The testimony of the NT writers

[Eli G]

That is called question begging.

Whatever you say ... I think if you are going to criticize something, you should know it better than its defenders ... or just, don't even try, IMO.

 

[Sand Dancer]

They exist, actually.

Squee!!!

 

[Left Coast]

Whatever you say ... I think if you are going to criticize something, you should know it better than its defenders ... or just, don't try it, IMO.

So far, if you're the "defender" here...it appears I do know it better than you. You didn't even know Paul's epistles predate the Gospels, which even conservative Bible scholars concede.

 

[Eli G]

So far, if you're the "defender" here...it appears I do know it better than you. You didn't even know Paul's epistles predate the Gospels, which even conservative Bible scholars concede.

Why? Because you know what the critics of your preference say?

I know what they say too. I disagree cause I got my own impartial sources of information.

I'll be waiting for your proves ... your falacies about qualification don't add anything to the topic.

I have to disconnect right now. Hopefully some of those proves will be here next time I connect. Have a good one.

 

[Sand Dancer]

So far, if you're the "defender" here...it appears I do know it better than you. You didn't even know Paul's epistles predate the Gospels, which even conservative Bible scholars concede.

Most study bibles give the dates the books were written. No reason not to know this. I think since we are used to reading them in a certain order, we forget the real order.

 

[Left Coast]

For reference:

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

 

[Left Coast]

Why? Because you know what the critics of your preference say?

I know what they say too. I disagree cause I got my own impartial sources of information.

I'll be waiting for your proves ... your falacies about qualification don't add anything to the topic.

I have to disconnect right now. Hopefully some of those proves will be here next time I connect. Have a good one.

Proofs of what? This is the second time I'm asking. What is it you want to talk about?

 

[metis]

Interesting ... I wonder why they didn't add books that would surely have favored their new Neoplatonic philosophy. There were plenty of those out there at the time.

Because they felt that going beyond a certain point in time increased the danger that "tainted" books might be included, and this was especially problematic because of the strong influence of Hellenization. This same concern occurred when the canon of Judaism was selected, but they chose to draw the line around 300 b.c.e.

These books did not select themselves, and in-fighting over which to choose was very much a problem. With the Christian canon, Revelation, Hebrews, and even John's Gospel were pretty heavily disputed.

 

[Left Coast]

Most study bibles give the dates the books were written. No reason not to know this. I think since we are used to reading them in a certain order, we forget the real order.

Caution: many study Bibles produced by fundamentalist groups will give very early dates for some of the texts. Secular scholars generally date things later.

 

[Eli G]

Caution: many study Bibles produced by fundamentalist groups will give very early dates for some of the texts. Secular scholars generally date things later.

Just to enmark this post. Without the mask: if you do not agree with "secular scholarship" about biblical topics, you are considered "a fundamentalist".

Thanks for your honesty ... This is very important to the topic.

 

[Left Coast]

Just to enmark this post. Without the mask: if you do not agree with "secular scholarship" about biblical topics, you are considered "a fundamentalist".

Thanks for your honesty ... This is very important to the topic.

No no. A fundamentalist in this context is someone who believes as a matter of dogma that the Bible is completely inerrant. In other words, when you talk to people without a theological act to grind, their dating is more plausible. BTW, this also includes Christian scholars who understand how to separate dogma from what we actually have evidence for.

 

[Kenny]

Where does he say that? He literally says the opposite. I quoted it for you.



This is a non-response.



Yes Kenny we are. And how the Bible is viewed compared to other ancient writings. So my reply was perfect on topic.

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clement ch.35 p.14
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Clement ch.34 p.14

you just must get out of your box.

 

[Kenny]

Yes it was. And I replied to that.

1. You're conflating points here. No one said fundamentalists force people to believe. What I said is that belief in the infallibility of the Bible is a requirement for fundamentalist Christianity. In other words, it's integral for your worldview. Your worldview collapses if it's not true.
2. You don't understand why it's relevant to point out that your worldview is contingent on insisting that the Bible is completely true? Really? You don't grasp that?
3. You're either trying to miss the point or you have completely lost the plot of the conversation.
4. Your experience informs you it's plausible to believe people walk on water? When did you last do it? When did you last see someone do it?
5. If you're gonna act like miracle claims are just run of the mill, mundane things that anyone should just assume are true...I don't know how to have a conversation with you.

1) I really don't see the point. If we don't believe the Constitution of the US... then we fall flat on our face
2) Please re-read answer #1
3) cuts both ways?
4) This is were it is obvious you haven't studied the Bible. Where does God give walking on water a global promise? It is not different that when God showed me where someone was going to buy an electronic typewriter. It is a one time deal for the specific moment.
5) Where did you get that position? Wow - you really are projecting your Issues on Christianity. IMHO

 

[Sand Dancer]

Caution: many study Bibles produced by fundamentalist groups will give very early dates for some of the texts. Secular scholars generally date things later.

I did notice looking online that there were some differences. Thx! I knew that Galatians was written first in the NT, so I copied the order from that site.

 

[Left Coast]

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clement ch.35 p.14
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Clement ch.34 p.14

you just must get out of your box.

Right. We've covered this. He got his information from the Gospels and Paul's letters. Not from independent knowledge of anything about Jesus.

Thank you for confirming.

 

[Left Coast]

[QUOTE="Kenny, post: 8016135, member: 47847] I really don't see the point. If we don't believe the Constitution of the US... then we fall flat on our face [/quote]

Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket? The Constitution is a man-made document that is intentionally editable. You're comparing apples and oranges to your belief that the Bible is the infallible instruction book for humanity from thr creator of the universe.

4) This is were it is obvious you haven't studied the Bible. Where does God give walking on water a global promise? It is not different that when God showed me where someone was going to buy an electronic typewriter. It is a one time deal for the specific moment.

You're arguing against something I never said. The question is whether a claim that somebody walked on water is plausible. Given that we understand the physics of water and human bodies (and we've encountered probably hundreds of examples of the interaction of human bodies and water, just as regular individuals) we know this doesn't happen. So when someone claims it has...is it plausible, or implausible? Think hard, Kenny.

 

[Kenny]

Right. We've covered this. He got his information from the Gospels and Paul's letters. Not from independent knowledge of anything about Jesus.

Thank you for confirming.

??????

this went way over your head IMO. Can you confirm your position with any evidence?

 

[Kenny]

[QUOTE="Kenny, post: 8016135, member: 47847] I really don't see the point. If we don't believe the Constitution of the US... then we fall flat on our face

Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket? The Constitution is a man-made document that is intentionally editable. You're comparing apples and oranges to your belief that the Bible is the infallible instruction book for humanity from thr creator of the universe.




You're arguing against something I never said. The question is whether a claim that somebody walked on water is plausible. Given that we understand the physics of water and human bodies (and we've encountered probably hundreds of examples of the interaction of human bodies and water, just as regular individuals) we know this doesn't happen. So when someone claims it has...is it plausible, or implausible? Think hard, Kenny.[/QUOTE]
you are tooo funny.

OK, you don't believe. But you certainly haven't refuted any of my positions other than offer your opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

??????

this went way over your head IMO. Can you confirm your position with any evidence?

It didn't go over my head. You dont even know who's on first right now Kenny.

The evidence is what you just posted. Clement quotes Scripture and takes it at face value as correct. Just like you, Kenny. Neither of you saw anything recorded in the New Testament. You just believe it because the Bible says so. Do you grasp the issue yet?

 

[Heyo]

who accepts that Homer wrote it?

Who cares if homer wrote it? He isn't even the author, just a scribe who transcribed a much older orally conveyed song.