The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for asking:

"After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.'”{6}"

The Dead Sea Scrolls Shed Light on the Accuracy of our Bible

That is an apologetics site. Since so Many of them are just liars for Jesus why should anyone believe this one? An easy test of a site is how they handle the Noah's Ark myth. Do they acknowledge that it is a myth? If not you just admitted that you have nothing.

 

[Kenny]

That is an apologetics site. Since so Manu of them are just liars for Jesus why should anyone believe this one? An easy test of a site is how they handle the Noah's Ark myth. Do they acknowledge that it is a myth? If not you just admitted that you have nothing.

Follow the biographical quote of the scholar.

Your say-so doesn't make it so.

But some elbow grease into your statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Follow the biographical quote of the scholar.

Your say-so doesn't make it so.

But some elbow grease into your statements.

How ironic. You were too lazy to find a scholastic source and you accuse me of not using elbow grease.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The gospels contains verifiable facts form history (showing that the authiors where well informed and had acces to good sources)

The gospels contain embarrassing details, things that work again their “agenda” of promoting Christianity (this shows that the authors where honest and honestly tried to report what they thought was true)


So if the authors where well informed and the authors where honestly trying to report what actually happen then the sources are reliable ……….. please tell me exactly where is your disagreement

The Iliad contains verifiable facts from history as well, showing that the author was well informed and had access to good sources. Does that make Apollo real?

The Iliad contains a lot of embarrassing details, like the Trojan Horse incident.

So if the author was well informed, and the author was honestly trying to report what actually happened then the source is reliable and Apollo is the sun god.

Please tell me exactly where is your disagreement.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Relevance?

What is relevant is about 20 relevant citations were mentioned by Matthew to demonstrate the prophetic inerrancy of the TaNaKh.

That he confirmed Mark's testimony is also pretty relevant.

Okay, you don't seem to understand what plagiarism is or why it's relevant.

Let's say I write a paper on why the grass is green. And you write one too. We hand both of them into our teacher, and when the teacher reads them, she finds in your paper, three or four full paragraphs that are identical, word for word, to some of the paragraphs scattered about in my paper. Now, what should the teacher conclude from this, do you think? Would she be right to conclude that you most likely got a hold of my paper and copied directly from it? Or would she be right to conclude that we were just writing similar papers on a similar topic and somehow we just managed to come up with the exact paragraphs, word for word, all on our own and they just happened to be identical?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And? So if someone dissents, they don't get to vote because you are somehow the guru?

No. What I said was, "People who haven't learned to argue without fallacy don't have a vote in the community of critical thinkers who can. I often make the same point when creationists tell me that there is dissent in their camp with the community of evolutionary scientists. So what if they dissent? They don't get a vote. Neither do other lay people including those who happen to agree with the consensus of qualified opinions."

What that means is that one needs to demonstrate expertise in various areas before their opinions that contradict those who are proficient in them carry any weight. Isn't that also your own standard when discussing biblical matters? Certain mistakes would disqualify all other opinions on the same topic, such as thinking that the original documents were written in English. At that point, you stop taking such a person and his opinions on the matter seriously.

I DISENT

OK. But so what? You commonly commit logical fallacies. Your criticism of critical thinking lacks standing.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Yes, I know. Are you implying that you made a claim and I refuted something else? If so, what was the claim and where is it (post number)? I'd like to review it and my response. And if you can't do that, isn't it you that's introducing the straw man here?

it wasn't "against the law" to use what another person stated.

Again, so what? Also, with these alternate sources for Matthew and Luke, we don't know that they didn't just make it up themselves when text in their Gospels appears nowhere else. And even if they didn't, we would have no way of corroborating most of those claims.

The fact that the others had "unique information" just validates that indeed they were witnesses

No, it doesn't. In fact, it tends to argue against that.

The sermon on the mount is unique to Matthew.... and it's there because he is a witness. 3 miracles and 10 parables are unique to Matthew... and they are there because he is a witness. Much of the details of before and after the crucifixion are unique to Matthew because he is a witness.

Once again, that is not my conclusion. That's only one possibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (c. 51 BC – AD 21), also translated as Cyrenius,[1] was a Roman aristocrat. After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus from the tetrarchy of Judea in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria, to which the province of Judaea had been added for the purpose of a census. wiki

Matthew has Jesus born in Herod's time, Herod died in 4BCE
Luke has Jesus born when Quirinius became governor in 6CE

I'll check it out. I looked into "historians" approach to Herod's death, and the scholarly view is out, but it seems to be a difference between 1 BCE and 4 BCE insofar as I recall from my research. Thus it cannot really be said he died in 4 BCE. If you have a problem with that, let me know because I'll be checking out situation with Quirinius. ASAP, which can be later on...

 

[lukethethird]

How is that western thought? The Hebrew scriptures are still found... in Hebrew. (Dead Sea Scrolls) - and found that the translations were quite accurate.

Hinduism and Buddhism influence eastern thought. Judaism and Christianity influence western thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll check it out. I looked into "historians" approach to Herod's death, and the scholarly view is out, but it seems to be a difference between 1 BCE and 4 BCE insofar as I recall from my research. Thus it cannot really be said he died in 4 BCE. If you have a problem with that, let me know because I'll be checking out situation with Quirinius. ASAP, which can be later on...

Even if Herod died as late as 1 BCE, and that is not a well accepted figure, the two accounts still have vast differences. Now it is only 7 years, but the Herod the Great is a key figure in the version in Matthew and he is dead in the version in Luke,. That minor change does not affect the fact that the two contradict each other rather strongly.

 

[lukethethird]

I'll check it out. I looked into "historians" approach to Herod's death, and the scholarly view is out, but it seems to be a difference between 1 BCE and 4 BCE insofar as I recall from my research. Thus it cannot really be said he died in 4 BCE. If you have a problem with that, let me know because I'll be checking out situation with Quirinius. ASAP, which can be later on...

from wiki
Herod
Born c. 72 BCE
Idumea, Hasmonean Judea
Died March–April 4 BCE (Schürer) or January–April 1 BCE (Filmer)
Jericho, Judea

I'm guessing 1 BCE favours Christian views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

from wiki
Herod
Born c. 72 BCE
Idumea, Hasmonean Judea
Died March–April 4 BCE (Schürer) or January–April 1 BCE (Filmer)
Jericho, Judea

I'm guessing 1 BCE favours Christian views.

But Luke still has a huge contradiction. I am not sure if he is a Christian and is doing that in a vain attempt to reconcile the two different Nativity myths. It does not come close to doing that.

 

[lukethethird]

you choke on a gnat and swallow a camel.

The sermon on the mount is unique to Matthew.... and it's there because he is a witness. 3 miracles and 10 parables are unique to Matthew... and they are there because he is a witness. Much of the details of before and after the crucifixion are unique to Matthew because he is a witness.

Citations please. How is it possible that the gospel writers were witnesses? Please explain this.

 

[YoursTrue]

from wiki
Herod
Born c. 72 BCE
Idumea, Hasmonean Judea
Died March–April 4 BCE (Schürer) or January–April 1 BCE (Filmer)
Jericho, Judea

I'm guessing 1 BCE favours Christian views.

I didn't check wiki now, but "scholars" differ anyway on the dates. And -- there's a contorted history of Quirinius or whatever his name is and the reign near Israel and Herod. But it's interesting nevertheless. PLUS I must say I've read that Herodotus, while respected by many, did have controversial statements. (I believe the Bible over any controversies among so-called scholars and their opinions. But thanks anyway, I'll look into it asap.)

 

[lukethethird]

But Luke still has a huge contradiction. I am not sure if he is a Christian and is doing that in a vain attempt to reconcile the two different Nativity myths. It does not come close to doing that.

I don't know but it appears he didn't like the Matthew birth story at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Citations please. How is it possible that the gospel writers were witnesses? Please explain this.

Either way -- I'll bet you that those who heard the Sermon could write. Regardless of how it was transmitted to the gospel writers, I am sure, sure, sure they had accurate account of the wonderful sermon Jesus gave. You may not be sure -- I am. But that's what differentiates us. I have a question which I will put up eventually asap because I have a lot of things to do today, ltt, I'll let you know when I put it up. Have a nice day.

 

[Kenny]

How ironic. You were too lazy to find a scholastic source and you accuse me of not using elbow grease.

You committed the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the issue that was talked about.

It is why I place you in the "Irrelevant" category.

 

[YoursTrue]

Citations please. How is it possible that the gospel writers were witnesses? Please explain this.

Citations of what? I can only imagine some pray to saints. So what? We have to do the best we can on earth right now. If you don't believe what the Bible says, don't. You're not alone. Meanwhile, you really h ave not explained your assertions, similar to the claims evolutionists make. And the controversies among scientists.

 

[Kenny]

Okay, you don't seem to understand what plagiarism is or why it's relevant.

Let's say I write a paper on why the grass is green. And you write one too. We hand both of them into our teacher, and when the teacher reads them, she finds in your paper, three or four full paragraphs that are identical, word for word, to some of the paragraphs scattered about in my paper. Now, what should the teacher conclude from this, do you think? Would she be right to conclude that you most likely got a hold of my paper and copied directly from it? Or would she be right to conclude that we were just writing similar papers on a similar topic and somehow we just managed to come up with the exact paragraphs, word for word, all on our own and they just happened to be identical?

Plagiarism:
THE PRACTICE BEFORE THE 17TH CENTURY

Until the seventeenth century writers did not think twice about borrowing passages or themes from one another. As Thomas Mallon points out, the classical view prevailed. As iterated by Aristotle:"Imitation is natural to man from childhood [and] the first things that he learns come to him through imitation." No one, in other words, bothered with footnotes.

569

You can't use modern western thought on eastern 1 century culture and thought.

 

[lukethethird]

Much of the details of before and after the crucifixion are unique to Matthew because he is a witness.

So Matthew witnessed the following?

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Matthew was quite the witness and you are sure about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't check wiki now, but "scholars" differ anyway on the dates. And -- there's a contorted history of Quirinius or whatever his name is and the reign near Israel and Herod. But it's interesting nevertheless. PLUS I must say I've read that Herodotus, while respected by many, did have controversial statements. (I believe the Bible over any controversies among so-called scholars and their opinions. But thanks anyway, I'll look into it asap.)

No, the history of Quirinius is rather clear. The ones that try to contort it tend to be apologists not scholars. Vet your sources. When I asked @Kenny for a valid source he once again made the error of using a Christian apologist source. To have an article posted there on has to agree to their statement of faith. One which says that the Bible cannot be wrong no matter what.. When a stie has a rule like that they are saying that even if the Bible is wrong they won't publish it. When one will not even consider that one could be wrong then one is worthless as a source.

In peer review, whether it is in the sciences, medicine, or history or other areas with peer review, one has to face the fact that people will disagree with you and the odds are that one's claims will be refuted. One can publish almost anything, as long as they could support the claims that they have with clear evidence. And if one is wrong, one will probably be a bit publicly embarrassed. That is why apologists are not scholars. Very few apologists will call each other out when they make an error. As long as they are all on the same side it seems to be okay.

When I go to scholarly sources, that are not trying to refute the Bible, they are only trying to honestly report where people were Quirinius left Rome in about the year 1 CE. He was to be the mentor for a possible Caesar. The young man was wounded in battle and died. Quirinius was then made governor of Syria, and after Archelaus messed up and was vacated from his thrown he was given control over Judea. Judea was no longer a client kingdom. Client kingdoms were not part of Rome proper and would not have been put under a census.

The author of Luke (almost certainly not "Luke") was not a historian. He may have known geometry very well. In fact when you hear why Christians claim that he was a historian it is always because he knew the geography of the area rather well. It is never because of some work besides Acts or Luke that they cite. It is just extreme circular reasoning:

"The Gospel of Luke is history because it was written by a historian. Luke was a historian because he wrote the Gospel of Luke" Do you see how that is purely circular? Okay, he wrote Acts also, but all I would have had to have done was to substitute in "Luke-Acts" and the error would have been the same.