Steven Avery

And in fact the Timothy quote is one evidence against this rather strange (first) position, another being the simple reading of Luke/Acts which shows Paul alive even at the end of Acts. And if I agreed with the claim that Paul did not write the pastorals (one that is based mostly on squishy-soft 'evidences' as I just referenced elsewhere) then clearly I would not be using Timothy to show Paul quoting Luke This is rather simple stuff.

Diogenes the Cynic

Luke wasn't eritten until at least the mid-90's CE. Paul was dead. Paul could not have been aware of Luke. Period. End of story.

1 Timothy does not quote Luke, it quotes Deuteronomy. Luke may or may not be aware of Corinthians as well but Timothy shows no awareness of Luke. As a matter of fact, if it could be shown that 1 Timothy knew Luke, it would be proof positive that Paul dd not write the Pastorals.

Who bought the Potter's Field?

Ben C Smith

One cannot make such an assertion without offering some explanation for the verbal agreements of Luke 10.7 and 1 Timothy 5.18 against Deuteronomy 24.14-15.

In the Greek Luke 10.7 and 1 Timothy 5.18 are identical in this phrase (the same 6 Greek words all in the same order) except that the former has a postpositive particle meaning for inserted, which does not affect the verbal identity (since it is, after all, postpositive and has to fall in that position in its clause). Deuteronomy 24.14-15 does not even come close to that kind of verbal similarity.

The ultimate source is probably Deuteronomy 24.14-15 or Leviticus 19.13, but that alone does not explain the matter. Either Luke knew 1 Timothy, or 1 Timothy knew Luke, or both knew some other (lost) source.

Ben.

ExChristian8

1. "Even in physical positioning it doesn't mean headfirst"

I am still unsure as to whether your read the definitions I gave. That is exactly what i showed you through several definitions! I guess when the dictionary says "headfirst", it does not even mean that.

2. "And Notsri covered well the Greek aspects, which you didn't discuss."

He actually agreed that headlong does mean headfirst. He did not in any way support your point. His response was that some scholars believe the wrong verb was used which has nothing to do with the point you made about my alleged misuse of the word "headlong.

Also what makes more sense, "John fell Headlong or headfirst" or "John fell headlong or recklessly." A dead man falling recklessly falling from a noose?

Doug Shaver

Simpler than what? He was talking about one writer saying that Jesus was going into Jericho on a particular occasion while another writer said he was going out of Jericho on that occasion.
McRay's remarks demonstrate nothing but the desperation of inerrantists. All he offers is rank speculation about what the writers could conceivably have been thinking without putting up a shred of evidence that they were in fact likely to have been so thinking.

And, notwithstanding your sneering about "the ultra-logician," it is hardly nitpicking to observe that a person cannot at the same time be going into a city and out of the same city.

Does anybody traveling with you on those occasions say, on those same occasions, "Let's leave Long Island"?

Mark and Luke were not disagreeing about whether Jesus went east or west. They disagreed about whether he was going into Jericho or out of Jericho.

A proper analogue would be one person saying "We were going into West Islip" and another saying "We were going out of West Islip."

Very well, and I will grant the logical possibility of an odd locution pecular to that time and place, perhaps analogous to one person saying "I could care less" and another saying "I couldn't care less" when both in fact intend to express exactly the same idea. Absent contemporary and independent attestation to such a locution, though, it seems prima facie unlikely. Considering everything that is known (as opposed to being inferred from dogma) about the gospels' provenance, human error seems much the more parsimonious explanation.

Neither Mark nor Luke wrote "the city." They wrote "Jericho."

Not a problem, then.

If the Bible was meant to be understood only by locals.

If, however, it was meant by its primary author to be understood by all people at all times, then there is a problem with any assumption about the primary author's omniscience and good faith.

The two authors were allegedly working under the guidance of the same supernatural editor who was making sure that they didn't make any mistakes. If that editor knew that the books would be read 2,000 years later by people unknowledgeable about local idioms, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would have ensured not only that there no errors but also that there did not seem to be any errors.

Steven Avery

Only if you are claiming that archaeology does not show an old and new Jericho coexistent at that time. That is much more than a shred of evidence, since few cities have that anomaly and it fits the situation of the Gospels.

And this was 'far simpler' than your original obscuring the Strobel/McRay comments into a supposed time-historical-capsulization in your original 'explanation'.

Beyond that most of your post is simply an attempt to insist upon an absolute analogy. (A city I can mention today with an old and new coexistent and non-contiguous... there may be one, but I don't have one here in my locale).

I showed that the same type of language would be natural from different authors or speakers in a couple of different geographical anomalies, your original request, yet then you moved the goal posts and want the exact same anomaly as in Jericho. Does not wash.

btw, the closest analogy would be cases like 'Old San Juan'. If is often called San Juan, and if it is not in the new city district it would then lead to a more exact analogy. Although I was there recently (and ran into some confusion in understanding the signs precisely on this account) I don't know their administrative structure well enough.

Thanks, but that is not either of the arguments I shared.

Or that He would allow a hermeneutic of suspicion to seek to claim an error while a hermeneutic of respect would appreciate the text and consider which of the two explanations, or both, were true.

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

Steven Avery

Thank you, Ben.

It is very hard to get folks to address this honestly and with intellectual consistency (eg. understanding that the probability aspect virtually demands one of your 3 alternatives).

Also it is important to point out that only one of your three alternatives fits the pshat of Paul using graphe/scripture to describe the identical Lukan usage. And that is 1 Timothy knowing Luke. There is no sensible reason for Paul to describe some now-lost source as scripture, nor is there a reason for Luke to quote 1 Timothy quoting Luke as scripture, unless one wants a very un-Occamish view of Luke correcting a Pauline error by inserting a verse to become scripture that Paul mistakenly had quoted as scripture (whew!).

Of course a fallback position is that 1 Timothy was far later than Luke and not written by Paul, (the forgery claim) but even then the fact that Luke is quoted as scripture so 'early' (although by my view it would be very late) goes against many of the liberal theories of the text, in that Luke is identified as scripture c. 100 AD.

So we get a lot of hand-waving, and going on to other topics.

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

Doug Shaver

To what end? What would be his purpose in doing that?

Jack the Bodiless

Note: THIS thread isn't about that particular topic.

THIS thread is.

pharoah

That's an ironic statement, considering that Diogenes has asked the above question twice without getting a response.