The testimony of the NT writers

[Kenny]

thank you

There are accounts of other "gospels" being destroyed, but most of them may have been merely not copied. In some ways it amounts to the same thing.

citation please.

But now lets' see you support your claims. I do remember doing this once in the past and I am not going to repeat earlier work for nothing.

An Introduction To The Book Of 1 Peter | Bible.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the link, nothing in there contradicts what W. G. Kümmel writes.

I was hoping that the quote came from it. I was searching the quote. I may have been a bit quick.

 

[lukethethird]

my quote says differently

How so?

 

[Eli G]

"1 Peter contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Wow, wow, wow ,,, hehehe.

This is Peter talking:

2 Pet. 1:16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather, we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: “This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.” 18 Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain.

Now I understand better someone who used to talk a lot about fake news. LOL.
Where do these people come from? And how come they sell so much?

2 Tim. 4:3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. 5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do [the] work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

What I just quote from Peter is what that person you are quoting is describing as not including any personal relationship with Jesus. Don't you see the falsehood on that declaration just reading what Peter said in one of his letters? Man, are you for real?

 

[lukethethird]

I was hoping that the quote came from it. I was searching the quote. I may have been a bit quick.

Which quote were you looking for?

 

[Subduction Zone]

thank you



citation please.

Nope, I am done with that particular detour for now. Perhaps later. I do not want to get too far off topic. I said that I would concede it. We can revisit this later.

An Introduction To The Book Of 1 Peter | Bible.org

Bible,org? That is an incredible fail on your part. You need reliable sites. Not sites that disqualify themselves in their own words:

"
THE BIBLE
We believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life. When we say inspired and without error, we mean we believe this to be verbal, plenary, infallible, and inerrant throughout.

"

If I linked a cite that said "We believe the Bible to be complete horse**** and wrong in every way possible' you would rightfully laugh at me. Why do you not expect the same in return?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I just quote from Peter is what that person you are quoting is describing as not including any personal relationship with Jesus. Don't you see the falsehood on that declaration just reading what Peter said in one of his letters? Man, are you for real?

No. You quoted 2 Peter. You would need to prove that it came from Peter.

When did Peter learn to eloquently write in Koine Greek? Or was the Bible wrong when it said that he was illiterate?

 

[Eli G]

Nothing about this, SubductionZone?

Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6 C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. (See QUIRINIUS.) His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).

So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37. (Insight Vol 2 / Registration).

Satisfied?

Learned from my JWs teachers. You can too. It's free in our website

I would like to hear something besides that unhappy denialism and infuriation that I see that characterizes you.

 

[lukethethird]

What I just quote from Peter is what that person you are quoting is describing as not including any personal relationship with Jesus. Don't you see the falsehood on that declaration just reading what Peter said in one of his letters? Man, are you for real?

1Peter and 2Peter are written by two different authors, vocabulary among other things reveal that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which quote were you looking for?

A quote of @Left Coast :

"1 Peter contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)"

 

[Left Coast]

Just saying .

The truth is until this moment, 14 pages on my topic in just a few ours, and still not a valid reason why I should not consider the NT documents as reliable.

My very first reply to you provided valid reasons. Did you forget?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing about this, SubductionZone?

Yes, it is unsupported garbage. You need a valid source. Like this one:

P. Sulpicius Quirinius - Livius

It is more of a scholarly source with no bias. He merely is writing about Quirinius. By the way, he does site the date that Quirinius left Rome. It is also a well known bit of history:

"Anyhow, Quirinius had shown that his successes in the Sahara were not incidental. He was a capable commander and Augustus trusted him. In the first years of our era, Quirinius was ordered to be rector ("guide") of Gaius Caesar, the grandson of Augustus and his intended successor. The young man was to visit the eastern provinces and learn something about government. He left Rome on 29 January 1 BCE. (Among the officers that escorted the him were the historian Velleius Paterculus, Marcus Lollius, and Seianus, the future praetorian prefect.) Quirinius was probably present when Gaius met the new Parthian king Phraataces on an island in the Euphrates, and must have been one of Gaius' military advisers when he invaded Armenia. Unfortunately, the young man was wounded and died on his return to the west (3 CE). Augustus now selected his stepson Tiberius as successor.

Almost immediately, Quirinius was appointed as governor of Syria, one of the most important provinces of the empire, garrisoned with no less than four legions (III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, XII Fulminata). The area to the south, Judaea, was unquiet. Its leader, Herod Archelaus, had made big mess of his realm, and in 6, Augustus sent him into exile in Gaul.


Ostracon from Elephantine, recording a census
Judaea now became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect. Quirinius was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture. Until then, taxes had been paid in kind. However, during the census which Quirinius organized, the inhabitants were required to declare their property in money. There are no indications that the Roman money taxes were higher than the taxes they replaced, but taxes in money were more onerous than taxes in kind, because a farmer had to borrow in case of a poor harvest. Besides, any Roman coin would bear an image of the goddess Roma or a legend saying that the man represented was the divine emperor: a violation of at least two of the ten commandments.

Not surprisingly, the Jewish peasants were unhappy. The high priest Joazar, however, was able to convince almost everyone to cooperate with the new authorities, since the alternative would be the return of the detested Herod Archelaus. But there remained some resistance."

The census was in the year 6 CE.

What historians of that era do you trust?

 

[Eli G]

This post?

In general we (ought to) take any writings that purport wild and implausible things with a large grain of salt. This applies to both ancient and modern writings. Add to this that the NT was written by a) a guy who admits he never saw Jesus in person and his information about him is from private revelations, b) anonymous authors, and c) pseudepigraphal authors, and yes it's quite reasonable to regard the New Testament as highly dubious. Has nothing to do with "discrimination."

... talking about not believing what seems impossible to you, or denying authorship that some of you capriciously do not wish to accept, ...
None of that is valid. Still waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Man, take your pills, seriously.

This sort of statement is not allowed here. You screwed up seriously. You quoted a bogus site. We are debating history right now. You need a valid historical source.

Of course Christians hate it when I demand a non-biased site for supporting their Luke clams. None can be found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This post?

... talking about not believing what seems impossible to you, or denying authorship that some of you capriciously do not wish to accept, ...
None of that is valid. Still waiting.

No, it is not a matter of "denying". How can you honestly make that claim? Why it is very unlikely to have come from Peter has been explained. You had no answer except that it was in the Bible.

 

[Eli G]

I am putting you back in my ignored list, man. Rest in peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am putting you back in my ignored list, man. Rest in peace.

Why? Because you are uncomfortable properly supporting your beliefs?

 

[Left Coast]

This post?

... talking about not believing what seems impossible to you,

What "seems impossible to me?" Do you believe everyone who says they've walked on water or magically cured countless diseases or magically floated up into space? These are normal, totally plausible claims to you?

or denying authorship that some of you capriciously do not wish to accept, ...
None of that is valid. Still waiting.

You have no idea whether it's valid, because you're not even familiar with the scholarship about it. You haven't read it. You read what your organization chooses to tell you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What "seems impossible to me?" Do you believe everyone who says they've walked on water or magically cured countless diseases or magically floated up into space? These are normal, totally plausible claims to you?



You have no idea whether it's valid, because you're not even familiar with the scholarship about it. You haven't read it. You read what your organization chooses to tell you.

Unfortunately the JW's appear to be a cult. They match too many of the qualifications of a cult not to be considered one. And as we see with the example of the Census of Quirinius in Luke they cannot deal with errors that they have no answer to.

I explained to @Kenny that apologetic sites are not historical sites. The quote that I found from the source that he used showed that they made up their mind before the evidence was in. And even worse @Eli G had only the easily falsified claims of the JW cult for his "history". What is their one solution when reality disagrees unforgivably with them? I would say that after failing in a spectacular manner that putting one's fingers in one ears and storming off appears to be the norm.

 

[rational experiences]

Everyone in science says I agree humans genesis is human owned within a human's body.

As theists claim di men Sion is going within your body back to nothing. As resourcing advice machine science.

Time travel.

How they imposed a falsity upon a human's body.

As TH O TH...numbers Egyptian said O Spiral phi EAR type God. Body TH earth O owned body mass hence numbers. It's past history entering itself body type earth only god.

God of man's science not of man's creation.

Is the God of numbers earths mass. Said exactly.

THOTH also said numbers places the baboon God beast before his man's genesis life as numbers genesis within.

Is the teaching man's own ancient wisdom.

Isn't going anywhere.

So God within man was holy water. Which biology by percentile is. Minerals gods mass...chemistry reactions with water food bodies microbes.

God within us does not travel back in time.

The teaching.

Back in humans living history is death only.

Future in humans living history is death also.

Human living now present lives between its own death was a scientific humans teaching.

To not theory back behind life alive now nor its futures death now.

So you say as a human now alive as you were before. For science only. I want gods O inheritor body. Where my earth science my earth machine my earth mass changes came from.

What would just a human as just a theist claim it was?

Back?

Phi... the ear spiral. Yet God mass earth at its greatest position was not yet manifest in space laws. Earths mass.

So you were proven wrong.