the council of Rome and its papacy to create the Bible as we know it?
How does this affect Armstrongism?
Good question! We are already warned in Revelation 12:9 that ...Satan deceives the whole world, and the biggest deception ever pulled by Satan is his identity. This deception is perpetuated by the characteristics of YHWH in the Old Testament, which are often at odds with the teachings of Yeshua in the New Testament.
When we delve into the OT and NT, we encounter a fascinating complexity. The God of the OT, YHWH, sanctions actions that are at odds with the teachings of the God of the NT. In the OT, we see instances of looting, war, death sentences for disobedience, and even human sacrifice (Judges 11). Contrast this with Yeshua's teachings of forgiveness, loving your enemies, and serving others. If YHWH were Yeshua, the Bible would seem to contradict itself. Yeshua never identified YHWH as His Father, nor did He confirm that He, Yeshua, was YHWH. He did, however, mention that no one had ever seen the Father (John 1:16), heard His voice at any time, or seen His form (John 5:37) except the Son of man.
In fact, the Pharisees and scribes worshipped YHWH as their God, and Yeshua rebuked them in John 8:44 about their God, YHWH, " Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Even the Bible itself provides clues to the identity of Satan. In 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, the same being enticed David to number Israel. The truth, as they say, is often stranger than fiction!
"So you're saying [thing he's definitely not saying]".
GD 144
There are no complexities or contradictions between the God of the O.T. and Jesus Christ of the N.T. Any that appear so can be explained according to time, place, and circumstances.
You say the God of the O.T. sanctions actions that are at odds with the teachings of Jesus? I find that strange considering both share the same Godhead and have the same Divine nature and character. Consider the following verses:
Mark 9:42
Whosoever shall offend one of these believing little ones, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 19:11-27
The concluding verse in the parable of the pounds says, But for those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Revelation 2:18-24
Speaking to the church at Thyatira, the Lord Jesus says, I will kill her children with death (pestilence), and all the churches shall know that I am He which searches the reins and heart.
Revelation 11:3-6
And I (Christ) will give power to my 2 witnesses. If anyone will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will.
Revelation 19:11-16
Christ, the Faithful and True, The Word of God, King of kings and Lord of lords, shall in righteousness judge and make war! He treads the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Make no mistake, Jesus Christ is a faithful, merciful, and loving saviour, but He's nobody's fool. He will always execute God's will regardless of whose feelings get hurt.
G.D.:
Deuteronomy (NIV):
“12:32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.[a] 13:1 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.“
Yep. Sounds like Jesus.
Problem is…
John (NIV):
“5:45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
Yep. Jesus condemns himself.
Good eye, G.D.
Correction: The Isaiah verse is NKJV.
I believe the early church fathers who prioritized the collection of works for the NT canon did a very good job in organizing them in terms of relative importance. They put Jesus first, and Paul's work was allowed to add color, extra detail based upon the work of Jesus Christ, and its impact upon the Gentiles.
There is no absolute law stating that you must organize based upon the dates in which documents are thought to have been written. Cohesiveness, on the other hand, is of primary importance.
BB
Sorry, but I gotta say it: DIVINE INSPIRATION, and hence actual TRUTH, should be of primary importance. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of guys’ opinions.
"Divine Inspiration" "Truth".
I'm a believer, so, yeah, those factors are always going to be implicit in any comments that I might make, whether I specifically cite them or not.
BB
BB:
Slightly off topic on this thread, I may be close enough, and we’ve talked about this before. You and others have pointed out how this blog is therapy for some. “ Armstrongaholics Anonymous.” But many here are also “believers.” Maybe the problem they have in overcoming their difficulties resulting from their time in the cult of Herbie is they are failing to use the most powerful tool available to overcome it. I speak of course of…
HATE. Hate the man. Despise him. Focus on every evil thing he did, may have done, or it’s theoretically possible that he did, and look forward to his very negative judgment. When a person feels hung up by something derived from him — and yes, it’s him personally — hmthe person should think of him in terms reserved for September 12 Osama bin Laden. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot… Yeah, they were bad, too. But Pervert Double-cursed Strongarm? At least those others might have deserved trials.
You get the picture. That “Christian” stuff…. Well, Jesus didn’t know Herbert Armstrong.
Believe what you believe. Agree with him on anything (save his personal claims/“True Church”), or disagree with him on anything. But hate the man.
This is the power that will enable people to face the demons. That includes the demons in their own head, and the demons of holding Armstrongism. (And maybe, they will be able to put their real names to it.)
And then, turn the hate into productively, working to destroy his cult. It’s fine to mouth off occasionally. But put the cause first.
Hate. It’s a beautiful thing.
I've moved beyond the hate, Lee, and I've watched others in these parts do the same. Hatred and anger are often the first emotions that come to mind, but they are not the constructive emotions which ultimately get the job done. Hatred is like dragging the weight of a negative energy body around with us 24-7. Anger is the author of a lot of criminal activity and irrational damage.
As a result of my Armstrong experience, I spent years of my life making any authoritarian a$$holes I came up against eat $hit, and I outsmarted and bullied bullies. Most of them never saw it coming. But, no more. I thought it would be satisfying, but in the end, it only made me like them. Oddly enough, a little school teacher I dated for a while helped me realize that. Helped me turn my life around.
BB
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-bible-proof-that-god-doesnt-exist.html
BB:
Maybe you don’t need it. I know I don’t NEED it. But maybe it helped you before. And maybe it will help others here.
You must hate yourself then. Deep down, anger and hatred is a root of problems, for to hate another is not of God's wisdom and only hurts yourself, your life and anyone else in your personal life, in the long run. To hate someone who is long dead is even worse.
Post a Comment