tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7523642669070219347..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: John Adams and Joseph PriestleyBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4614790939169730172009-01-05T17:32:00.000-07:002009-01-05T17:32:00.000-07:00Not germane to Adams, Priestley, or Jefferson, but...Not germane to Adams, Priestley, or Jefferson, but re: some of the questions raised....<BR/><BR/>We now have evidence that confirms the canonical Gospels were written in the first century. Scholars overwhelmingly concede this now. Only a few still claim second century authorship.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48188809246946640732009-01-05T08:24:00.000-07:002009-01-05T08:24:00.000-07:00KM, the original question "8)" stated, "Have we an...KM, the original question "8)" stated, "Have we any evidence of the existence of ... Peter and <I><B>Paul</B></I>, or <I><B>Paul</B></I> and Tecle, in the first century?" As far as I know the answer is "No." I haven't seen anything like a notary's stamp and dated signature on any of Paul's writings.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20854093081917504152009-01-05T06:07:00.000-07:002009-01-05T06:07:00.000-07:00Ray,Paul himself was a first-century writer. Am I...Ray,<BR/><BR/>Paul himself was a first-century writer. Am I missing something?<BR/><BR/>As for forming your own opinion on the temple, your original post referred to "answers accumulated over tha last two centuries". If in fact this is your own independent analysis, great. I'll check it out.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64408090721860537582009-01-05T04:58:00.000-07:002009-01-05T04:58:00.000-07:00KM, please tell me what first century author menti...KM, please tell me what first century author mentions the writings of Paul. The Josephus reference to Jesus, though likely altered over time, I accept as genuine.<BR/><BR/>I have come to my conclusion regarding the post-Temple era origin of the written gospels quite independently of the Jesus Project. <BR/><BR/>You can see the basis for my conclusion <A HREF="http://praesepium.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">here</A>. If you'd like to discuss the matter further you can send me an e-mail.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27210794951962572112009-01-04T19:36:00.000-07:002009-01-04T19:36:00.000-07:00Hi Ray!You somewhat misstate the modern consensus ...Hi Ray!<BR/><BR/>You somewhat misstate the modern consensus - the Pauline epistles are new testament material of uncontested first century origin.<BR/><BR/>The modern "textual analysis" that shows that all the gospels were written after the fall of the temple is based on a method that assumes that prophecy of the future is impossible, so anything that "predicts" an event must have been written after the event. This may be acceptable method to you, but you can understand where Christians might cry foul at that. Check out the Jesus Project - they are refreshingly open in explaining their methodology.<BR/><BR/>As for the gospels, let me suggest (personal opinion) that Matthew came first, and Mark was written as an abridgment for missionary purposes (much as Jefferson's Bible). This is not the modern scholarly majority opinion, though it is not unheard of in scholarly circles. Based on variations in text, it makes the most sense to me.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18029830676829357362009-01-04T19:15:00.000-07:002009-01-04T19:15:00.000-07:00Hi Jon!OK, cool.Not that I disagree with you on sc...Hi Jon!<BR/><BR/>OK, cool.<BR/><BR/>Not that I disagree with you on scripture - I would only caution you that there are many ways of taking "partially inspired". It can mean that only part of scripture is inspired, or that each part of scripture is a mixture of divine inspiration and human interpretation. What do you think Adams' view is? Note that even such Christians as Luther and Calvin (or do you deny that they're Christian?) denied the inspiration of some of what they knew of as scripture.<BR/><BR/>As for the Trinity, Adams (and many other founders) rejected the Trinity, but in so doing revealed that they did not understand the Trinity. Adams was very clear in rejecting that three could be one, or one three. This shows that he thought that the three and the one were of the same kind. Even Adams would not reject the notion that three players could be one team, or one team consist of three players. When the three and the one are of different kinds (as they are in the Trinity - three persons, one substance), Adams' objections show only his ignorance. Ugly Americans, and all that.<BR/><BR/>As for other religions, well, he acknowledges that they align with Christianity "so far forth" - they have much in common, but aren't yet the complete package. This is standard Christian dogma, covered under Providence - God's preparation of the world for Christianity.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66672789393718870032009-01-04T18:01:00.000-07:002009-01-04T18:01:00.000-07:00We can also intuit from Jonathan's post that by Ad...We can also intuit from Jonathan's post that by Adams simply asking these questions in his Dec. 3, 1813 letter to Jefferson he and Jefferson already possessed the mindset necessary to accept the answers accumulated over the last two centuries: 1) we have no gospel that has the authority of a firsthand witness, especially not Matthew or John; and for 2)thru 8) we have no first century corroboration to any "New Testament" material. Gospel textual analysis indicates that all narratives were constructed after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, and that Mark's gospel is most likely the earliest. Many reliable authorities have determined that the "original" version of Mark gospel ended with the discovery of the empty tomb and did not continue on to vindicate a resurrected Jesus.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11214702814393160692009-01-04T13:30:00.000-07:002009-01-04T13:30:00.000-07:00That's true -- he did consider them "Christians."S...That's true -- he did consider them "Christians."<BR/><BR/>Some other interesting points to take from it I think are:<BR/><BR/>1) That he believed the Bible only partially inspired. As such each man with his reason, or appealing to the authority of the reason of another, determines which parts are valid, which aren't. It's interesting that Adams doesn't merely accept the authority of Priestley's "reason" for determining which parts are valid; rather he wants to make that decision for himself.<BR/><BR/>2) That denial of the Trinity was central to Adams' form of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>3) That because "Christianity" essentially equates with "virtue" (its end) you can find "Christianity" in non-Christian religious systems.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20854286450530199332009-01-04T13:12:00.000-07:002009-01-04T13:12:00.000-07:00Hi Jon!I take it from this that Adams considered h...Hi Jon!<BR/><BR/>I take it from this that Adams considered himself, and Jefferson, and Priestley all to be Christians.<BR/><BR/>What else should we take from this?Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.com