SmallTownGuy
azulmagia
SmallTownGuy
They were just trying to give as honest a history as they could.
I have a one-word answer to that:
Pseudoepigraphy.
Also, it's astonishing how different the "honest" coverage of the life and death of Jesus differs, to the point of irreconcilability.
But we weren't talking about the 2nd-century pseudopigrapha writers. (Did you honestly think I hadn't read them? Along with well-reasoned and poorly-reasoned discussions of who did write each one and why, along with discussions of why 1&2 Tim, Titus, and portions of a couple others might belong among them?) We were talking about the NT authors.
Yeah, we're talking
all the NT authors. That necessarily includes pseudoepigraphy.
Quote:
You'll need to do more than just yell in a large font if you want to prove intentional dishonesty among them.
Well, apart from Paul, we have no idea who they were, and the stories they relate fairly scream intentional dishonesty.
Quote:
Perhaps you could start with the other part of my post? Do you feel that John really was trying to record a vision he believed came from God? Or do you feel he was being intentionally deceptive?
Actually, that is entirely moot since Revelation is (a) not history and (b) not actual prophecy, either.