Authority or not?

[John]

"Science" changes with the tides and whims.

so does religion.

What "science" proves who wrote what?

textual analysis

i am NOT saying that the brit chadashic writings are not inspired- i am merely saying that certain people did not write them.

shalom- john

[anochria]

OK, my two cents.

I don't quite share Walt's cynicism about science, but I do share his conviction that the entire New Testament was written by the traditionally ascribed authors.

In fact, there is good evidence that the entire New Testament was written before 70 AD (with possibly one or two exceptions, though I think all of them were)

At this juncture we could compare evidences, but that might be better for another thread?

Suffice to say for now that a lot of the skepticism about Paul's authorship of certain books such as the pastorals is motivated by higher critic's a priori assumption that "high Christology" must have developed late in the evolution of Christianity. Yet there is good reason to believe that the Chruch started with a "high Christology".

[John]

no- revelation was written at the LEAST after 70 AD- the destruction o the temple. Shaul died in 65 AD so his letters i agree, were to be written after. but i think that some of the letters ascribed to him are not his. modern science proves that hebrews was definately not written by him- but again, that doesnt mean i dont think it has authority, or any less authority. just that it has a different author.

[anochria]

Modern science hasn't and cannot "prove" that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but there is decent evidence that he didn't.

And I do believe Revelation was written before the destruction of the Temple. In fact, I believe that the destruction of the Temple is the primary subject matter of the prophecy!

I don' tknow if you're aware of the fierce debates over the dating of the book of Revelation, but a quick internet search would bring all the relevent evidences on both sides of the argument (pre and post AD70) to light.

I'll just throw out two indicators that Revelation was written before 70 AD-

1) the surprising absence of any reference to the destruction of the temple, which would have been almost impossible not to mention, being that it vindicated Jesus' prophecy.

2) the fact that the angel in Revelation is told to go to the temple and measure it, which assumes that the Temple still stands at the time of the writing.

I won't pretend that there isn't good evidence on both sides of the argument. You just might be surprised how much evidence can be marshalled for a pre-70 AD date if you look into it.

[John]

i am aware of oth sides of the dabate. however, history does PROVE that Yochanon wrote it after the destruction of the temple. When Yochanon was on Patmos, it was in 90 AD. historical records from 'church fathers' and roman execution records prove that Yochanon was put on the island after the destruction of the temple.

and who says that eh temple was an earthly one? or if it was an earthly one that it was not him measuring in his VISION a latter temple that is built?

and it is believed that Yochanon DID refer to the destruction of the temple. read closer than tell me what you find.... on the thread entitled 'post or pre 70 AD?