Vorkosigan

Yes, some passages are quite beautiful. However, that is neither here nor there as far as historicity is concerned.

Chris Weimer

For some reason, I end up supporting traditional the oddest arguements, as they make sense in the present. But, in hindsight, I'm always willing to change my mind on better evidence. About this, though, I noted a couple of similarities between them here.
Then Peter Kirby follows it up with a nice in-depth analysis of 1 Timothy 1:4, which I think further helps my case (that was the verse I found difficult).

Steven Avery

By the multitudinous confused infidel conspiracy theories, one of them could claim this. Again showing how the errantists have to build on their own paradigms of forgery rather than the actual claims of the text.
True, some, albeit minimal, dispute, because of the usage of so many exact same Greek words in the same order. If I remember, Peter and I were involved in a nice discussion of this a little while back. On top of the clear language of Paul, and the Greek word matches, now you have to conjecture a well-known Jewish proverb that is completely unknown :-) This "common Messiah source" conception is a little more realistic, albeit still a credulity strain for the word-match and use of graphe reasons. We have even had the conjecture of Luke seeing Pauls reference and being sure to include the verse in his Gospel. The errantist mind is truly rather creative.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

praxeus - "errantists" first become "errantists" when they realize that the text itself is "errant". That's not too hard to do. Then we build up our theories.

And besides, errantism is the de facto paradigm. You have a gigantic onus to overcome: proof that the Bible is inerrant. Start at the bottom, build your way up.

Toto

"The worker is worthy of his hire" sounds like a common saying that lies at the basis of any good commercial society. Is this what you would expect to quote from the Savior of the world? It's like climbing to the top of the mountain to ask the old monk what is the meaning of life, and being told to clean your room.

If this was a unique saying to Jesus, would not the author of 1 Tim announce that fact (as the Lord has said. . . )

Steven Avery

Tis simply a good and clear saying, spoken by Messiah, given permanence in Scripture, and applied by Paul to the workers for the Gospel :-)

Luke 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. 3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. 5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. 6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. 7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

Whether unique or not, Paul, by giving it scriptural authority, is actually covering both aspects, that Jesus was the author, per Luke, and the permanence by being in scripture, the Word of God.

Actually we view this differently. I see errantists constantly struggling to prove the Bible as errant, and that is why we see what we see on this board so much .. that they fall back on their own paradigms of forgery and fabrication as proof of their own wildly diffuse and contradictory theories. The one thing they have in common is that such theories ("Luke wrote Paul" and dozens more) are almost always stated baldly as assertions without a sliver of real evidence, or consistency with the mass of other such theories.

Anyway, more generally, since scripture is so much tied into faith, and ones view of the creation (the cosmos if you will :-) one could never prove even one word of its truth to those fully inclined to disbelieve.

When I am on a forum like this one, my goal is simply
a) to learn and understand more myself
b) to provoke some more critical and penetrating thinking by others, including those opposed to the truth and authority of the Scriptures.

If I succeed in those two endeavors, I am very pleased, with the prayer that the tilling of one will lead to the planting, watering and harvesting of others.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

Once more - because it hasn't seemed to sink in for some reason - Paul did not write the pastorals. Regardless of whether it was the author of Luke-Acts, it wasn't Paul.

It is impossible for Paul to have quoted Luke because Luke was not written until the 90's or later (and he never would have called it "scripture." Scripture for Paul was the Tanakh only).

Do you believe that Paul lived into the 90's? How about even the 70's?

How could Paul have quoted something that was not yet written while he was alive?

Also, what is an "errantist?" It's sure as hell no "struggle" to show that the Bible is rife with factual errors and contradictions.

Steven Avery

Hi Diogenes,
My understanding is not really complicated, and quite consistent.

Paul wrote the pastorals, in line with the first person statements.
Luke was written around A.D. 50, by Luke, give or take some years.
Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter.
Paul and Peter lived to the 60's.

Likely all of the New Testament was written before A.D. 70 and was translated to Latin by 2nd century, and translated to Syriac and Aramaic fairly early. Mark may have been written originally in Latin (or Graeco-Latin), and there was likely a Matthew Gospel, (perhaps different than our Matthew today), in Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) in the 1st century. The three languages on the cross I believe had Gospels in circulation in the first century.

Hope that helps you understand a position that is a little different from the usual infidel/skeptic positions expressed on this forum :-)

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

The only NT books written before 70 CE were the seven authentic letters of Paul (which do not include the pastorals).

I'm sure you know that your datings are wildly outside the consensus of all legitimate schoalrship on this issue.

Three questions (all assuming your datings in the 50's):

1. How did Mark know about the destruction of the Temple ~20 years before it happened?

2. How did Luke know Josephus' Jewish Antiquities ~40 years before it was written?

3. How did the author of GJohn know about the expulsion of the Jesus cult from Jewish synagogues ~35 years before it happened (and why did he incorrectly place that expulsion within the lifetime of Jesus)?

Vorkosigan

The "usual" positions expressed on this forum on dating on the mainstream ones, for example, Mark written around 70 or just afterwords, and the Pastorals being later forgeries. That's mainstream scholarship. The wild radical is you.

Vorkosigan