Who really wrote the bible? -Debate-

I said it that way due to the fact that other Jewish people may have formed their own opinions? Guess what, guys? It’s not in the bible that that’s the reasoning why Jews don’t follow the teachings of the New Testament. That’s not biblical knowledge, that’s contemporary religious knowledge. The question “Who really wrote the bible” does NOT imply a singular author, either!

Unlike some of you, I’m not going to just assume an entire group of people have the exact same belief system just because the majority of it does.

Marley, you got defensive as if I was insulting them. I wasn’t. They asked why I said it was still quite a debate, and I gave them the reason.

We’re still waiting for that amazing relevation, I mean revelation, called “proof.” It would go far towards supporting your argument (whatever it is).

I never really had one? This was intended to be like many of the other threads on this forum where I am wanting people to voice their opinions and give reasoning and information to support it? I guess I made the mistake of saying something that I worded poorly.

Edit: I got who and whom mixed up. So now you’re going to mock me? Truly?

Let’s have it already.

Actually, I’m going to put my big boy pants on, something you must not own.


Speaking for myself, where there’s a scholarly consensus, I’m willing to go along with it. For example, I “believe” in the J-E-D-P theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch that’s described in the Staff Report, in the sense that it seems reasonable to me, but if someone comes along with new evidence or a more convincing theory, I might well change my mind. In more disputed cases, I’m willing to reserve judgment.

I never argued and said the Staff Report was wrong, simply that they found doubt in themselves and that leaves it open to debate. Basically, just to prove Musicat wrong.

None of which is relevant to your OP, which is more about the OT.

Look, you’re trying to get other posters to engage and coyly implying you have your own pet theory.

  1. Well, out with it. Or are you completely in agreement with your link?
  2. Evidence =/= Proof.
  3. Worse yet, conjecture =/= evidence OR proof.
  4. What about the Old Testament?
  5. What exactly are you trying to get out of this thread? An honest debate on the origins of various parts of the Bible? A chance to soapbox? A series of gotchas at people who buy some quasi-mystical “official” history of the Bible?

Wrong about what? So far, Musicat has only implied you don’t have any proof. You haven’t shown any yet (no, your link does not constitute “proof” - see notes 2 and 3 above).

I feel a little ridiculous warning you over such a petty comment, but during your short stay on this board I have told you several times that you can’t insult other people. This is an insult and you need to get serious about paying attention to this rule.

That is your evidence that contradicts Cecil’s minions? I’d say it supports the Staff Report pretty well. Can you quote parts that disagree?

Maybe we’re not understanding what you want to do. Are you interested discussing (not debating) the fine points of the Staff Report, how they came to those conclusions, more detailed evidence for each and the amount of assurance for each item? Now that would be a scholarly discussion for sure.

The Jewish people predate Christianity - if the Jews of the time rejected Jesus (of the same time) as the Messiah - how is it that you (of current time) know ‘better’ then they do?

You have accepted the books/writings/teachings of a person they rejected.

Why would the Bible (specifically the NT) mention WHY or even THAT the Jews rejected him? wasn’t the cross enough of a rejection for you? Let alone the ohter mentions in the NT of the persecution of Christ’s followers?

Why would the OT even make mention of the NT that was not relevant to its followers?

Of course any conclusion is tentative. Certainty is for demagogues and crackpots.

Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to? I am always interested in original thinking on Biblical research and it sounds like your newsletter would be cutting edge.

May I take it that his ideas intrigue you?

Well, I haven’t seen any actual ideas yet, but just the potential for ideas is always intriguing…

Sure it does. What if instead you had asked:

"Who really wrote the New York Times? I’m talking about the Times in general and not specifically the Sunday edition though I have seen cites as to who it was. Specifically I’m looking for:

Approximate Age
Approximate Year of writing
Guess as to why
Whether you believe they saw it as the truth

That would totally imply that you’re searching for a singular author of a work that’s composed of the works of many different writers of many different genres over many different epochs.

You just wouldn’t phrase it the way you did.

Who really wrote the bible? Hank. Hank wrote the bible.

Who wrote the Bible? It wasThe Jews!