Why is so much of the New Testament accepted as scripture?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

What scripture existed at the time that this was written? Only the Old Testament. They were the only scriptures. What makes up the new “testament” was not yet scripture, they were letters. Let that sink in. Current letters of the time.

Galatians 1:8, NIV: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

A gospel. (the record of Jesus’ life and teaching in the first four books of the New Testament.) These books were recorded (as evidence) …The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.

So who wrote the letters to Timothy? Paul. ( The actual author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text). Modern scholars generally place its composition some time in the late 1st century or first half of the 2nd century AD, with a wide margin of uncertainty. In fact, there is uncertainty regarding Paul’s authorship. Modern critical scholars argue that 2 Timothy, as well as the other two so-called ‘pastoral letters’ (1 Timothy and Titus), was not written by Paul but by an anonymous author, sometime between 90 and 140 AD.[

NOW Galatians. A majority of scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s,[8]although some date the original composition to c. 50–60.

Now Paul, the author (claimed). Generally regarded as one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age,[6][8] he founded several Christian communities in Asia Minor and Europe from the mid-30s to the mid-50s AD.

SO according to Christians, Jesus died at 33. The current calendar 0 year, his birth - so about 33CE.

The Old Testament scriptures existed. Old. Paul apparently was setting up congregations almost after his (Jesus) death to a decade later.

Prior to Paul’s conversation story, he was a Pharisee.

He would have been alive, persecuting when Jesus was alive and wandering around - yet he sure wasn’t called to be an apostle then. Nope. In fact he had no personal contact with Jesus while he was on earth. AND he records conflicts (his letters) with two that claimed (or Christians accept did) have a personal knowledge of and direct apostleship from Jesus, Peter and James (wouldn’t they have a more accurate understanding of gospel? Galatians quoted above)…

My question is, in light of this Paul figure - his claims, background, etc WHY are his letters now accepted as “scripture”. His claims and insights are no different than later claims by man (ie Mohammed) or Joseph Smith (Mormon).


They’re probably forgeries of Polycarp of Smyrna because they take swipes at Marcion, who split with the church around 145CE. They even criticize the book he wrote by name: “Oh Timothy, avoid the contradictions of so-called knowledge…” when Marcion’s book was called Contradictions.

I’ve read arguments that all of the Pauline letters are fake, but I don’t know if I agree with that.

“Forged” by Bart D. Ehrman discusses this.

We don’t even know who Paul was. We do “know” by analysis that at least 6 of the epistles are by the same author. 3 are downright later forgeries and the rest composites of 3,4 or more epistles probably compiled by a librarian some time in the late 1st century or early second century CE.

We know that “Paul” admits that he never met an earthly physical “jesus”. We know that by his own account that the Temple in Jerusalem (probably Ebionites and Adoptionist) declared him apostate. We can be fairly sure that if the accounts in Acts are accurate, coupled with contemporary references that James existed. If so, he was described as the "Elder brother in or of Jesus. If “of” is accurate then the virgin birth narrative must be false. If the “in” is accurate then it only refers to a heap of Jesus’s that were around at the time.

Once one studies this era with the information available the inescapable conclusion is that the jesus figure as described in the gospels bears little relation to the original jewish construct and almost no relationship to the modern jesus construct.

At my age, after all these years… it dawned on me.

One of those pre-suppositions I had and never really examined (never gave thought to). Have no idea why I gave thought to it this morning.

Couldn’t agree more. I think Jesus was a zealot, literally, a Jewish zealot who died in an insurrection. That picture peeks through a few times in the canonical gospels, but has been almost entirely suppressed.

The fact that Christianity, more specifically, Catholicism, advocates cannibalism (via the Holy Sacraments), is just scary. Cannibalism is only practiced by a very few people in the world.

A few people, when you minus Christians, of course. LOL! :sunglasses:

Not quite. There was no zero bce. The date goes from 1bce to 1ce.The scholarly consensus seems to be that Jesus was born in 7 bce. He began his ministry at age 30 and preached for 3 years before being crucified. That would make it about 27ce, during the reign of Tiberius.

It has always puzzled me that the dates of Jesus’ birth and death are not recorded in the Gospels. IE for his birth they had only to ask his mum, who might have given the Jewish date or linked his birth to an event or a ruler. There were allegedly eye witnesses and apostles who knew when he died, yet there is no traditional for that either.

However, it makes sense if Jesus was/is a mythical figure, not a real person

Who wrote what? We may never know, We’re not even sure about who wrote the gospels. Authorship was simply ascribed. However, scholarly consensus is that they were written by Christians ca 68-110 ce.

BUT before the fourth century CE there were dozens of sects who followed ‘The Way’ of Jesus. Most had their own books. The sect which became christianity was literally the last man standing. This was accomplished by simply murdering all opposition and burning their books. That’s why so few books of early heresies survived.

Today we know very little about early ‘heresies’ , with a some exceptions, such as the Ebionites and Essenes.

Below is a link to some early heresies.


I think we’re on slightly former ground with Paul and his hallucinations, even though he pops up to put his oar in after Jesus was dead…

“He would have been alive, persecuting when Jesus was alive and wandering around”

Followers of Jesus would not have been persecuted during lifetime. They were persecuted after he was killed and his followers started claiming he was the messiah.

  1. He claimed to have special relationship with Jesus.

  2. The church in Rome decided that for Christianity to succeed with Gentiles they would have to adopt his ideas.

Welcome to the forum ‘Invented’ Stick around, apart from a sizeable population of Canucks from the frozen North it isn’t a bad place at all.

And, for what it is worth, I agree with the main thrust of your posts.


Um, not quite.

After Jesus’ putative death in ca 27ce literally dozens of sects following’ The Way’ [of Jesus] sprung up, with a broad range of teachings. Some of them claimed he was the Messiah, but by no means all.

The claim of Messiah would have been a very hard sell to Jews, the only people who initially to join until Saul became involved. This might have been because practising Jews would have been aware of Jewish prophecy about the Messiah. They would have been acutely aware that Yeshua Ha Notzi simply didn’t qualify as Messiah…

I’m also a bit sceptical of claims Jesus claimed to be god/the son of god/the messiah. He would have been in danger of being stoned to death for blasphemy by his own disciples.

Yes, in that the sect which became the last man standing accepted Paul’s ideas, and dropped the ritual commandments of Judaism, most especially circumcision. After that huge change, the greatest numbers of converts came from the disenfranchised, especially slaves and women.

It should be noted that the early sect ignored Jesus’ claim reported in the Gospels:

Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (KJV)

Matthew 5:18" For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

The fulfillment of Jesus was to be his return. From the beginning, the sect which became christianity was above all millenarian . The messiah was/is to usher in the New world, with peace for all mankind.

Jesus himself is reported to have promised his imminent return:

Mathew 16:18 “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (JKV)

That Jesus did not return abrogated any claim to being Messiah. Consequently, the Jews are still waiting.

I don’t know of any evidence that supports that.

There were a myriad of “Jesus” sects in the First and Second Centuries: The Ebionites, The Marcionites, The Sethians, The Syriac Church, The Valentianians, The Ophites, Cainites, Barbeloites, Abelonians,Agapetae,Alogians,Angelici,Antitactae,Aquarii,Archontics,Ascodroutes,Borborites,Levitics,Phibionites,Stratiotici,Carpocratians,Cerinthians,Adamites,Marcellianas,Cleobians,Docetae,Elcesaites,Encratites, Apostolics (Apotactics),Severians,Marcosians,Messalians,Nicolaism,Naassenes,Perates
,Priscillianism,Secundians,Seleucians, never mind the many forms of the Pauline faith that eventually coalesced under duress from the Roman Emperors into what we now know as the Latin Rite (Catholic) and Eastern traditions. The Latin Rite and Eastern churches survived by dint of extreme brutality, massacre and book burning.

They varied from the originals the “Adoptionists”, various form of Gnostics, Divine Jesus and Resurrectionists divided into “spiritual” and “human” . Then we have the Second Century CE addition of the Philogians and the concept of the “Word” being admitted as mainstream.

Lots of evidence to support Boomers assertion. Some simple reading will alert you to that.


I understand, misread it as meaning immediately after Jesus’ death. All those sprung up after his disciples claimed to have seen him after he died. IF Paul is to be believed about meeting Simon/Peter and James, they also appear to have believed that Jesus would return again as the messiah when the end times happen.

The Ebionites (The Poor Men) were reputedly founded by James of the Upper Temple (Jesus’s Elder Brother) {we can argue that one later} who also declared “Paul” (whoever he was), apostate.

They were Adoptionist, orthodox Messanaic jews, and predate all the others…the originals.

There’s an interesting book by Bart Ehrman “How Jesus became god”.

The article by Bart Ehrman below is worth a glance and there’s a lecture on YouTube (in three parts)

So does David Icke. Make of that what you will.

Really, I didn’t know that. Does that mean that Jesus wasn’t a lizard? If so, I can’t tell you how relieved I am to learn that. I’ve never found it hard to accept David’s claims about the British Royal Family. I’m also convinced Donald Trump is a fucking disguised goanna. Next time you see him on TV, squint a little. The forked tongue is a dead give away.

1 Like

David Icke is bat shit crazy, though of course even a “blind pig” finds the occasional acorn. So to speak…