Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[welshdean]

You would of course have evidence?

The bat was made from the would of a willow tree.

When golfing consider taking a would of the tee?

And the sentence containing the most 'woods/woulds;
Which wood would you use, well that would be the 5 wood, said Edwood Woodwood, wouldn't you?


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DOC, can you just admit the mistake with the census and move on. Please.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are regarding 21st May and if it is indeed prophesied in the NT.

 

[joobz]

Here's an intersting quote:

We may never know what drove these people . . .to hide their own identity and to claim, deceitfully, that they were someone else. Their readers, had they known, would probably have called them liars and condemned what they did. But in their own eyes, their conscience may have been free from blame, and their motives may have been as pure as the driven snow. They had a truth to convey, and they were happy to lie in order to proclaim it.

This comes from the description line on Bart Ehrman's New book, "Forged - Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are"

 

[RLBaty]

This comes from the description line on Bart Ehrman's New book, "Forged - Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are"

I saw that!

Coincidence?

Maybe! Maybe not!

 

[joobz]

I saw that!

Coincidence?

Maybe! Maybe not!

I don't understand.

 

[DOC]

DOC, where would have Luke, who wrote the gospel in ~85AD, obtained information for this unrecorded Census?

Different scholars have different opinions:

A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[75] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," {in the first verses of The Gospel of Luke and Acts} may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke


Also as mentioned none of the Gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD -- odd for such a huge event, leading many to believe they were written before then.

 

[joobz]

Different scholars have different opinions:

they sure do.

A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[75] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," {in the first verses of The Gospel of Luke and Acts} may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Yeah, it could be him or another theophilus entirely.
Or, Luke could be lying again. He's been known to do that, you know.

Also as mentioned none of the Gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD -- odd for such a huge event, leading many to believe they were written before then.

Yes, it is strange that a story about something before the temple falling wouldn't mention the temple falling. Just like how the recent movie about Lincoln didn't mention hitler. That's just weird.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, where would have Luke, who wrote the gospel in ~85AD, obtained information for this unrecorded Census?

Different scholars have different opinions:

<snip>

Well what about sharing some of them with us instead of just posting irrelevant dross that you can later refer back to and claim that you've already answered the question?

 

[SimonD]

This thread is like some bad Soap. I can miss a hundred or so posts and still pick up the story

 

[dropzone]

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

I assume "There ain't none," was ignored several hundred pages ago. After that, there's no point in continuing to say, "No, there STILL isn't, and your 'evidence' is BS."

I've dealt with stumps before, and there's a point where the removal methods that don't involve Dynamite won't work without destroying every septic system in the neighborhood. What you do then is ignore him until he tries to sell the property, and then let the county blast it and reimburse the rest of us.

 

[ddt]

When spoken in American English the contracted form of "would have," "would've," and "would of" sound the same, but we were trained to believe that contractions are not "proper English," so many, wrongly, default to the non-contracted, but phonetically correct, spelling to sound more edumacated.

I should have made myself clearer. I understand the phonetic argument. I just don't understand the grammatical ignorance involved. Maybe I'm just funny that way, but when grammatically parsing a sentence such an "of" stands out like a sore thumb.

And phonetically rendering English? That's about the last language where that would work. It's no good idea to first fix your spelling and then have a Great Vowel Shift.

Or maybe - Greek would also be a case in point. Modern Greek retains the spelling of Attic Greek from the 5th/4th century BC, but in the meantime about half of the vowels and diphtongs have changed their sound into an or [i:] (Iotacism). The polytonic accents represent a pitch accent - rising and falling tonal pitch - as spoken by the ancients. However, as writing aid they were invented by Alexandrian scholars (in Ptolemaic times) when the tonal pitch already was dying out and giving way to a stress accent. Hence, in the 1980s the Greek government decreed monotonic (with only the oxeia = acute as the stress accent) as the official spelling.

But Luke, or any other educated Greek writer, would definitely not make such spelling errors.

So DOC, how is it with that translation of Luke 2:2?

And to this day, most software flags "would've" as incorrect while letting "would of" slide. After all, it's made of two perfectly acceptable English words. The geeks who write spell checking software are actually as illiterate as we thought.

Spell checkers look at single words, so they don't catch it. You'd need a grammar checker for that - and analyzing grammar is a bit harder than checking the spelling of single words. I think MS Word has one but I use Linux and OpenOffice, so I can't comment on its effectiveness.

Different scholars have different opinions:

A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[75] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," {in the first verses of The Gospel of Luke and Acts} may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

The wiki article also mentions Theophilos might not even be a name but an honorific. But even when going with the name, Theophilos is just a first name and sorely lacking in identifying a specific person. When I dedicate an article to Gottlieb, you're going to infer I meant W.A. Mozart and I actually lived 200+ years earlier?

So how about that translation of Luke 2:2?

ETA: I fixed the spelling of Theophilus to Theophilos. Why, when transcribing Greek names in Latin letters, would we also have to Latinize those names and give them Latin inflections?

 

[Lothian]

DDT,

I notice DOC keeps ignoring your question. Perhaps he hasn't seen it. Let me help.


So how about that translation of Luke 2:2?

 

[amb]

Different scholars have different opinions:

A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[75] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," {in the first verses of The Gospel of Luke and Acts} may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke


Also as mentioned none of the Gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD -- odd for such a huge event, leading many to believe they were written before then.

Date

Most critical scholars place the date c 80-90,[61][62] although some argue for a date c. 60-65.[63]
[edit] AD 75 to 100
Stained glass depiction of St. Luke at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[64] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[65] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.[66][67] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[68] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[69]

Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[32] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[32] with John the Baptist.

The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[70] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[71] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[72] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[73] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[74]
From the Wiki article. DOC, a very few minority place Mark before around 70, therefore Luke who had a copy of Mark in front of him when he was writing his gospel was around no earlier than 75-90CE

 

[joobz]

Date

Most critical scholars place the date c 80-90,[61][62] although some argue for a date c. 60-65.[63]
[edit] AD 75 to 100
Stained glass depiction of St. Luke at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[64] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[65] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.[66][67] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[68] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[69]

Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[32] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[32] with John the Baptist.

The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[70] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[71] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[72] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[73] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[74]
From the Wiki article. DOC, a very few minority place Mark before around 70, therefore Luke who had a copy of Mark in front of him when he was writing his gospel was around no earlier than 75-90CE

You seem to forget:

When the consensus of scholarly research supports an aspect of the bible, it's excellent, indisputable, concrete evidence of the truth and beauty of the bible.

When the consensus of scholarly research contradicts an aspect of the bible, it's simply a matter of opinion and one that can not be taken seriously. I mean, what does the scholarly community know?

 

[Rincewind]

Hi Welshdean,

Love the new avatar...

After seeing that, how on earth can anybody claim that evolution isn't happening?

 

[Think_Tank]

Hi Welshdean,

Love the new avatar...

After seeing that, how on earth can anybody claim that evolution isn't happening?

/KirkCameron

"Why is it, that when we look at the fossil record, we never find one of these..."

<Holds up picture>

"...a Horstrich?"

 

[welshdean]

Hi Welshdean,

Love the new avatar...

After seeing that, how on earth can anybody claim that evolution isn't happening?

Hi Rincewind and thanks, I pinched it from a user at another site. I saw it and thought of our resident 'equestrian princess'. I thought it would freak Elizabeth out. It's a shame really, the original is excellent, by the time I reduced it down it became a bit too pixellated.

/KirkCameron

"Why is it, that when we look at the fossil record, we never find one of these..."

<Holds up picture>

"...a Horstrich?"

lulz,




DOC, come on 'fess up. Have you made any plans for Sunday or are you expecting a 'ticket' to the big party in the sky on Saturday?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Hi Rincewind and thanks, I pinched it from a user at another site. I saw it and thought of our resident 'equestrian princess'. I thought it would freak Elizabeth out. It's a shame really, the original is excellent, by the time I reduced it down it became a bit too pixellated.

Awww, that's so sweet! I saw that photo (though not animated) in an e-mail a friend sent me full of photos about how the Smart Car is influencing auto design - the Smart Vette, Smart Rrari, Smart Bus, etc. This, of course, was the Smart Stang.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hi Rincewind and thanks, I pinched it from a user at another site. I saw it and thought of our resident 'equestrian princess'. I thought it would freak Elizabeth out. It's a shame really, the original is excellent, by the time I reduced it down it became a bit too pixellated.

May I help?

______________

_Current_________________Gooderer?​

 

[eerok]

Have you made any plans for Sunday or are you expecting a 'ticket' to the big party in the sky on Saturday?

Bah, I forgot all about that. I ordered a new laptop from Lenovo this morning, but I could've waited until Sunday and maybe looted something good from the house of a rapturee.

(If you feel lucky, don't forget to leave all doors unlocked and keys in the ignition.)

 

[Elizabeth I]

doc's trying to move his dog-and-pony show to a new thread. Seems to think the people over there can be duped a little easier than this crowd:

Jesus told his followers to go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He said nothing about writing anything down for a mostly illiterate population with no paper at the time. He said nothing about a future New Testament. He said I will send the Holy Spirit who will teach you.

From the article "Why you can believe the Bible"

The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings. Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html

ETA And just because we have no contempory writings of Jesus' ministry that doesn't mean they never existed. We have no records of Julius Casesar's signature, that doesn't mean he never signed anything. We have no contempory writings (in existence) of Alexander the Great's life, that doesn't mean he didn't conquer much of the known world. In fact almost all of what we know about his life comes from historians who wrote over 300 years after his death.



Former skeptic and Christian persecutor (the apostle Paul) who approved of Steven's stoning claimed to have saw Christ. Paul wrote Corintinians about 20 years after the Crucifixion. He also wrote at least 12 other New Testament chapters.

Although authorship of the Gospels is debated among scholars, Matthew and John were apostles and thus eyewitnesses, Mark, was an associate of the main apostle Peter, and Luke was an associate of Paul (Paul actually met with the main apostle Peter for about 2 weeks according to the book of Acts). And gospel writer Luke, who has been acclaimed a great historian regarding non-supernatural events, wrote the apostles were witnessing daily in Jerusalem shortly after the Crucifixion even though they were thrown in jail and told not to do it anymore when they got out of jail. So there is historical evidence of the church being continuous from the day of the crucifixion.

This is false, Paul, who wrote almost half of the NT claimed, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, our faith is in vain.

All of the gospels record the resurrection. Also Jesus claims to be pre-existant to Abraham in the gospel, have the power to forgive sins, is the Messiah, and says when you see me you see the father (God). Also Luke records the transfiguration where God is heard by a few apostles saying "This is my beloved Son in whom I am pleased".

Of course, since ddt is already over there asking for a translation of his Greek sentence, things might not go all doc's way.