Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

A Trinitological Catalog

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jameson View Post
    I have no reason to believe in an early date. No good reasons have been presented to me, except that Evangelicals (the only people in the world who still believe in the early dates) want to think that the gospels predicted the destruction of the Temple.
    I was glad to see your follow-up post (#1015). As for #1014 above, however, I had heard very little about that as an evidence. The early dates are believed because the evidence points that way, to include that the books of the Bible were written by Jesus's contemporaries (the Disciples, Paul, etc.), who would have died before the 2nd century. Only if one wishes to believe the Gospel of Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew, for instance, can the 2nd-century date even be considered.
    Be a good worker who correctly explains the word of truth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
      I was glad to see your follow-up post (#1015). As for #1014 above, however, I had heard very little about that as an evidence. The early dates are believed because the evidence points that way, to include that the books of the Bible were written by Jesus's contemporaries (the Disciples, Paul, etc.), who would have died before the 2nd century. Only if one wishes to believe the Gospel of Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew, for instance, can the 2nd-century date even be considered.
      But that these works were written (aside from Paul's authentic letters and perhaps 1 Peter) by any disciples of Jesus is also simply an assumption based on a tradition attempting to establish itself as "the authority" for ecclesiastical matters. I certainly do not believe that "Matthew" wrote Matthew or that "John" wrote John. In fact, it would seem from internal evidence that "John" was actually the gospel of "Lazarus," who was the "beloved disciple" over whom Jesus wept when he died and then raised him from the dead. This alone makes sense of the "What about him?" passage at the end of the gospel - since the question was geared toward whether or not a person might die twice. Hence, "will he remain until the parousia?" No, the authorship of the gospels is a complete mess. None of the names associated with them should be assumed to be authentic.
      I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
        Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
        It was a yes, since the main component of salvation was given in my opinion during his experience and dialogue with Jesus. He mentions no form seen except the doxa. Jesus was installed in the Paraclete by the Father of Spirits. The Holy Spirit is not a "he" of itself. But it is frequently conflated with the shekinah radiance of YHWH our Father.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jameson View Post

          But that these works were written (aside from Paul's authentic letters and perhaps 1 Peter) by any disciples of Jesus is also simply an assumption based on a tradition attempting to establish itself as "the authority" for ecclesiastical matters. I certainly do not believe that "Matthew" wrote Matthew or that "John" wrote John. In fact, it would seem from internal evidence that "John" was actually the gospel of "Lazarus," who was the "beloved disciple" over whom Jesus wept when he died and then raised him from the dead. This alone makes sense of the "What about him?" passage at the end of the gospel - since the question was geared toward whether or not a person might die twice. Hence, "will he remain until the parousia?" No, the authorship of the gospels is a complete mess. None of the names associated with them should be assumed to be authentic.
          Authentic in what way sir? It is entirely possible that each man had a tradition of text surrounding his oral testimonies. Whether he actually wrote these down or not. Your "Lazarus" theory could be true, or it could be mere speculation. The important thing about the gospel texts is their authenticity due to passed-down inspiration. Which you seemed to have missed, in the end sir.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by nothead View Post
            It was a yes, since the main component of salvation was given in my opinion during his experience and dialogue with Jesus. He mentions no form seen except the doxa. Jesus was installed in the Paraclete by the Father of Spirits. The Holy Spirit is not a "he" of itself. But it is frequently conflated with the shekinah radiance of YHWH our Father.
            Thanks for your answer. It means, however, that we can chalk up another ultra-minority (unique?) interpretation to you: that someone can be Baptized with the Holy Spirit before he has even trusted in God for salvation. Bizarre.
            Be a good worker who correctly explains the word of truth.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
              Thanks for your answer. It means, however, that we can chalk up another ultra-minority (unique?) interpretation to you: that someone can be Baptized with the Holy Spirit before he has even trusted in God for salvation. Bizarre.
              Ittis a little awkward to render "before he has even trusted in God for salvation."

              The Spirit drew him before his Baptism in Spirit. If you can believe this sir, with a hint of Pentecostal/Reformed thinking...can you also understand that not only is there sometimes not a clear demarcation of this Baptism, but indeed among especially non-charismatics there is only a vague sense of a change in heart sir, at conversion?

              That change in heart very well could have been on it's way, waayy before he trusted or vowed or committed him's own self.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by nothead View Post
                Ittis a little awkward to render "before he has even trusted in God for salvation."

                The Spirit drew him before his Baptism in Spirit. If you can believe this sir, with a hint of Pentecostal/Reformed thinking...can you also understand that not only is there sometimes not a clear demarcation of this Baptism, [...]

                That change in heart very well could have been on it's way, waayy before he trusted or vowed or committed him's own self.
                So now you are purely conjecturing in order to shoehorn your viewpoint in. Saul was on that road to go murder true followers of God, about as far away from repentance and changing of allegiance as one can be. The appearance of Jesus which you attribute to "Shekhinah" and "Baptism in the Spirit" was instantaneous in its manifestation. Thus, you are conjecturing that someone can be Baptized in the Spirit without being a believer.

                Originally posted by nothead View Post
                but indeed among especially non-charismatics there is only a vague sense of a change in heart sir, at conversion?
                I contend that all conversion comes with a metaphysical encounter with the Holy Spirit, some form of repentance, and a change of allegiance (even if subtly understood). Feeling or heart-sense is variable, but these first three must take place. There is no evidence for any of this on the Damascus Road, nor any other biblical precursor to salvation.

                You have stated your unique position well enough, thanks.
                Be a good worker who correctly explains the word of truth.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
                  So now you are purely conjecturing in order to shoehorn your viewpoint in. Saul was on that road to go murder true followers of God, about as far away from repentance and changing of allegiance as one can be. The appearance of Jesus which you attribute to "Shekhinah" and "Baptism in the Spirit" was instantaneous in its manifestation. Thus, you are conjecturing that someone can be Baptized in the Spirit without being a believer.


                  I contend that all conversion comes with a metaphysical encounter with the Holy Spirit, some form of repentance, and a change of allegiance (even if subtly understood). Feeling or heart-sense is variable, but these first three must take place. There is no evidence for any of this on the Damascus Road, nor any other biblical precursor to salvation.

                  You have stated your unique position well enough, thanks.
                  Oh NO sir, I have more sir. The convenient ASSUMED boxes of gospel we put our trust in as MODERN men are but
                  various style jeans we put ON our butt sir.

                  I did not say the shekinah BAPTISM is instantaneous for the new acolyte. But for me it was with Paul. Remember REPENTANCE sir? Did he have any when struck down? Remember the Grace bestowed for a new and INFANTILE trust in Jesus, as a baybeh would have? Did Paul have THAT sir?

                  God's GRACE has no bounds. What did Paul DESERVE instead of grace sir? And in the end, IN COVENANT mechanisms, what do WE do which MATCHES what God does sir?

                  We give God the glory, as we can is all. That glory DOXA which you seem to think you are an EXPERT IN, sir...does not compare to the grace and pure generosity and POWER and BEAUTY of the doxa God gives us.

                  It ain't an equal juxtaposition of partners, partner. Every Jew born knew this knew sir.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    This is actually an interesting question.
                    The exegesis that says that this is referencing the Gospel of Luke, which was written c. 41 AD to the high priest Theophilus, I find interesting.
                    Eusebius:
                    “Luke, by birth an Antiochene and by profession a physician, was for long periods a companion of Paul and was closely associate with the other apostles as well.... It is actually suggested that Paul was in the habit of referring to Luke's gospel whenever he said, as if writing of some gospel of his own: ''According to my gospel' " (H.E. 3.4.6).
                    Romans 2:16
                    In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

                    Romans 16:25
                    Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
                    according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

                    2 Timothy 2:8
                    Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

                    1 Corinthians 15:1
                    Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,
                    which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;


                    This is discussed by various writers today, Rick Strelan has a couple of references and quotes Jerome:
                    Luke the Priest (2004)
                    Rick Strelan
                    https://books.google.com/books?id=AeTdi13weAoC&pg=PA80

                    Jerome writes in chapter seven of his Lives of Illustrious Men:

                    Luke a physician of Antioch (medicus Antiochensis) as his writings indicate was not unskilled in the Greek language. An adherent of the apostle Paul, and companion of all his journeying, he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, ‘We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches’ and to the Colossians ‘Luke the beloved physician salutes you,’ and to Timothy ‘Luke only is with me.’ He also wrote another excellent volume to which he prefixed the title Acts of the Apostles, a history which extends to the second year of Paul's sojourn at Rome, that is to the fourth year of Nero, from which we learn that the book was composed in that same city... Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says ‘according to my gospel’ he means the book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. This he too at the beginning of his work declares, saying ‘Even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.' So he wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the Apostles as he himself had seen.
                    The only tweak I might offer to this history is that Luke the physician may well have been a different Luke.

                    Well, more significant is the chronology issue. Luke wrote the Gospel in 41 AD, before he had lots of interaction with Paul. Thus, Paul would be adopting the Gospel, due to his closeness with Luke, not saying it was de facto his creation.

                    Samuel Davidson actually says the situation is essentially the reverse. The phrase "my gospel" led to the theory that it refers to Luke, starting with a reference from Tertullian. This section runs a few pages in both directions.
                    An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Critical, Exegetical, and Theological, Volume 1
                    Samuel Davidson

                    https://books.google.com/books?id=n1YtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA436

                    All that Tertullian says is, 'It is the custom to ascribe Luke’s digest to Paul.’ The report arose from an incorrect explanation of Romans ii. 16 where Paul uses the phrase, ‘my gospel,’ i.e. my preaching. But the fathers, knowing that Luke had been Paul’s companion, and supposing that a written gospel was meant, concluded that the apostle had dictated Luke’s. This is virtually acknowledged by Eusebius.
                    Thus, my personal conclusions are left open.

                    Richard H. Anderson, author of the paper Theophilus: A Proposal writes about "my gospel" a number of times in blog articles:

                    dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos
                    Theophilus

                    Steven
                    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-25-17, 12:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      This is actually an interesting question.

                      The exegesis that says that this is referencing the Gospel of Luke, which was written c. 41 AD to the high priest Theophilus, I find interesting.

                      Steven
                      That isn’t “exegesis.” It’s theological a priori.
                      One factor precluding a young age for Sinaiticus is the marginalia in Acts... This supplemental material...precludes the MS' production by Simonides. He just lied...It's something he was known for. I recommend that you accept that fact and move on.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jameson View Post

                        Why not just say that Luke was written in 41 BCE and that the entire thing is a prophecy about the life of Jesus?
                        The naive notion that Luke wrote first is generally held by those who have never actually sat down with the synopsis in Greek and annotated each word. In short, holding to Lukan priority is based solely on ignorance and wishful thinking.

                        In point of fact, Markan priority is the only scholastically responsible position to anyone who sees any sort of inter-dependence. And even that view has problems - just fewer than the others.
                        One factor precluding a young age for Sinaiticus is the marginalia in Acts... This supplemental material...precludes the MS' production by Simonides. He just lied...It's something he was known for. I recommend that you accept that fact and move on.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Maestroh View Post

                          The naive notion that Luke wrote first is generally held by those who have never actually sat down with the synopsis in Greek and annotated each word. In short, holding to Lukan priority is based solely on ignorance and wishful thinking.

                          In point of fact, Markan priority is the only scholastically responsible position to anyone who sees any sort of inter-dependence. And even that view has problems - just fewer than the others.
                          Hebrew Matthew. Said by Eusebius to be in two other ECF libraries at the time.

                          Sorry to burst your hoity toity bubble sir.

                          Comment



                          • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                            The exegesis that says that this is referencing the Gospel of Luke, which was written c. 41 AD to the high priest Theophilus, I find interesting.
                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            Why not just say that Luke was written in 41 BCE and that the entire thing is a prophecy about the life of Jesus?
                            Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
                            Because that is not the finding of sober scholarship. The early dating for NT composition is. The late dates are from the Derridan crowd, the Jesus Seminar crowd, and that ilk.
                            Historically, liberal and unbelieving scholarship so-called could not handle the prophetic words in the New Testament about the destruction of the Temple. So they gravitate to theories that make at least the Gospels after 70 AD. The theories are essentially circular to the New Testament being false. Granted, a gentleman like Richard Bauckham tries to straddle the worlds, quite uncomfortably.

                            ACA and I do agree on the sober and consistent scholarship pointing to early dating for the NT composition. I place all the books before 70 AD, with some Gospels between 40-45 AD, Luke c. 41 AD to the high priest Theophilus.

                            Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
                            I would ask why anyone competent in Literary Criticism would listen to a word the Fabricators fabricate, but I do know the answer, so the question would be rhetorical. Edit: Not *every last adherent* to the late dating is a Deconstructionist, but since much of the argumentation for late dating is specious and the Derridan crowd is the one championing it, it should give the sober exegete pause for thought.
                            The speciousness and unbelieving presumptions are the key issues.

                            There is an anachronism problem in emphasizing Jacques Derrida.

                            =============================

                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            Yes! Mark was written in 62 BCE. Luke and Matthew, soon thereafter, wrote their gospels around 40 BCE. Jesus was born in 6 BCE and then it all played out just like the writers had foretold. John was written at around 75 CE, though, after the destruction of the Temple.
                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            I have no reason to believe in an early date. No good reasons have been presented to me, except that Evangelicals (the only people in the world who still believe in the early dates) want to think that the gospels predicted the destruction of the Temple.
                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            Well, the correspondent truth is also valid: that those who espouse later dates normally do so because "it's impossible that Jesus would have accurately predicted the fall of the Temple." Actually, there were apparently many people at the time who thought that the Temple would eventually fall because of the corruption of those who controlled it.
                            I thought it was ironic (and at least scholastically honest) that you did stop to point out the other side of the coin. ACA caught this as well.

                            Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
                            I was glad to see your follow-up post (#1015). As for #1014 above, however, I had heard very little about that as an evidence. The early dates are believed because the evidence points that way, to include that the books of the Bible were written by Jesus's contemporaries (the Disciples, Paul, etc.), who would have died before the 2nd century. Only if one wishes to believe the Gospel of Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew, for instance, can the 2nd-century date even be considered.
                            However, ACA seems to be allowing late 1st century dates, which I consider very late and inconsistent (octogenarian eye-witnesses and great difficulties with the first-person accounts.) Second-century dates are from Baur and many in the Tübingen school. And today are popular with the mythicists and various ilkies. And I find the straddling of gentlemen like Richard Bauckham to be well-intentioned but clumsy and easy to be picked apart, because of the milque-toast acceptance of the faux pseudo-consensus late dating.

                            Jameson followed with a rather irrelevant harumph. Since unbelievers work with their presumptions of New Testament inauthenticity.

                            Steven
                            Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-27-17, 01:46 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by nothead View Post

                              Hebrew Matthew. Said by Eusebius to be in two other ECF libraries at the time.

                              Sorry to burst your hoity toity bubble sir.
                              Sorry to burst yours but that's Matthean priority not Lukan.

                              And there's zippo evidence for it.
                              One factor precluding a young age for Sinaiticus is the marginalia in Acts... This supplemental material...precludes the MS' production by Simonides. He just lied...It's something he was known for. I recommend that you accept that fact and move on.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Maestroh View Post

                                Sorry to burst yours but that's Matthean priority not Lukan.

                                And there's zippo evidence for it.
                                Call Eusebius zippo but he was many things butta clown, clown.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X