Amaleq13

Yes, I think we are all pretty familiar with positions based on faith and other forms of magical thinking.

John A. Broussard

Take a look at what you've written "Likely, may have, likely, perhaps, possibly, I believe."

It's one thing to speculate about the genuineness of documents, it's quite another to do so with no proof and than claim the documents prove your point.

How about some supporting citations?

Steven Avery

Of course. All of these have their own evidences, and I consider the arguments close to conclusive, but all such evidence will be contested by others. The hardcore mythicists accept nothing anyway. If Clement of Rome quotes a book, why he must be a later forgery. So I tell you what I believe in regard to acceptance of the NT text, and why, and let the mythicists and the skeptics and such duke out their forgery theories.

By comparision, the opposite contentions that we see on this forum (e.g. Luke wrote Paul, Paul was dead, Luke in A.D. 90) all are affirmed basically out of nothing. Or Mark didn't write his ending because of 'the eleven'. This type of stuff is given as "evidence".

John, I quickly covered a lot of basics. "Redating the New Testament" is one book, the 2nd century Old Latin citation is pretty well known, the Peshitta and Old Syriac is a whole discussion.

Are you truly interested in the various aspects ? I'd prefer not to do a kitchen-sink discussion. In the past I have gotten involved with the authorship discussions (Pastorals and 2 Peter) and ended up far more firmly aware of their authorship by Paul and Peter than when I began. I don't mind an NT dating discussion, but in this environment, with all the unusual theories flown about as each individual's truf, I dunno if we will get far.

(And I'm away for a day or two shortly, as well :-)

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

John A. Broussard

Earlier, you stated explicitly that:

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.

Then, the moment I ask a serious question, you refer to it as a kitchen-sink discussion.

Surely you don't mean to be so evasive. Please don't dismiss what you don't agree with by saying you've dealt with it elsewhere. And when you "consider ...arguments close to conclusive," in all honesty you should say so and not fall back on all the perhapses and maybes.

So, let's start again. Give me some documentation you feel is indeed "conclusive," not "close to conclusive." After all you believe without question that there is a god. Why are you so afraid to present without question support for god-related beliefs?

I do thank you for replying, however, even though I don't consider the replies actual answers. I look forward to your coming back to this discussion with a more definitive defense of your viewpoint.

Steven Avery

However, I explained why I could never prove anything to one predisposed against the authenticity of the NT. I know this from experience on other forums. Simple example that I gave... if Clement of Rome is given as a reference for a letter being written in the 1st century, then Clement of Rome will just be considered a forgery or horribly misdated or somethings. There is a general weltanschaaung aspect to these discussions. If we can get some focus, and outside the difficulties I have seen with mythicists and such in the past, I will try (operative word: try) to address your questions.

You can even get the base of my understanding from the Glenn Miller or even JPH type of discussion. I accept the first person statements in the scriptures as true, and have never seen any good evidence against any of them. (Such as Peter's five or so references in 2 Peter). I really don't see how the letters and books would have "flown", with their personal and historical specificity, outside of an underlying integrity.

From that sort of base, it is probably not too hard to see the NT as 1st century, even pre-70 AD :-)

Tell me you think the basic conception is weak, and I will study and try to answer what you consider the "weakest links". As I indicated I have done that before on some specifics, such as the authorship of the Pastorals and of 2 Peter, on some forums with some of the same folks here. I learn a lot by such "iron sharpeneth iron" challenges so I generally take them to some point of sastisfactory semi-conclusion.

However, I never, ever claim to be able to "prove" Jesus as Messiah, the NT reliability and accuracy, or anything of that nature, to those folks working from a basic viewpoint of distrust of the scriptural writings, Tanach and/or NT.

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

PS. I was away for a couple of days :-)

John A. Broussard
> Please don't dismiss what you don't agree with by saying you've dealt with it elsewhere. And when you "consider ...arguments close to conclusive," in all honesty you should say so and not fall back on all the perhapses and maybes.
So, let's start again. Give me some documentation you feel is indeed "conclusive," not "close to conclusive." After all you believe without question that there is a god. Why are you so afraid to present without question support for god-related beliefs? I do thank you for replying, however, even though I don't consider the replies actual answers. I look forward to your coming back to this discussion with a more definitive defense of your viewpoint.

John A. Broussard

I'm not completely clear about what your answer is to the above, but it does seem as though you are not going to answer.

Thanks for replying to my posting, however.

Amaleq13

This thread has moved away from the OP to a significant degree. A discussion of the authorship of the Pastorals or Luke requires and deserves its own thread as well as avoiding a "kitchen-sink discussion". Personally, I would like to see praxeus attempt to defend his claims with regard to Luke. I can split the last post and start a new thread or one can be born anew.
-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Diogenes the Cynic

I've split Praxeus' last post here. I'd like to pursue this subject some more without further hijacking this thread.