Is the New Testament historically accurate? (preach, Israel, moral, Jews)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did I say that it is its sole purpose? No, I did not. I said merely that the Bible as literature is historical. And it must be considered as such because Christianity is based on historical events.
No, you did not, but it does not have to be taken as historical.
Especially, when people turn myth's into historical authenticity.
No, you did not, but it does not have to be taken as historical.
Especially, when people turn myth's into historical authenticity.
The Bible absolutely does have to be recognized as an historical source. It records real events which historically happened. If Jesus wasn't crucified, and if He wasn't resurrected, then there is no basis for Christianity. But the early disciples saw the resurrected Jesus. His resurrection was a real and historical event. And if, since you claim to be a believer, you can't understand that, then there's nothing left to say to you because you just don't get it. Whether you consider the Bible to be an historical source or not, historians do even though as I said, secular historians don't recognize everything in the Bible as historical.
You've already been shown that your claim that Luke lied about why Paul escaped from Damascus is false. And you do not know that Paul does not endorse Luke's writings. You merely have an opinion.
And you've been shown that it Is false. And if you claim that Paul endorses what was written about the conversion on the road to Damascus, you need to support that with something in Paul - which is why I asked you.
Since you can't, I at least have negative evidence for my view. You have nothing at all to support yours.
And you've been shown that it Is false. And if you claim that Paul endorses what was written about the conversion on the road to Damascus, you need to support that with something in Paul - which is why I asked you.
Since you can't, I at least have negative evidence for my view. You have nothing at all to support yours.
No Arequipa, you have not shown that it is false. You have not shown anything but your personal opinion. Paul was converted. That is a fact. Luke records how he was converted. That Paul didn't say in one of his epistles, ''Oh, by the way, I endorse Luke's account of my conversion,'' doesn't mean that he objected to it. Paul's letters addressed specific issues in the churches to which he wrote. He had no reason to validate Luke's account of his conversion. You are attempting to make an argument from silence, and apparently as well as from a need for Luke to be wrong.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No Arequipa, you have not shown that it is false. You have not shown anything but your personal opinion. Paul was converted. That is a fact. Luke records how he was converted. That Paul didn't say in one of his epistles, ''Oh, by the way, I endorse Luke's account of my conversion,'' doesn't mean that he objected to it. Paul's letters addressed specific issues in the churches to which he wrote. He had no reason to validate Luke's account of his conversion. You are attempting to make an argument from silence.
Now, I have had enough of this forum for one day.
It is widely viewed that the author of Luke was Paul. Besides which, Paul's writings were before Luke ever was thought of.
I read the argument that there is another Judas mentioned by Josephus that was involved in tax revolt under Herod. He raises some questions, but the first thing that occurs to me is - isn't it a bit of a coincidence that another Judas with a rather similar surname and who is also involved in a tax revolt, did it in Herod's time, while all the talk of Judas the Galilean relates to the 6 AD tax revolt..
The next is that, if this was a plausible argument, I am surprised that nobody has previously referred to a definite Judas in a tax revolt known to be in Herod's time? That would conclusively prove there was a tax (and it had to be a census tax to be Luke's) in Herod's time. I think this bod is trying to create a Judas - led tax revolt in Herodian times out of a few quibbles. He also seems to be proposing another priestly associate fro the Herodian Judas as there was for the 6 AD Judas. If the name is also Zadok (which he doesn't say) that surely makes this earlier copy of the 6 AD census a figment of his imagination. I couldn't make sense of the argument that Coponius couldn't be Judean prefect under Quirinus as Quirinus was...let me check...(a legate juridicus; governor = legati pro praetore).
Well I am no Latin expert, but that looks to me like Legate and governor, which Quirinus would be (and he certainly couldn't be in the time of Herod) and Coponius was of lesser equestrian rank and Judean prefect under the Consular Quirinus. This seems straightforward to me.
I know about Gadara, but Gerasa (Jerash) was a different place entirely. And a long way from the eastern shores of galilee.
2. Gergesa (Γέργεσα). This town is not to be confused with either Gerasa or Gadara. Gergesa is located, with relative certainty, midway along the E bank of the Sea of Galilee; Gadara is six m. SE from the S end of the Sea of Galilee; and Gerasa is some thirty-five m. SE. - See more at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/lib....EjYDpbCR.dpuf
....
Archeologists identify it with the modern Jarash. At this distance from the Sea of Galilee, Gerasa could not have been the site of the healing of “Legion.” It is doubtful that Jesus ever visited it.
It is widely viewed that the author of Luke was Paul. Besides which, Paul's writings were before Luke ever was thought of.
Back up your claim with scholarly source material. Don't just make an unsupported statement and expect to be taken seriously. And if Paul was the author of Luke, then it would be a writing of Paul's and therefore how could Paul's writings be before Paul's writings?
The author of Luke is the author of Acts as well. And the author of Acts shows himself to be someone other than Paul since he presents himself as being with Paul on his missionary journeys at times.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Back up your claim with scholarly source material. Don't just make an unsupported statement and expect to be taken seriously. And if Paul was the author of Luke, then it would be a writing of Paul's and therefore how could Paul's writings be before Paul's writings?
The author of Luke is the author of Acts as well. And the author of Acts shows himself to be someone other than Paul since he presents himself as being with Paul on his missionary journeys at times.
Ooopssss.... brain short-circuited.
I agree with the bolded, and that was my intention of making that point.
It is widely viewed that the author of Luke was Paul. Besides which, Paul's writings were before Luke ever was thought of.
It is true that Paul's writings predate the gospels by quite a bit, but it's news to me that anyone thinks Paul is the author of Luke.
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are widely regarded as having the same author, traditionally Luke, the companion of Paul ... but Luke's authorship has pretty much become a minority view in recent generations. Like many books of the Bible, we simply don't know who the anonymous author is.
The Bible absolutely does have to be recognized as an historical source. It records real events which historically happened. If Jesus wasn't crucified, and if He wasn't resurrected, then there is no basis for Christianity. But the early disciples saw the resurrected Jesus. His resurrection was a real and historical event. And if, since you claim to be a believer, you can't understand that, then there's nothing left to say to you because you just don't get it. Whether you consider the Bible to be an historical source or not, historians do even though as I said, secular historians don't recognize everything in the Bible as historical.
My father died thirty years ago this month - that's a fact known only to me, not you.
In other words, you will have to take my word for it, if you believe I speak the truth.
For you it's a matter of believing, for me, it is one of knowing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
