Summations Only

Nor do you.It just makes sense to conclude that the authors' intentions were good, since they had nothing to gain by deceit.

Well, I believe Ringo is actually smarter than I am. So I couldn't write in his style. Let's say I could though.
Why would I be able to assume Ringo would be happy and content and impressed with my attempt at his stuff? That is my main issue and bother. I can accept, because you say it, that the content of the message is what we should be focused on ( regardless of author) if I can get my head to focus on that.. then the issue is less in my noodle.

Surely we have intent other than monetary.. to increase converts, to reduce turmoil, to quell the "mockers" etc. There is for sure some intent.. whether we know it or not.
Now, it could be innocent and genuine. Doing what the person believes is right and writing in as best way as possible to the originator. I still say that isn't the point, albeit minor now, that I suggest. I may be doing what I learned from you now. Arguing to argue. :-)))

I think I did present evidence. I think it's safe to say I didn't garner a fan club of young groupies because of the evidence presented. Say it's border line and questionable. I got that much out of this. Luke is also an unknown anonymous writer. Well, I think it's clear I don't agree with that. But I certainly have a hard time "proving" what I say.

Ah, you cannot. His approval or disapproval would depend on the actual content, what it is you say and on whether or not he is even aware of your writings.You claim Ringo is smart. I tend to agree. There are many very smart folk here and more than once I have had to mention "I wish I had said that" related to things they have posted.But continue reading from where you stopped the quotation. Let's wander back down the trail of posts in this thread and see if there might be any patterns.You mentioned that one problem you had with 2 Peter was that it was likely written after Peter had died.You had similar reservations about some epistles attributed to Paul.The Book of Moses contains material that was certainly written after Moses, even if he existed, would have been dead.The attributed passages I referenced in the discussion of the Talmud would have been long after the named Rabbis had died.Can you see the pattern?Is it likely that any of the attributed authors would object to their name being used since they would have been dead?So regardless of the content the issue of whether or not the attributed author would be pleased seems moot.Does that make sense?

Good humble answer. Are you sure you're not a Christian?

I think I made an error GDR.
In retrospect, with the posts the knowledgable guys have given, I may have been focusing on the wrong thing. Not the first time I've goofed. When I no longer do that, I'll write a book signed Ringo. " Arguing With Yourself Because Your the Smartest Guy in the Room".
( I put the " your" instead of " you're" in the title, out of respect for Ringo brilliance. Since he is limited in posting time, apparently a guy can get digs in all over the place with time to spare. If you can't win fairly you can with effort and time. Just a point of note to myself)

I have to agree with you. We cannot say anything about the motive of a potential forger without knowing their identity. And we can say that Paul had a reputation based on Acts and Corinthians that someone might want to draw on to improve their own credibility.Or not. We just cannot say.

Yes, I can see the pattern. It took me about a day of on/ off pondering to figure out what you first meant with Talmud. I think we can add a few more to the list gospels, James, Jude. I have got my head wrapped now to understand this may not as important as I built it up in my noodle to be. Effectively, moot, as you say.
I am not at the point and likely won't be, where I can consider it acceptable. I could never do something like that and feel good about myself. No matter how many excuses I could give myself..it would still be a breach of integrity. So I see these, at minimum, as slippery. Even if I assume the best of intentions and no malice on actual authors part. It still doesn't justify the action for me. It's simply unjustifiable...for me. I guess part of the issue is I consider the path of conventional Christianity, to be riddled with fraud. Carried into the apologists today, where no lie is too big that it can't be gagged out, without apparent embarrassment.
Anyway, if I avoid the focus on how the words came to be, and focus on the text itself. It's palatable now anyway. Not sure this makes sense.

But you like Jesus are a product of your era, your generation, your mythos. I think you are factually correct in your assessment as do many others.But (that word again) remember that throughout most of its history Christianity has been a political, military and expansionist program as much as it has been a religious movement. It expanded by force, was imposed by force, maintained by force. It has been the most successful proponent and practitioner of genocide so far in history.But it also has not been all bad. Christianity has given us great literature, art, architecture, ideas, music, programs, cultures and its own mythos as well.The biggest problem with Christianity and one aptly demonstrated in this thread is that it has also been the progenitor of a Cult of Ignorance. Well, certainly much of what is found in scripture should not be palatable today or in the future yet it can be understandable with additional knowledge and an acknowledgement that "The Bible" was not written for the audience of today.In Bible or Sacred studies we too seldom teach that the Bible, Christianity, even God must be challenged, questioned and criticized. We lost the Jewish concept of a people that struggle with God.I know I seem to have been always asking you to go study more yet I fear I need to impose on you again. If you get a chance can you take a look at Belief Statement - jar and jar - On Christianity. They may not be important or of value but might help you understand the basis for some of the positions I hold.The answer IMHO to the thread topic as well as the issues raised in this thread is education and a return to struggling with God.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I didn't say anything about money. I said "good" intentions. The examples you give - increasing converts, reducing turmoil, quelling mockers - are all "good" intentions. There is nothing to suggest deceit. Indeed it could - so you have no cause to infer deceit.

I have the same cause to infer deceit as you do to infer good intention. You can't know. I consider the act itself deceit no matter the intention. As Jar points out this is my standard moulded by my own belief. If it's written in every way possible the same as the originator. And the originator was resurrected and said he agrees. I still see it as deceit. It's not what is written that I have issue with, it's the pretending to be somebody else that I have issue with. The motive is unknown and can't be known, and I claim it doesn't matter anyway.

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is related to Occam's Razor. It makes more sense to infer innocence than guilt. Seeing guilt behind every tree leads to paranoia.

Yep it does. But I pass no judgement on the quality of the person writing or the motives.
I merely say the act itself is deceit.
If Christians believe the Pentateuch is written by Moses...they have been deceived.
If they believe apostle John wrote gospel John...they have been deceived.
(Whether you or I believe these people existed doesn't matter)
What else would you call it if not deceit?

So if I merely say that Charles Manson's acts were heinous, I'm passing no judgement on the quality of the person? That's mostly a case of self-deception. To repeat my favorite example, you'd be deceiving yourself if you believed Jim Hawkins wrote Treasure Island. You can't blame it on Stevenson.