CreamFilledGiraffe

Do you know of any Christians who have established this relationship without prior knowledge of the bible? ( Direct or indirect )

ETA

I think you should have used :Cheeky: instead of
But that's just my opinion

Amaleq13

No but I know of many who claim to have established this relationship despite any doubts about the texts. It "authenticates" that which needs to be, I suppose.

Apikorus

I think the best overall introductory book on the Hebrew Bible is Marc Brettler's How to Read the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Roger Pearse

This is so. But probably the problem is that we tend to think our speculations preferable to the evidence.

I don't know what you mean by 'inverse plagiarism'. It is unnecessary to presume such compositions involve fraud; this has to be demonstrated, surely, not merely asserted.

Tertullian, De baptismo 18.

Only if it is reasonably concrete. What I do not find, tho, is anything concrete.

Indeed. But in others all we have is little more than long-winded assertion.

You mentioned Valla's book. You might find these notes of mine on it interesting.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Thanks Jake for an excellent example of the dubiousness of supposed internal evidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv No other book in the New Testament mentions Paul's alleged journeys to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3, 2 Tim 1:18), Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), Crete (Titus 1:5), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), Troas (2 Tim. 4:13), and Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20).This is enough to raise the suspicions of all but the most uncritical readers.

Since Paul travelling to each of these locales except Nicopolis is specifically mentioned in the NT outside the Pastorals (most multiple times) it is puzzling to figure how you parse this one.

Miletus is mentioned far less than some of the others but we still have ..

Acts 20:13-17
And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos,
there intending to take in Paul:
for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
And when he met with us at Assos,
we took him in, and came to Mitylene.
And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Chios;
and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium;
and the next day we came to Miletus.
For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus,
because he would not spend the time in Asia:
for he hasted, if it were possible for him,
to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus,
and called the elders of the church.

Perhaps you have a way to say that certain books that are in the NT do not really count as "in the New Testament" for your assertion or that certain travels are not journeys.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

S.C.Carlson

I'm guessing either "forgery" or "pseudepigraphy."

Stephen

lpetrich

That's what I meant; I called it inverse plagiarism because of its resemblance to the "normal" kind of plagiarism, as I had explained earlier in this thread.

There are several Bible-related books that are commonly called the Pseudepigrapha; these are falsely attributed to Biblical characters like

Adam
Enoch
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
The legendary ancestors of the Twelve Tribes
Joseph (from Genesis)
Moses
Solomon
Elijah
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Zephaniah
Job
Ezra
Daniel
Peter
Paul
Thomas
Barnabas
Judas

Roger Pearse seems willing to accept that these attributions of authorship are false, but he has yet to give any reason for doing so.

And he has yet to explain why it is legitimate to believe that those works' authorship is falsely attributed while it is never legitimate to believe that about any of the New Testament.

jakejonesiv

Are you claiming that the alleged journey to Miletus in Acts 20:16 is the same one referred to in 2 Tim. 4:20?
If not, your comments are without any merit.

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Jake, thanks for showing everybody your game.

You were the one who claimed the journeys to those cities were never mentioned in the NT outside the pastorals. Using that as a prong for a non-Pauline claim. Quite apparently you were very ignorant of the Bible. That is understandable.

Playing games like above (switching the burden after your assertion was shown to be without merit and simply false) should give pause to anybody taking your comments and claims seriously. Your original claim was that the journeys to those cities were never mentioned in the NT outside the Pastorals. You could conceivably, using a twisted type of logic, hold that claim short of a statement from Paul in the Pastorals that -
"this was the exact visit I made per Luke's writings in Acts".
I'm sure even that could be contested as an interpolation or whatever.

Thanks for the insight to the duplicitious nature of some mythicist and anti-pastoral arguments.

<edit>

Shalom,
Steven Avery