Layman

Some examples of New Testament references to attested events that are couched in Old Testament terms or themes, sometimes quite explicitly.

Luke describes John the Baptist in terms of Isaiah 24:3-5. Luke 3:1-6.

Luke refers to the Twelve, which are obviously symbolic of the Twelve Tribes of Israel described throughout the Old Testament. Luke 9:1-2.

Luke refers to the crucifixion with similarities to a few Old Testament passages.

Luke refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in terminology gleaned from the Old Testament. Luke 21:22. (Dan. 9:26; 12:7).

Luke, confirmed by Paul himself, describes Paul being let down through a wall, in a story similar to two acconts in the Old Testament. Acts 9:25; 2 Cor. 11:33 (Joshua 2:15; 1 Sam. 19:12).

Luke describes a successful ministry to the Gentiles, explicitly citing Amos 9:11-12. Acts 15:16.

Layman

The skeptic G.A. Wells has his own criticism of Doherty's cocnlusions about Christian use of the Old Testament. He did think that these terms dictate the stories about Jesus, but he also concluded that the Christians believed such events happened on earth, not in heaven. Responding directly to Doherty's theory, Wells state:

Toto

How are the Twelve "attested"?

How can you say that the crucifixion is an "attested event"? Are you claiming that Josephus attests to a crucifixion?

Or perhaps Paul constructed this improbable story based on the OT and a few references that we do not understand, and aLuke reworked it for his own purposes.

What attestation is there to a successful ministry to the Gentiles by Paul and Barnabas? Where do we read about this outside the Bible? When did it happen?

I have no problem with your statement that the writers of the NT used Hebrew scripture to describe events that might have happened. But when the NT is the only written record of these events, how can you describe them as attested?

Layman

Paul attests to them. As do all of the Gospels and Acts.

It's attested in all the gospels in various layers and numerous times by Paul, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. It's also a very unlikely invention of Jews trying to proclaim their former leader a Messiah. (1 Cor. 1:23: "but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness").


Very unlikely. The cross was undoubtedly a part of the Jesus story prior to Paul.

Paul gives us plenty of primary evidence of this. And the fact that I, a descendent of German barbarians, am a Christian shows how successful the Gentile outreach was. That 1 Clement reminds the Corinthians of the words of their own founder adds even more evidence here. As for Barnabas, Paul mentions him several times as an associate of his involved in the Gentile ministry.

It is a fallacy to characterize the entire New Testament as only one source. It's full of primary evidence and secondary sources. It's full of different, perhaps even conflicting points of fews. It contains letters, apolocalypses, biographies, and historiography.

Toto

Where does Paul mention the Twelve? Why do the gospels and Acts have different names for the 12?

So there is no attestation of the crucifixion. And the gospel account is full of historical problems.

I meant that comment to refer to the story of Paul being let down through a hole in the wall at Damascus.

But what evidence do we have for a 1st century outreach to the gentiles? How can you date Paul's letters?

"perhaps even conflicting" points of view? You're admitting that parts of the Bible are inconsistent?

The NT is also full of fantasy, fiction, and psychedelic dreams. How do you know what is what?

Vinnie

I already stated, clearly, and without equivocation, the position in my last post. Here it is again:

"""He stated that because something is viewed in light of the OT it does not necessaarily make it fiction. Just that it is very possible an historical event was seen in terms of sacred scripture. Why? Because he demonstrated examples where this was done! Probably he is saying Doherty is too wild in his appeals to "this occurs in OT so its fiction." There is no control. Just rampant hand waiving in light of the OT--most intense regarding the HISTORICAL FACT that Jesus was crucified.""""

I will not repeat it again.

If you must know, YES early Christians and Jews were creative.

Vinnie

Layman

1 Cor. 15.

People went by different names. The membership may have changed. They had different traditions. Quite irrelevant to the point.

I just provided you a boatload of attestation.

Most historical narratives recounted by many sources do.

That was hardly clear.

There are many ways to date Paul's letters, including his recounting the episode of being let down through the wall. Surely 1 Clement sets an outside date since he's quoting Paul's letter to another church before the close of the first century.

Are you arguing that the outreach to the Gentiles occurred during the BCE?

No, I said they may have conflicting points of view. I think that's rather obvious.

I don't agree with the first part and, as for the second, historians often have to separate fantasy and fiction from what is historically likely. Such grandious general assertions are hardly helpful to the question at issue--which is whether one method of doing so is simply comparison to OT themes and language.

Vinnie

Toto: Why do the gospels and Acts have different names for the 12?

This serves as an argument for the existence of the Twelve. That the Gospels show existence of different lists of the twelve means that we cannot assume Mt and Lk received their tradition of the twelve solely from Mark. There was at least one other source. Ergo we have Paul (unless you take a fringe minority view and hold that passage as an interpolation), Mark and another list. Multiple attestation of forms as well: narrative gospel and epistle.

I have some doubts myself about the twelve. My understanding is that either they go back to the historical Jesus or they go back to just after his death.

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie - Or maybe there were seven apostles.

The variation in names cannot be used to prove that the 12 existed. It might be that there were early stories of a 12, that different gospel writers spun out in different ways.

Layman - 1 Cor 15:5 Was Peter a part of the Twelve? Is this Twelve the 12 disciples listed in the gospels?

I am suggesting that the mission to the gentiles did not happen before 70 CE, and may not have happened in the first century.

Layman

Paul does not say much about them. Obviously they were a group that existed in relationship to Jesus prior to his death.

How bizarre. It amazes me sometimes that you guys are called the "skeptics."