The old testament did exist, and Jesus misquoted and misunderstood the fuck out of it.
Matthew 22:41-45
Jesus asks the pharisees how the messiah can be the son of David when David calls the holy spirit “lord,” referring to psalm 110 whish starts “the lord said to my lord.” It’s a ridiculous claim to start with, but it’s not even the correct understanding. The narrator is not David, they’re recounting what happened to David. The lord (God) said to my lord (king David). At no time does David even speak in psalm 110.
The New Testament was written after his death too, some parts of it earlier than others. I think it’s also a pretty safe bet that there was a lot of editorializing over the centuries, since AFAIK the earliest surviving copies of anything are from the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.
There’s probably less editorializing than you’d think. At least less that was successful in being hidden. There are verses that we know we’re added in later that seem like they fit in perfectly. Example: “for yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever” at the end of the Lord’s prayer. That verse feels right at home there, but based on early copies and differences between copies as Christianity spread, we know that wasn’t original.
Well, the gospels themselves are an example of editorializing. None of the gospels are written by the disciples themselves, most if not all of them were written after all the apostles would have been dead, and it is widely agreed that two of them (Matthew and Luke) are basically fanfiction spin-offs of Mark and a second, long lost source.
To clarify, I think by the time the stories were canonized, the narrative was likely more or less established. But in the 2-3 centuries before that I expect it to have been quite varied. We have no real way of knowing either way because there are very few surviving scraps of manuscripts from that early on.
The original post says that “the Bible” was written “hundreds of years after [Jesus’s] death.” I consider this to be an incorrect statement. When someone says “the Bible,” I wouldn’t think of only the most recently composed passages, but as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation.
This doesn’t mean that those recent passages weren’t written hundreds of years after Jesus died, only that I wouldn’t identify that point in history as “when the Bible was written.”
Except english language discussions on writing would generally be fine with how the post you replied to is written.
If an author writes a book for several decades then publishes it we would generally say “it was written” up to the publishing date even if sections of the book had not changed significantly for decades before publishing it. So I think its completely correct english to say “The Bible was written hundreds of years after christ lived” even if parts of it were written when he lived.
I agree that its misleading but I disagree that it’s incorrect because its correct linguistically and its correct in the broader point that essentially “Christ would likely not quote documents written after his existence” with the caveat being that he may quote documents that eventually found their way into the old testament unchanged.
He would and did quote the old testament. The prophets books were written at least a few hundred years before he lived, and those were the latest of the old testament to be written.
The new testament was written about 100 years after he lived, and canonized a few hundred years later.
Jesus wouldn’t quote the Bible. It was written hundreds of years after his death.
yeah but he’s quoting from heaven
didn’t they teach you anything in science class?
The cloud. Didn’t they teach you anything in IT class?
Merely providing Bible quotes is probably the better decision though.
Yeah. Basically just acting as a pretty good search engine to find relevant quotes.
The old testament did exist, and Jesus misquoted and misunderstood the fuck out of it.
Matthew 22:41-45
Jesus asks the pharisees how the messiah can be the son of David when David calls the holy spirit “lord,” referring to psalm 110 whish starts “the lord said to my lord.” It’s a ridiculous claim to start with, but it’s not even the correct understanding. The narrator is not David, they’re recounting what happened to David. The lord (God) said to my lord (king David). At no time does David even speak in psalm 110.
And not in English
Also wasn’t white
Let’s be correct here: the Christian Bible was canonized centuries after Jesus’s death. That’s not the same thing as being written.
I still appreciate the point you’re making, though.
The New Testament was written after his death too, some parts of it earlier than others. I think it’s also a pretty safe bet that there was a lot of editorializing over the centuries, since AFAIK the earliest surviving copies of anything are from the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.
There’s probably less editorializing than you’d think. At least less that was successful in being hidden. There are verses that we know we’re added in later that seem like they fit in perfectly. Example: “for yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever” at the end of the Lord’s prayer. That verse feels right at home there, but based on early copies and differences between copies as Christianity spread, we know that wasn’t original.
Well, the gospels themselves are an example of editorializing. None of the gospels are written by the disciples themselves, most if not all of them were written after all the apostles would have been dead, and it is widely agreed that two of them (Matthew and Luke) are basically fanfiction spin-offs of Mark and a second, long lost source.
To clarify, I think by the time the stories were canonized, the narrative was likely more or less established. But in the 2-3 centuries before that I expect it to have been quite varied. We have no real way of knowing either way because there are very few surviving scraps of manuscripts from that early on.
Some parts of the bible are shown to have been written about 400 years later
I don’t see where I said otherwise.
The implication is incorrect.
What is it that you think I was implying with my post?
This is the post you replied to
The implication was that it was not correct because of a reply that starts with:
The original post says that “the Bible” was written “hundreds of years after [Jesus’s] death.” I consider this to be an incorrect statement. When someone says “the Bible,” I wouldn’t think of only the most recently composed passages, but as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation.
This doesn’t mean that those recent passages weren’t written hundreds of years after Jesus died, only that I wouldn’t identify that point in history as “when the Bible was written.”
Except english language discussions on writing would generally be fine with how the post you replied to is written.
If an author writes a book for several decades then publishes it we would generally say “it was written” up to the publishing date even if sections of the book had not changed significantly for decades before publishing it. So I think its completely correct english to say “The Bible was written hundreds of years after christ lived” even if parts of it were written when he lived.
I agree that its misleading but I disagree that it’s incorrect because its correct linguistically and its correct in the broader point that essentially “Christ would likely not quote documents written after his existence” with the caveat being that he may quote documents that eventually found their way into the old testament unchanged.
‘this fan fiction is now mainstream’.
He might quote himself, which was then put in the Bible, tho.
He would and did quote the old testament. The prophets books were written at least a few hundred years before he lived, and those were the latest of the old testament to be written.
The new testament was written about 100 years after he lived, and canonized a few hundred years later.