achristianbeliever

Oh ok then.

Julian

That sort of depends on how much earlier than the war the prediction was made. If it was in the late 60s then it wouldn't be much of a prophecy, I agree. If it was done around 30 then it would be more remarkable.

Since the gospels claim to be the word from around 30 we must conclude that the gospels were post-70.

Julian

John Kesler

But what's been haggled over isn't when the prediction was made, but simply if the writing of the gospels predates the temple's destruction. Whether Jesus of Nazareth really made such a prediction is another issue.

Julian

I understand that. And we determine that it is later because Jesus knows about the destruction of the temple. A christian will claim that Jesus could predict the future which leads me to the point that you were making, that even if he put it in the late 60s, it is not much of a prediction. Either way, we cannot put it earlier.

Julian

Orthodox_Freethinker

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Divine inspiration does not automatically mean inerrancy. Otherwise, I would not share a common ancestor with chimps. The Bible is profitable in matters of spiritual truth and is as reliable as an ancient historical document can be but that does not mean it is accurate in every possible detail. For example, the slight contradictions between the Gospels should not go unnoticed.
The Gospels, for example, may contradict each other in the small details of the resurrection story but they at least agree that it happened.
However, this only helps the case that the Gospels were independent reporters who did not collaborate with each other.

Peace.

Chris Weimer

Wasn't there a recent discussion debunking this usage? Aut disce...

Dean Anderson

Yes

seebs

Actually, the "debunking" (which I mostly agree with) would still leave us the claim that at least SOME of it is divinely inspired, which would meet the original challenge, apart from being circular.

Jack the Bodiless

...Which is a rather major problem, surely!

Without a (non-circular) demonstration that THIS verse is "inerrant", an apologist who chooses to pin everything on this is stuck with a baseless assertion.

Asha'man

Please provide non-biblical evidence that this quote is itself true.
You really don't understand the synoptic problem, do you?

Let me summarize: Mark was written first, and copied nearly verbatim by Matthew and Luke. For anything that Mark originally wrote about, there is no substantial disagreement. However, for anything that Mark didn't provide a baseline, the disagreements can get huge. Matthew and Luke had no baseline to make their new fabrications line up with each other, so they diverge into completely different directions. Examine the birth narratives and genealogies of Jesus, they are utterly different.

If there is an auto accident, and witnesses disagree about the exact make and model of the vehicles involved, that's a reasonable expectation for imprecise witnesses. However, if they all describe the incident using the exact same sequence of sentences, but one witness claims the accident was in Chicago and one witness claims it was in Detroit, its far more likely that they are reading from a prepared statement and didn't actually witness the incident in the first place.