andrewcriddle

The most serious problem with the idea that Eusebius composed the TF is that a version of it is found in the work known as Pseudo-Hegesippus a Latin rewrite of Josephuas' Jewish War.

This work was written in Latin in the 370's and is unlikely to have been influenced directly or indirectly by Eusebius.

It is now online at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he..._00_eintro.htm with the version of the TF at chapter 12 of the second book http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/he...s_02_book2.htm

(Thanks to Roger Pearse for hosting the online translation)

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Didn't they have to take a vote to decide which books were to be included in the Bible?

The first known list of the current 27 NT writings doesn't appear until 367 CE in the Pashal Letter of Anthanasius. This list was officially adopted at the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE and in the Synod of Carthage in 397 CE.

Sounds like politics to me, not divine inspiration.

Jake Jones

aChristian

You keep trying to give reasons that someone cannot record the history as they did because they didn't write what you want them to. The fact is the historical record is what it is. The people who lived back then accepted the New Testament as an accurate history and they regarded the spurious gospels on par with how we view the National Enquirer.

aChristian

First, I didn't say nobody wrote anything outside the Bible, other things just weren't preserved for the obvious reasons that I have already stated. In addition, why they weren't does nothing to remove the testimony of those who lived back then and said the traditional authors wrote the NT and wrote it accurately.

The 'contradictions' have been given reasonable answers. You just don't know enough about the history to understand everything the eyewitnesses describe.

I've answered this absurd claim before. Just read them. In addition the people who lived then considered them as such.

The church fathers, Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, etc., etc.

They weren't infallible, but they are credible enough to establish the historicity of the NT.

Christology is the same.

No, not a baseless assertion, but a reasonable position. Concerning, evidence of divine revelation, that is the fact that is under consideration. You cannot dismiss it as a possibility until you have examined the evidence for it, otherwise, you are argueing in a circle.

I don't necessarily believe your interpretation of what Papias wrote. Papias was not referring to spurious gospels in the passage of interest.

I didn't say it did. The witness of history says it.
I'm not sure of the exact year, but most scholars date it from 4 B.C. to 2 B.C. This is arrived at by looking at the historical data and estimating. Your claim (that I assume you will make) that they contradict each other on the date of his birth is wrong. Reasonable estimations of the date have been given. From what I have read on this forum, attempts are made to show the gospels contradict each other here by trying to discredit the reasonable explanations that have been given. The only way they can discredit them is to claim almost infallible knowledge of the history of the time. I don't think they know as much about it as they claim to. (For example, do they have a diary of Quirinius and know exactly what he did every day of his life.)

There are no attacks on Peter.

Archaeology and science in general have confirmed the Pentateuch including the exodus and the global flood.

No, it is a reasonable explanation for why Mark would include the account. It is not certain of course, but it may be true.

No. It doesn't contradict the others. You are reading in contradictions that don't exist.

On the contrary, they were in a position to know because they were eyewitnesses.

None of the gospels contradict each other. The fact that we have so many copies allows us to accurately know the original text. The church knew from the beginning what was divinely inspired and what was not. Later church fathers just brought up the question again after many years and eventually concluded what the early church already knew.

aChristian

No. I think the early church knew what was divinely inspired as soon as it was penned. Questions arose later and the church had discussions about it and concluded the same thing that the early church already knew.

Sparrow

People back then also thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, the planets were wandering stars and the moon gave off its own light. But you're right that the historical record is what it is, and in this case, what it isn't. We do not know for sure what the original documents said, who wrote them or when.

Why do I feel like we're headed for a "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" moment?

Sparrow

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. Not in this universe. There's no evidence of a global flood at all. There's no evidence of an exodus either. The Egyptians didn't seem to notice anyone missing, and the archaeological evidence shows Canaan to have been continuously occupied by one culture through the time of the supposed conquest. If you've got any real evidence, please bring it up, but to save you some time, if it's associated with Ron Wyatt it's fake.

John A. Broussard

I need a little help with the following divinely inspired text:

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Could you explain to me what happened that day?

Thank you for your help.

Alf

Do you have ANY evidence for this? That they viewed the gospels as HISTORICAL acconts? I doubt even the authors considered them historical. They were THEOLOGICAL documents, not historical.

Alf

Alf

We don't have to know what he did every day of his life.

We just have to know that he did not in fact have political control over Judea at 4 BC while Herod the great was king and had the political control over Judea. At this time no decree from Augustus could enforce a census over people of Judea.

This could only happen at 6 AD when Judea was made a roman province and Quirinius did get political control over Judea as it was included into the roman empire as a part of the Syrian province.

Also, if he was born in 2 BC that would rule out Matthew since Herod was supposedly alive while Jesus was born. As far as I know, Herod died in 4 BC so his birth must have taken place some time before that.

Try again.

Alf