The testimony of the NT writers

[Left Coast]

you are tooo funny.

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

This is a non-response. Thank you. Have a good day, Kenny.

 

[Kenny]

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 cmrecorded in the New Testament. You just believe it because the Bible says so. Do you grasp the issue yet?

Can you give me a source?

 

[Eli G]

(...) 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.

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?

(...)

You call "fundamentalism" when people support their beliefs on diferent premises than yours. You judge their premises as irrational.

Truth said: without the reliability of the Scriptures there would be a lot of questioning ... but with the premises: "God does not exist" and "the miracles are impossible", there is the same fundamentalism in the other direction. All your world would fall without those undemostrated premises.

 

[Left Coast]

Can you give me a source?

A source for what?

 

[Kenny]

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

please review context

 

[Left Coast]

You call "fundamentalism" when people support their beliefs on diferent premises than yours. You judge their premises as irrational.

No. I explained to you what I'm calling fundamentalism in this context. Please just refer to what I said.

Truth said: without the reliability of the Scriptures there would be a lot of questioning ... but without the premises: "God does not exist" and "the miracles are impossible", there is the same fundamentalism in the other direction.

I don't have to adopt either of those premises to say anything I've said in this thread.

 

[Kenny]

A source for what?

Have a good night.

 

[Heyo]

I think we have to come to the place where we also ask the question "When does reality become reality?"

When people of critical thinking and high intelligence still come to the conclusion that it is historical, why should one accept those critical thinkers and high intelligence that it is not historical as the gospel of truth?

No. The reality is that there will always be two sides to this coin.

Apparently there is a path to verify it and good faith interlocutors have reached a conclusion whereas the other side of the coin don't agree.

Just because something is disputed does not equate to "dropping it". IMV Scientists are always "disputing"

Thought so.

 

[Left Coast]

Have a good night.

When you come up with a coherent question, come on back.

 

[Kenny]

When you come up with a coherent question, come on back.

When I know I will get a coherent answer... I will

 

[Eli G]

(...) 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?

If I can go back and see what it is the statement you are posting as truth without any source of information to endorse it ... why you cannot?

The same talking about the time when books of the NT were written. You have said a lot about it, like that Paul's writtings were written before the gospels ... and again: where are your sources that endorse that?

You say too much, but prove nothing. You are just game playing.

 

[Left Coast]

When I know I will get a coherent answer... I will

You confidently believe all sorts of things by faith already.

 

[Eli G]

(...) I love it when anti-religious and atheists people create religion forums with predetermined agendas... They always project themselves as if they are the majority, that believers have no rational thinking and that science belongs to atheists.
(...)

A lot of that, right? They seem to think that they live in the clouds and the rest on the ground.

Actually, it may be truth ... but in the other sense. Come back to the real world. You are not gods

 

[Kenny]

You confidently believe all sorts of things by faith already.

LOL.. That isn't the definition of "faith".

 

[Eli G]

LOL.. That isn't the definition of "faith".

Give him a chance ... maybe they got scholars for that too.

 

[Left Coast]

If I can go back and see what it is the statement you are posting as truth without any source of information to endorse it ... why you cannot?

This question is barely coherent. Are you asking for citations from Clement?

The same talking about the time when books of the NT were written. You have said a lot about it, like that Paul's writtings were written before the gospels ... and again: where are your sources that endorse that?

Here's a couple from a brief Google search:

What Happens When You Put The New Testament In Order

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

If you'd like more formal ones from peer-reviewed journals, I can pull some for you but it'll take more time. If you're genuinely interested though, I can do that for you.

 

[Eli G]

Yeah, well, my English is not perfect, I know, so, a machine may not understand what I am trying to say.Thanks for your effort, though.
And, no, but thanks. Now I know what is the source of your info.
Until next time.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

Perhaps it would be more useful if instead of saying vague statements like "get out of your box" if you tell us what you interpret this evidence to mean exactly.

How is this evidence that clement was a contemporary and witness of Jesus(assuming that's what you meant since "get out of your box" doesn't tell us anything)?

It is just a claim that these things are from Jesus decades after the event no different to you or any other apologist claiming these things are from Jesus centuries or even millennia after the event.

Does it say how Clement came by this alleged information?

And even if he was a witness it doesn't say how he managed to faultlessly remember things Jesus is alleged to have said decades after the fact.

In my opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, well, my English is not perfect, I know, so, a machine may not understand what I am trying to say.Thanks for your effort, though.
And, no, but thanks. Now I know what is the source of your info.
Until next time.

Don't worry, your English is quite good.

Have a nice day.

 

[Kenny]

Perhaps it would be more useful if instead of saying vague statements like "get out of your box" if you tell us what you interpret this evidence to mean exactly.

How is this evidence that clement was a contemporary and witness of Jesus(assuming that's what you meant since "get out of your box" doesn't tell us anything)?

It is just a claim that these things are from Jesus decades after the event no different to you or any other apologist claiming these things are from Jesus centuries or even millennia after the event.

Does it say how Clement came by this alleged information?

And even if he was a witness it doesn't say how he managed to faultlessly remember things Jesus is alleged to have said decades after the fact.

In my opinion.

OK, let me attempt it with you...

First, I don't believe I said they were contemporary witnesses (I could be wrong) but rather the were contemporary people who validated the witnesses statements like Mark, John and Matthew. (One could say Luke was also corroborating).

So when we have two opposing viewpoints (modern scholars vs the contemporaries) - the people closest to the event have a better grasp as to what happened that those who look at it 2000 years later.

As an example, if you looked a Picasso painting, would you trust today's scholars of what he was trying to express or the painter himself or one of his contemporaries who knew the painter?