The testimony of the NT writers

[Eli G]

One of the problems of the modern critics of the Bible is that they cannot believe that the prophecies are written before the events happen. It is a premise that affects their way of considering some datings. For example, if in Matthew it is said that Jesus spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, it must be because Matthew wrote his book after that event happened, because only then could he have connected some warnings from Jesus (according to them invented by Matthew or someone else) to make them sound like prophecies.

Their premises condition their conclusions. They are prejudiced from before analyzing the facts. About the book of Matthew, for example, the exact year when the book was written is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.) say that it was 41 C.E.

The same problem occurs with the datation of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and others. Atheist critics won't accept datation that indicates the book include prophecies that occurred centuries later ... NO MATTER WHAT. They will try to hide that fact dating those books in later time. Understandable ... their reason, of course.

 

[danieldemol]

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?

Ok, but by acknowledging that Clement wasn't a contemporary witness aren't the implications of this that he was just an after the fact scholar (at best and I think that's truly being over generous) then what is the difference between for example one scholar who is 500 years after the fact and one that is 1000 years after the fact except for the 1000 years after the fact scholar having a more developed toolbox for determining what is historical?

In this case Clement was only decades after the fact, but doesn't list any witnesses that I know of that he is alleged to have gleaned this information from by people who came long after him (which is partly why I think it is overly generous to call him a scholar, because he only records a claim and no evidence to support it). But still he is lacking the modern tools of critical scholarship to determine what is historical even though he is decades after the fact and - if i understand correctly - geographically separated as well.

In my opinion.

 

[Eli G]

(...) the modern tools of critical scholarship to determine what is historical even though he is decades after the fact (...)

What are those tools "in your opinion"? It sounds like magic to me

 

[danieldemol]

What are those tools "in your opinion"? It sounds like magic to me

Tools such as modern research into memory recollection would be one example, dont forget even if Clement was interviewing actual witnesses of Jesus he was writing decades after the events. This means that either he was writing of his own memory of what the witnesses said decades later or he was writing of their memory of what was said decades later (and he didn't record any witnesses he interviewed as far as I know, it is just a relatively modern assumption that he did)

And how did you decide it was sounding like magic before you'd even heard a single example of the tools used. Preconceived idea?

In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

Ok, but by acknowledging that Clement wasn't a contemporary witness aren't the implications of this that he was just an after the fact scholar (at best and I think that's truly being over generous) then what is the difference between for example one scholar who is 500 years after the fact and one that is 1000 years after the fact except for the 1000 years after the fact scholar having a more developed toolbox for determining what is historical?

The application of Clement of Rome and others that I mentioned was that they did quote the Gospels and letters validating that what was written was accepted by the people of that time. (Not to mention that basically there aren't any evidence of anybody disputing it during that time)

The problem with 2,000 years later is that although there may be more tools they also apply personal opinions at the expense of those who were closer to the event.

So, if the fathers said "Matthew wrote the Gospel that has its name" and 2000 years later a "scholar says" no he didn't or I'm not sure, one would be more logical in accepting those closest to the event.

I believe that Clement knew Paul and knew Peter.
Philippians 4:3
Indeed, true companion, I ask you also, help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement as well as the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.


I also believe that St Ignatius of Antioch knew Peter and John. Polycarp, if I am not mistaken, knew John.

So if these quote any scriptures, should we give it value as a witness to who wrote it?

In this case Clement was only decades after the fact, but doesn't list any witnesses that I know of that he is alleged to have gleaned this information from by people who came long after him (which is partly why I think it is overly generous to call him a scholar, because he only records a claim and no evidence to support it). But still he is lacking the modern tools of critical scholarship to determine what is historical even though he is decades after the fact and - if i understand correctly - geographically separated as well.

Please see above.

 

[Eli G]

I don't see anything modern in not realizing that the New Testament writings circulated through most of the territories of the Roman Empire without any resistance during all the years that followed the events they recount. There were people contemporary to the events that were still alive, for God's sake!!! Copies and mre copies; translations and more translations ...

Don't you realize how ridiculous it is that more than 20 centuries later someone is making excuses not to believe something that could have been denied just when those writings began to circulate?

What scientific is there in that?

 

[Left Coast]

What are those tools "in your opinion"? It sounds like magic to me

There's a few major questions relevant in source criticism of a text:

1) Who is the source of the narrative? Do they have any bias or agenda in writing this document? Are they trying to sell something?

2) Are the claims of the document corroborated independently by anyone else? Independent attestations increase the probability that the event described actually occurred.

3) What do the earliest manuscripts say? How far removed are they from the date the originals were written? Do earlier texts differ from later ones? Earlier manuscripts should be trusted as more likely original to the author.

4) Does the narrative borrow from earlier narratives? If significant portions of the text are similar, it is likely that the author knew of the prior text and used it as a source.

None of this is magic.

 

[Eli G]

Tools such as modern research into memory recollection would be one example, dont forget even if Clement was interviewing actual witnesses of Jesus he was writing decades after the events. This means that either he was writing of his own memory of what the witnesses said decades later or he was writing of their memory of what was said decades later (and he didn't record any witnesses he interviewed as far as I know, it is just a relatively modern assumption that he did)

And how did you decide it was sounding like magic before you'd even heard a single example of the tools used. Preconceived idea?

In my opinion.

Do you really think that "research into memory recollection" is a modern technique?

Didn't you read the post about Luke research?

This is how the Gospel of Luke starts:

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
5 In the days of Herod, king of Ju·deʹa, there was a priest named Zech·a·riʹah of the division of A·biʹjah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth ...

And he said later:

... 3:1 In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, 2 in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't see anything modern in not realizing that the New Testament writings circulated through most of the territories of the Roman Empire without any resistance during all the years that followed the events they recount. There were people contemporary to the events that were still alive, for God's sake!!! Copies and mre copies; translations and more translations ...

Don't you realize how ridiculous it is that more than 20 centuries later someone is making excuses not to believe something that could have been denied just when those writings began to circulate?

What scientific is there in that?

Most people at that time were not Christians, Eli. Christians were a small minority. In other words, the vast majority did not buy what Christians were selling. Do you understand that?

 

[Eli G]

There's a few principles relevant in source criticism:

1) Who is the source of the narrative? Do they have any bias or agenda in writing this document? Are they trying to sell something?

2) Are the claims of the document corroborated independently by anyone else? Independent attestations increase the probability that the event described actually occurred.

3) What do the earliest manuscripts say? How far removed are they from the date the originals were written? Do earlier texts differ from later ones? Earlier manuscripts should be trusted as more likely original to the author.

4) Does the narrative borrow from earlier narratives? If significant portions of the text are similar, it is likely that the author knew of the prior text and used it as a source.

None of this is magic.

I don't see how that is a modern reasoning. Do you think biblists in the second century didn't research using the same questions?

You are underestimating the intelligence of ancient men.

 

[Eli G]

Most people at that time were not Christians, Eli. Christians were a small minority. In other words, the vast majority did not buy what Christians were selling. Do you understand that?

And how does that affect anything of what I just said?

Most people of those times were believers, in whatever they want to believe. Religious people everywhere, did you realize that?

It was just a question of listening, compare and accept or not. Not about selling/buying anything.

... like Paul in Athens. Did you read the account? (Acts 17:16-33)

 

[rational experiences]

All humans are human. Everyone has to agree.

Mutual equal.

Then you review a testimonial written by just humans correlating information after all events.

A theist study of a theist isn't truth.

It was a motivated human choice only.

The theme an asteroid sun star mass wandered past earth supported the advice why our heavens mass wasn't star mass dust inputted then sacrificed again.

After multitude years of human animal bio mutations suffering.

It allowed space laws to return the heavens cooler mass.

Told.

Reason to use the advice. Science doing nuclear underground pyramid sciences caused a nuclear above ground release.

Opened cave sink holes in earths mass so it's flesh dead entombed mass was sacrificed and left its body.

Science terminology only.

Men caused it. Man's life was attacked for doing evil. Pretty basic advice.

Knew they'd removed infinity law a zero.

Based on predictive science that didn't own zero nor mass in zero position.

Prediction..an age to count by value into a future without living in any future. An outright lie.

So prediction calculus took mass from present to back in sun conversion time converting. A suns earth attack actually.

Taking the base zero biologies life living healthy into sacrifice.

Unsealed earths ground mass.

Then star mass meant to pass by earth came and hit earth. Sacrificed gas spirit mass body above causing chemical light illuminated attacks.

Increments 1000 year causes.

Pretty basic future bio life will be sacrificed conscious mind changed. My warnings to my family. Written with hope brain language wouldn't change again.

How old advice was lost by brain changes.

Important to realise as heavy metal pollution above makes you lose mind behaviour sense and truth.

In your future said the healer I wanted you to be warned and heed the advice as men will once again try to destroy all life on earth by science...Satanism.

That man's sacrificed images will again appear in clouds as proof they are doing it again...sacrificing holy God cloud protection above.

Seen photographs of man on cross an image in clouds.

With heavens above losing cloud mass density.

Reason to warn...you lose human use of human memory as healthy DNA memory owner dies out.

Proven by new born babies remembering past lived DNA lives exactly. Where all past human chosen evils were detailed.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't see how that is a modern reasoning. Do you think biblists in the second century didn't research using the same questions?

You are underestimating the intelligence of ancient men.

No, I don't. Since none of them endorse those methods. What we see instead is that they just accept that whatever the Bible texts say are assumed to be true and trustworthy. It's not until about the 18th century that people start questioning that assumption and analyzing the Bible more objectively.

 

[Left Coast]

And how does that affect anything of what I just said?

Your claim was that there was no resistance or denial of what the early Christians claimed. But there was actually plenty. Most people were not Christians.

 

[Eli G]

No, I don't. Since none of them endorse those methods. What we see instead is that they just accept that whatever the Bible texts say are assumed to be true and trustworthy. It's not until about the 18th century that people start questioning that assumption and analyzing the Bible more objectively.

Why would they have to? And why do you think they did not, just because you don't have their methods on writtings?

What you don't see is that Christians received from Jesus the mission of spreading their faith. There were thousands of opportunities to refute the facts they were telling about Jesus and his sayings and actions.

Do you have any real refutation to their preaching? I know a few of them, very interesting, of people of other religions and sects of the time ... but just doctrinal matters, not about the facts.

You know that one thing is doctrines and other thing facts, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the problems of the modern critics of the Bible is that they cannot believe that the prophecies are written before the events happen. It is a premise that affects their way of considering some datings. For example, if in Matthew it is said that Jesus spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, it must be because Matthew wrote his book after that event happened, because only then could he have connected some warnings from Jesus (according to them invented by Matthew or someone else) to make them sound like prophecies.

Their premises condition their conclusions. They are prejudiced from before analyzing the facts. About the book of Matthew, for example, the exact year when the book was written is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.) say that it was 41 C.E.

The same problem occurs with the datation of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and others. Atheist critics won't accept datation that indicates the book include prophecies that occurred centuries later ... NO MATTER WHAT. They will try to hide that fact dating those books in later time. Understandable ... their reason, of course.

No, that is false. Why make such an accusations? It is so hard to understand how theists cannot follow their own holy books.

You also need to learn how scholarship and peer review work. Scholars have to be able to justify their conclusions. They cannot base them on either religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. They have to support them with evidence and logic.

You should be asking yourself "What led them to that conclusion?"

 

[Eli G]

No, I don't. Since none of them endorse those methods. What we see instead is that they just accept that whatever the Bible texts say are assumed to be true and trustworthy. It's not until about the 18th century that people start questioning that assumption and analyzing the Bible more objectively.

Yeah, well, the israelite did the same after a few years that they were liberated out of Egypt. Humans, right? They forgive too fast.

 

[Left Coast]

Why would they have to?

In order to demonstrate that they actually thought that.

And why do you think they did not, just because you don't have their methods on writtings?

Because we can read what they wrote. They assume the Bible is true by default.

What you don't see is that Christians received from Jesus the mission of spreading their faith. There were thousands of opportunities to refute the facts they were telling about Jesus and his sayings and actions.

As i said to you before, most people would not have cared about the ramblings of random itinerant preachers. There were other mystery cults around in the Ancient Near East, Christianity was just the Jewish version. The fact that most people did not convert should tell you that most people did not take what they claimed seriously.

Do you have any real refutation to their preaching? I know a few of them, very interesting, of people of other religions and sects of the time ... but just doctrinal matters, not about the facts.

What's a "real refutation?"

 

[Eli G]

(...) You should be asking yourself "What led them to that conclusion?"

Oh, so I have to do what you tell me to do ... Nice.
Let's do it: why do your atheist scholars say that Paul's writtings were written before the gospels?
Oh, true, I already asked that ... Maybe you, the one who is telling me what I should do, got the answer.
I'll be waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

The problem is that there would have been rather few if any contemporaries at the times that the Gospels were written. The earliest was over a generation after the event. There are also clear errors in the Gospels.