This seems slightly unfair. Do scientists "torture" their hypothesis with reasonable experiments to get to an inductive point in their research? Do they not ask the relevant questions in this endeavor? How many questions and at what point, about an unknown, turns into torture?
A literal hermeneutic with the Holy Spirit works just great. Has education from man replaced the Holy Spirit? That is a resounding yes. Can the Holy Spirit still use such worldly wisdom, or the person who thinks with worldly wisdom? The Holy Spirit can use any human, and even those who outright reject and deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. At the end of the day all thoughts are just words on a page. The Holy Spirit works in the mind.
I would invite you to post some references that indicate that Paul and Peter still taught of an age to come. I haven't found any, to my understanding anyhow. In fact in Hebrews the writer says that Christ has come at the end of the world...age..
I don't ascribe to the doctrine of a future earthly kingdom with Christ on the throne. In Revelations it says that the kingdom is among men and he shall reign forever and ever
There are two subtle problems here. First, you refer to "originality" --- confining ourselves to the so-called Olivet discourse, there is enough similarity in the wording to convince the vast majority of scholars that there is a direct literary relationship between the three versions (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Only one version therefore might lay claim to being "original" and the others are revisions of it or its source. The so-called Synoptic gospels do not provide independent attestation of this sayings complex. Second, you refer to "apostle" in connection with gospel authorship --- tradition connects each of the gospels either to an apostle (Matthew, John) or to a companion of one (Mark, Luke), but internal evidence suggests they were written by second or third generations of Christians, none of whom had direct connections to his early followers.
The gospels were written in Greek because it was the most widely used language in the Roman Empire... Aramaic was not used only by Palestinian Jews and it continued to flourish for centuries as both rabbinic literature and the plethora of Christian writings in Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, demonstrate.
There were no "Christians" listening to the historical Jesus teach and the charge of anachronism stands.
I'm defending my position, but I'm not getting defensive... digs at what you label an "unscholarly" approach are a little irksome, but mostly just amusing.
Prophetic genre? There's no such thing... at least not within historical-critical circles. There is literature purportedly written by and about figures known as "prophets" that may include a number of non-literal forms such as parable or allegory and that may employ figurative language at times, but there is no prophetic genre per se. Apocalyptic, on the other hand, is a recognized literary genre within historical-critical circles even if its features are a matter of some debate.
Method is extremely important and a section of every good scholarly monograph is devoted to it. Scholars raise objections to method all the time. You and I are reading the same biblical texts... we come to different conclusions because of our different starting assumptions and methods --- it is perfectly valid to discuss and point out flaws in method, as well as in assumptions.
No, but I can suggest a number of academic books that would provide you with a range of views on the historical-critical method and related issues:
I used the word to offer another lighthearted analogy of what, from my perspective, you do with the biblical text... mostly because I thought the word was a mistake arising from your dictation software, which automatically capitalized it precisely because of its widespread if not universal association with the violent ecclesial courts of the medieval and early modern periods. Your continued use of it is rather disturbing, actually, and I would recommend you substitute something like "inquire of" or "make an inquiry of", which is all I think you're trying to convey anyway... at least I hope so.
As I've already pointed out to you, there are Jewish scholars affiliated with the seminary and this no more makes them Christians than it makes the seminary itself Jewish... this isn't a difficult concept. Jesus was a first-century Jewish apocalyptic prophet whose teachings have permeated Western thought... he is considered to be a whole lot more than this by others, but I'm not among them. A number of his ethical teachings, as well as his challenge of the Roman collaborators exploiting the people, are amenable with my own outlook here in the present... I have no interest in "doctrine", my Christianity is purely praxis-driven, to comfort those who mourn and alleviate suffering within my sphere of influence. Whether you extend Christian identity to me or withdraw it is of no concern to me...
Despite a witty last line, I have no interest in discussing this matter except with the poster to whom I made the comments... I am interested, however, in picking up our own sub-thread that you have either forgotten about or abandoned here.
Or all four MIGHT be original. Your still in hypothetical land on both points.
Again, biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke... a subsection of those scholars (myself included) would add John to the mix, but that is irrelevant to an analysis of the so-called Olivet discourse since there is no parallel for it there. As long as you acknowledge everything you say is also hypothetical, I have no objection to your statement... it then boils down to whose hypothesis has the better evidence to support it. Verbatim agreements are hard evidence in every other context of direct literary dependence, the biblical texts are no exception and no serious scholar disputes this...
I never said the gospels were written in the second or third centuries but rather by second or third generation Christians... there is a rather significant difference between these two propositions so you just knocked down a strawman. Incidentally, I do date Luke-Acts to the early second century and this is perfectly compatible with both the internal and external evidence.
I see no good reason to think so and a lot of reasons to think otherwise.
There's no one warring against Jesus here... I am critical, however, of some of the interpretive positions held by a number of his contemporary followers, but that describes pretty much everyone who posts here.
As long as the word hypothesis exists in your opinions they're not much worth talking about are they? And you're understanding you might have more supporting data but I'm not overly really concerned about that data. Nor am I overly concerned if one writer used another raiders work as a general source of reference it just doesn't matter. in a general sense they got the record rate.
As long as the word hypothesis exists in your opinions they're not much worth talking about are they? And you're understanding you might have more supporting data but I'm not overly really concerned about that data. Nor am I overly concerned if one writer used another raiders work as a general source of reference it just doesn't matter. in a general sense they got the record rate.
If memory serves correct Theophilus was one of the noble I want to say hi priests but I don't think that's accurate, who serves somewhere around the time of 60 to 63 ad. Some people have alleged and hypothesized that Theophilus was the solidifying factor in Jerusalem / Judea which was then taken out of the way for the man of lawlessness to appear. Who would have been another less noble Temple official. So whoever was writing to Theophilus was writing to this man. The endings of Luke and acts do not include any mention of the temple Construction. One would think that if they were writing a history some of those events and activities would have been included. Paul's beheading isn't even mentioned. But if you want to continue this topic it should go in another thread. That way others might join in. I have limited interest and limited time for higher criticism.
This statement is telling about how little evidence actually matters to you and to those likeminded... it is nothing to be proud of.
It matters a great deal if, as you were arguing previously, differences are evidence of "originality" --- the differences are, in actuality, evidence of each successive author's redactional tendencies, which sometimes includes disagreement with and correction of his sources.
Do these words sounds familiar: "When one cannot objectively defend their stance against analysis, it's common and easy to get offensive towards the person or claim their method rather than the issue at hand is flawed."? You posted them yesterday here and ironically this is precisely what you've done in your latest post... you've subtly impugned my integrity (ie. if it's not an honest exegesis it is implicitly a dishonest one) and challenged my method. I have no objection to you doing the latter, but if you're going to do so you would do well to get your terminology straight. I've made no text-critical arguments at all in this sub-thread (for an example of such see my post here), though textual criticism is an important tool of the historical-critical scholar. Textual criticism is sometimes referred to by practitioners of the historical-grammatical method as lower criticism and is viewed positively whereas so-called higher criticism is viewed negatively, indeed, as you so dismissed it in your addendum (to which I am not responding since the dating of Acts was pursued at length with another poster in the same thread beginning here).
You are welcome to withdraw... I can only hope that you will think further and with more sophistication on the subjects that were raised in our dialogue. At present your knowledge of these issues is rudimentary (as the terminological mistakes I point out in my previous paragraph demonstrate) and your objections to my position are quite facile. The good news is that this can be remedied by educating yourself... a good place to start would be the resources I cited for you earlier today.
No it's indicating that I'm tired of the heaviness of the conversation. You claim your opinions are of great value because you are among a group of educated persons. Sometimes that education is good. Sometimes as noted in one of the first entry posts I made that education is just a cyclical self-approvement.
Again hypothetical theoretical statements. Can you prove that an alledged successive author was correcting a previous author in the points where they differ. It's a hypothetical assumptio. .
Lol! As another poster mentioned and I agree that there is some room for scrutinizing and researching well accepted claims in any situation.
Jesus spoke in parables and some times Figuratively! The " This Generation " that He told them about was the Fig Tree ( Figurative of Israel ) Blossoming in the Spring ( May 14 ) 1948 AD ( see Matt.24:32-34 )! Amos 9:15 ( Israel back in their LAND Permanently - Fig Tree Blossoming - not to get uprooted or scattered again ) is part of ALL those things Jesus was telling those first century AD people about! If they were to be the " This Generation " then He would of told them " Your Generation " will not all Pass ( die ) before He makes His Post Trib. future return! So no, Jesus did Not tell a Lie when you Look at that Fact ( the Fig tree representing Israel Blossoming in the Spring of AD 1948 )! Thus He will return sometime BEFORE all the people of that " This Generation " die! Remember that people can still live to be 120 ( but Very few )! Thus since the Church age is supposed to last about 2 Days ( 2000 Years - Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8 in conjunction with Hosea 6:2 )! After the 3rd day is at the end of His 1000 year Reign, when He then creates the new heaven & earth ( Rev.21:1/Isaiah 65:17 ) with no seas to Reign on Forever in that Sin Free new creation!
You are welcome to your self-proclaimed victory, but it's rather obvious you are out of your depth here.
It will be a book, not a thread... incidentally, while text-critical arguments may be used to fine tune certain disputed passages, the overall approach is called redaction criticism. Just one more indication that you don't actually know what you're talking about... and that's factoring in your dictation software that presumably yielded 'texture' in place of 'textual'.
