sschlichter

you have nearly an entire lifetime, of course it would depend on it. I fear you are having trouble typing the phrase 'yes, a person can learn to write a language in 30 years'. you are also ignoring the fact that it is likely that most spoke greek as well in 1st century Palestine.

Deus Ex

Peter could have simply dictated to someone who could write in fluent Greek. Or 1 Peter could have been written by an early believer writing under Peter's name.

Who knows?

bacht

You want someone to say "gosh, he's right, maybe the apostles really did write the Greek books in their names" Based on their depiction in the gospels (ordinary fishermen in Galilee, away from the seacoast) it's likely that their first language was Aramaic, and they might've understood conversational Greek. There's no reason to assume they could write, and if they did it was probably simple Aramaic used for keeping accounts.

Of course it's possible that Peter, John and James learned to read and write Greek in order to spread the good news, but this is a classic example of fabricating facts to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion: that the NT autographs are authentic. This kind of "what if" arguing can go on forever, it doesn't prove anything.

sschlichter

ok, if it is possible then let's not remove it from the list of possibilities, and more importantly, we do not have to talk about it anymore.

Amaleq13

Why continue the clearly lame sophistry? It is as transparent as it is ineffective. The fact that the meaning of the date certainly changed subsequent to the event does not rescue your Gospel authors from their disagreements. Just as one of your reporters reveals himself to be terrible at his job, at least one of your Gospel authors must be similarly criticized. Just as whoever hired that reporter should have their judgment called into question, whoever hired the Gospel author who couldn't get his facts straight should also have their judgment called into question.

Your "analogy" requires that we fire God for incompetence. :rolling:

I see what is there and that is nothing but you playing with words as you vainly try to apologize for the clearly discrepant accounts the Gospel authors provide. This sort of bad argument only convinces the choir, amigo.

Language and expression are not the problem. I have nothing but tolerance for sound reasoning. You should try it some time.

A truly wise man avoids using the same failed arguments so why should anyone listen to your views on wisdom?

Vinnie

Justin refers specifically to the "Memoirs of the apostles and those who followed them" once in his lenghty exegesis on Psalm 22. This little caveat does allow for the inclusion of Luke and Mark and it is more probable than not that Justin knew the presbyter tradition. He also knew the synoptic texts--and definitely Matthew and Luke. He quotes Mt and Lk and information found only in Mark once and has a number of passages which are OBVIOUS harmonies of the texts of Matthew and Luke.

Vinnie

Vinnie

The Peter dictation theory is ruled out since he probably died 20 years before it was written!

Vinnie

sschlichter

perhaps you are in the wrong thread or are otherwise confused. I was asked what I would consider a contradiction. The analogy, regardless of your disdain for it, illustrates the point that it takes some skills and training to clear the field from the issue of not knowing the language a text was written in, the people, the politics, and the culture in which it was delivered.

I was not touting inerrancy at all in this thread and your inability to consider the point because somehow you think it is related to inerrancy because I am a christian is getting in the way.

These facts remain:

1) Some subset of the passages of the gospels are hard to reconcile with each other.

2) Some Christians go to mind-breaking exercises to reconcile them out of fear of an error, typically in an un-qualified way.

3) Some skeptics (although the term is mis-nomer, in this case) find errors in these passages that are not so. They simply lack the will, or skill-set to understand why they do not represent a discrepancy.

Unfortunately, those Christians not willing to accept point #2 and others not willing to accept point #3 will never learn a thing from any of these conversations. You can usually spot them out by an excessive use of smileys.

sschlichter

Was it probably ruled out when he probably died or was it decidedly ruled out when he probably died.

Vinnie

Decidedly ruled out if he definitively died before it was written. It was most probably written after he had already died on the basis of internal arguments.

Vinnie