Copycat

[Zzyzx]

.
Matthew 14:45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.

Mark 15:33 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.

Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over all the land until the ninth hour.

If you were told that those statements were produced by three witnesses writing their own accounts of an event, is there any chance that you would conclude that the exact wording parallel was derived independently?

What are the chances that the exact wording parallel was legitimate?

Did they just happen to select the exact same words?
Did they copy from one another?
Did they use the same cheat sheet (copy from another source)?
Did they get together and memorize the words?
Did a supernatural spirit provide them with the words?
Did later copyists change the words OR insert their own version of what happened?

Some Bible defenders attempt to present the gospels as independent accounts. Does this belie their claim?

[Difflugia]

This is really good stuff! I mean, the scholars would have us believe that it is possible that the Gospels may not have been, (notice they cannot say "were not") written by those they have been attributed to, and could have been written by those years later, who may not have been around during the time of the events they are reporting.

Yes, that's right.

Of course, if all these reports were exactly the same, word for word, then the scholars would certainly cry foul and go on to claim that this would be clear evidence of copying.

That's right.

However, we do not have this in the least, but because we do have some passages which are very close in wording, others which are not, and even other events mentioned by one which may not be mentioned by the others, but we still must believe these alike passages must, and had to be copied.

That's also right.

Of course, if all these reports were completely different, reporting completely, and contradictory events, (which we do not have) then of course we would have the scholars crying foul as well.

You're right; the "reports" aren't completely contradictory. Nobody's crying "foul," though, they're just saying something different than what the fundamentalists want to believe.

But you see, the scholars have a problem, and they realize they have a problem, and that problem is the fact that the authors do not all report the same events, with some mentioning events the others do not.

That's not the problem. The problem with the Synoptics is the same one that we have between the Deuteronomistic history and the books of Chronicles. Certain passages are so similar that it's statistically impossible that they're not copied, but some of those otherwise copied passages include contradictory changes. The question isn't just how to account for either copying or contradictory differences, but how to account for exactly which passages were copied and which were changed.

No scholar is surprised that the two different genealogies or two accounts of Judas' death are contradictory because they're so completely different that they most likely just represent conflicting traditions. It is, though a "surprise" in the academic sense that Luke changed Mark's healing of the blind beggar, Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-52; Lk 18:35-43), even without any contradictions. Both tell essentially the same story and Luke obviously copied parts of it as once again, a series of quotations are nearly identical in Greek, including verb tense patterns (-, imperfect, "sat and is still sitting"; , perfect "having heard"; , aorist subjunctive "I were to regain sight"). Luke, however, changed Mark's "Rabboni" to "Lord" in Bartimaeus' plea ("Lord, let me regain sight!"). Why? What was Luke intending to convey? It's an interesting problem.

With this being the case, the scholars must, and have to come up with some sort of solution to this problem, and they certainly have, by suggesting that there may be, (notice again they cannot say there was indeed) another source which they all shared in some sort of way, of which we do not know, and have no evidence whatsoever of this other source, other than the scholars insist there had to be copying going on, and this is the only way to explain it.

Exactly right.

Oh...... but wait, these scholars have another problem, and that is the fact that we have evidence the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled with Paul, because of the fact this author just so happens to begin to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events of Paul's journeys, as if he is actually there to witness the events he is recording. This would mean, this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

If that's what the presence of that literary device meant, but it doesn't.

And of course these scholars are on top of the job, and they have come up with this "known literary device" which would explain away the idea that this author would indeed have traveled with Paul, and they have done such a good job, you seem to be under the impression that this indeed is a known fact, when it certainly is not.

No, it is. If you read the paper again, maybe it will become more clear.

But hold on a minute..........

[...]

Now, as we recap, we have letters written some 2000 years ago, that may not have been written by those they have been attributed to, because the scholars believe there may have been copying going on among the authors. However, copying among themselves does not answer all the problems, and therefore the solution would be to insist that they all must, and had to have a copy of another source, but because we have no idea what this other source may be, nor who the author may have been, we can only refer to this source, which has not been demonstrated to even exist as being "Q".

Then, we have the problem with the evidence which would suggest the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, because of the "we", and "us" passages that is clearly used by the author. But of course, we are to believe this author used some sort of "literary device" which would mean the author was not attempting to indicate that he would have been with Paul on his journeys.

But of course we have the letters of Paul,which clearly indicate that there were others with him on these journeys, and he sends greetings to his audiences from these men, and one of those who happens to be with Paul on these journeys, just so happens to be Luke. Moreover, the author of the two letters to Theophilus ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest, and in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest, just so happens to be one of the letters which the scholars just so happen to decide that Paul just may not be the actual author.

Despite your best attempts to put the whole thing in a sarcastic light, you have accurately described the state of scholarship and hit the nail on the head. The entire web of evidence marshalled by fundamentalist apologists has, when examined critically by actual scholars, turned out to make exactly the opposite case as the fundamentalists want us to believe.

My question here is, have you ever read this letter addressed from Paul, to Timothy?

Hah. Yes.

Do you have any idea what all would have to be involved in order for this letter not to have been authored by Paul?

Yes.

Not only have I read this letter, I have also worked through with another member on this site, what all would have to be involved in order for this to be the case, and I have not heard from that member since, and I will be happy to work through it as well with you.

How about you just tell us?

So then, we are to believe, these authors either knowingly orchestrated all these things, in order to make it look one way, all the while it is actually quite another way, which would make these men brilliant.

You've lost me.

Or, these things just so happen to come about as they did, making these things look one, when in fact, they are not as they seem at all, and we should be in great gratitude to the scholars for being able to put all these pieces together for us, because I cannot imagine that we would have been able to figure out all these unbelievable things out on our own.

The reasoning isn't that difficult. Seeing the pattern in the first place takes a bit of uncommon insight, perhaps, but "upon shoulders of giants" as it were, it's not that difficult to see much of what really happened.

At this point, I would like to talk about a piece of ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell.

Or a faked moon landing perhaps? Maybe a second shooter on the grassy knoll?

Because you see, here is the thing. I am not insisting that my position would be the correct position, and that the scholars must, and have to have it wrong. What I would be insisting is that, what the scholars tell you, is simply their opinion, and has not been demonstrated to be the facts.

Therefore, while they may have facts, and point to evidence, this does not negate the fact that there is certainly facts, and evidence to support the idea that the letters contained in the Bible, may very well be authored by those they have been attributed to.

The hard part lies in knowing how to evaluate the probability of one explanation over another. If Paul wrote 2 Timothy, for example, he suddenly began writing with a different vocabulary, different grammatical habits, a different compositional style, a different view of church heirarchy, and a different theological outlook. That is far, far less likely than 2 Timothy being written by a second-century author familiar with Paul's work, but that wasn't a professional forger by modern standards.

My point is, it is one thing to talk about the evidence involved, while acknowledging that neither side has been demonstrated. It is quite another to insist something to be a fact, which has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

It is one thing to acknowledge that historical methods can never claim certainty, but quite another to then insist that all outcomes are to therefore be treated with the same level of respect no matter how improbable or outlandish.

[bjs]

Care to take a stab at the parts in bold font?

Not particularly.

What a surprise

It should not be a surprise. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic should be able to see that this thread is built on an absurd premise.

The thread is built on the blatantly ridiculous position that a historian using existing sources is somehow a bad thing.

Correction: The point is made that blatantly copied 'sources' (word-for-word) indicate that writers falsely presented as their own record of events that which they parroted from elsewhere.

Please point out where gospel writers claimed that they were not using sources? It has already been pointed out the Luke said the opposite of what you claim he said.

Until that fundamental issue is addressed the whole thing is dead in the water.

Opinion noted.

You may call it an opinion if you wish. It doesnt change the fact that the claims of this thread are absurd.

[Zzyzx]

.

Care to take a stab at the parts in bold font?

Not particularly.

What a surprise

It should not be a surprise. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic should be able to see that this thread is built on an absurd premise.

Absurd premise? That word-for-word text indicates copying? Copying indicates LACK of independence.

The thread is built on the blatantly ridiculous position that a historian using existing sources is somehow a bad thing.

Correction: The point is made that blatantly copied 'sources' (word-for-word) indicate that writers falsely presented as their own record of events that which they parroted from elsewhere.

Please point out where gospel writers claimed that they were not using sources? It has already been pointed out the Luke said the opposite of what you claim he said.

A person who presents the work of others as their own without citation of the original IS being dishonest. Whoever wrote Luke acknowledged that his rendition was garnered from others. Writers of Mark, Matthew, and John (whoever the were) presented the material as their own. However, none of the Gospel writers has been shown to have personally witnessed the events and conversations they record.

Until that fundamental issue is addressed the whole thing is dead in the water.

Opinion noted.

You may call it an opinion if you wish. It doesnt change the fact that the claims of this thread are absurd.

Correction: verbatim text is indisputable indication of copying and lack of independence

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 20 by Difflugia]

You're right; the "reports" aren't completely contradictory. Nobody's crying "foul," though, they're just saying something different than what the fundamentalists want to believe.

Allow me to point out two things to you here. First, I am not a "fundamentalist", and far from it, having a completely different, and contradictory view of the Biblical record which would not even allow me to be considered a "fundamentalist". Next, I certainly do not "want to believe" Christianity to be true. Who in the world would really want to believe it, if they truly understood it?

That's not the problem. The problem with the Synoptics is the same one that we have between the Deuteronomistic history and the books of Chronicles. Certain passages are so similar that it's statistically impossible that they're not copied, but some of those otherwise copied passages include contradictory changes. The question isn't just how to account for either copying or contradictory differences, but how to account for exactly which passages were copied and which were changed.

My friend, we are not talking about the OT here. We are talking about the letters contained in the NT.

No scholar is surprised that the two different genealogies or two accounts of Judas' death are contradictory because they're so completely different that they most likely just represent conflicting traditions. It is, though a "surprise" in the academic sense that Luke changed Mark's healing of the blind beggar, Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-52; Lk 18:35-43), even without any contradictions. Both tell essentially the same story and Luke obviously copied parts of it as once again, a series of quotations are nearly identical in Greek, including verb tense patterns (-, imperfect, "sat and is still sitting"; , perfect "having heard"; , aorist subjunctive "I were to regain sight"). Luke, however, changed Mark's "Rabboni" to "Lord" in Bartimaeus' plea ("Lord, let me regain sight!"). Why? What was Luke intending to convey? It's an interesting problem.

As we can see, you have your mind so set on the idea that these men had to have copied each other, ignoring the fact that folks see, hear, and have different perspectives of the same events, which can, and has caused folks to report the same events in different ways, even adding their on spin on the events.

No, it is. If you read the paper again, maybe it will become more clear.

My friend, this is not the first time I have heard this argument, and I understand it very well. You seem to be ignoring the fact that we have other evidence to support the idea that this author would have been present with Paul on these journeys.

Because you see, we know for a fact that there would have been others along with Paul on his journeys, and we also know that Paul mentions some of these men to his audiences. One of the names Paul mentions as being with him would be Luke. We know that Paul ended up in prison, and we know that the author of the two letters to Theophilus ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest. We also know that we have a letter which is addressed from Paul to Timothy, and it is clear this letter would have been written while Paul would have been under arrest. In this letter, the author just so happens to mention in passing several of the other men who had left, and or deserted him, and goes on to tell Timothy, "only Luke is with me". By the way, I am certain that a pseudonym author would have thought to mention such a thing, on top of thinking to write in such a way as to make it look as though he would be under arrest at the time of writing.

Oh yeah! I forgot about something else here. Have you ever thought about the fact that the author of the letters to Theophlus, begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the 11 Apostles, which become 12? However, have you also noticed, that once Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys we begin to hear nothing at all concerning what the Apostles in Jerusalem may be doing, until, or unless, Paul comes back in contact with the Apostles in Jerusalem? Can you imagine why this would be?

Sure you can. Because you see, if this author would have been along with Paul on his journeys, then he would have no way to know what the other Apostles would be doing, and could only report of what Paul would have been doing, until, or unless, Paul were to come back in contact with them again. My friend, this is just one more piece to the puzzle. which gives us a pretty good idea, that this author would have indeed traveled with Paul, because of the fact that he begins to concentrate on the actions of Paul, because he is with Paul, and cannot report on the actions of the others.

At any rate, we have evidence right here that the author of the two letters to Theophlius would have been with Paul on his journeys. Moreover, even if it could be demonstrated that the author was using the literary device you refer to, (which bty it cannot be demonstrated) this would not in any way demonstrate that the author would not have been along on these travels. In other words, the author could have very well been along on these travels with Paul, and as a reporter of the events of Paul's life, simply writing about Paul. However, when we get to the "we", and "us" passages, he may well revert to this device, but this would not in any way demonstrate that the author would not have been there to witness what he wrote. On top of this, there are "we" and "us" passages which are not referring to any sort of sea voyage. Let us also keep in mind, the author of the letters to Theophilus, assures him that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" after speaking about the "things which have happened among US".

So then, while it is certainly fine for one to point out such things as this "known literary device" as evidence, it certainly does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the author would not have been present with Paul on these journeys, especially in the face of all the other evidence we have. In other words, we cannot say the author was indeed with Paul, but can only point out the evidence in support. On the other hand, we cannot say that he was not with Paul, but can only point out the evidence which may suggest that he was not. I can assure you, pointing out a "known literary device" is not in any way evidence the author would not have been with Paul.

So then, we do have certain evidence this author would have been with Paul. We have no evidence which would suggest that he was not.

Despite your best attempts to put the whole thing in a sarcastic light, you have accurately described the state of scholarship and hit the nail on the head. The entire web of evidence marshalled by fundamentalist apologists has, when examined critically by actual scholars, turned out to make exactly the opposite case as the fundamentalists want us to believe.

I am not sure why (but I have my guesses) as to why you continue to refer to "fundamentalists"? Allow me to put it out there for you. I do not hold to inerrancy, and I am not under the impression that God, and or the "Holy Spirit" somehow guided the authors of the NT as they wrote. This is just for starters. So then, do you imagine I would be allowed in the "fundamentalist camp"? I highly doubt it.

At any rate, can you please explain to me what the "fundamentalists" have to do with these letters which were written some 2000 years ago, which frustrate the scholars from demonstrating the authors copied one another to the point they have to revert to some "unknown source" which they must have all had access to, which cannot even be demonstrated to have existed? I do not believe the fundamentalists had anything to do with that.

Please explain exactly what the fundamentalists would have had to do with the author of the letters to Theophilus, only addressing one individual? What did the fundamentalists have to do with this author assuring Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" as if he would have been there? Exactly what did the fundamentalists have to do with this author beginning to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul? What did the fundamentalists have to do with Paul mentioning other folks who would have traveled with him? What would the fundamentalists have to do with the author of the letters to Theophilus ending his second letter with Paul being under arrest? What would the fundamentalists have to do with a letter written some 2000 years ago, addressed from Paul to Timothy, which would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest, and goes on to just so happen to mention that all the others had left him and, "only Luke is with me"? Exactly what would the fundamentalists have to do with the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus only reports on the actions of Paul, once Paul begins his missionary journeys, and only mentions the other Apostles again, when, and if, Paul happens to come back in contact with them?

I could go on, and on, and as you can see, the fundamentalists would have had nothing whatsoever to do with these things. So then, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "what the fundamentalists want us to believe", but everything to do with the fact that we have all these facts, and evidence which the fundamentalists would have no control over.

The whole point here is, it does not matter what you believe, what I believe, nor what "the fundamentalists want us to believe", these things are facts, and evidence, and you, I, nor the fundamentalists had a thing to do with these facts, and evidence we have.

Now of course, you may have facts, and evidence in support of your take on these facts, and evidence, but the point is, neither you, nor I can demonstrate our case as being correct. I acknowledge this fact, and can live with it. Some folks cannot, and go on to insist they have to be correct, but fail to be able to demonstrate their case. It must be frustrating.

How about you just tell us?

Okay. Here goes, and hold on tight, this will take a while.

The scholars would have us believe that Paul may not have authored the letter which is identified as 2 Timothy. Of course, it would have nothing to do with the fact that Paul just so happens to mention Luke as being the only one left with him, which would be pretty strong evidence that Luke would have indeed been the author of the letters to Theophilus, because we know these scholars have no agenda whatsoever, and they are simply looking out for our best interest. No, it is not the scholars who have an agenda. That would never happen, because we know that it would have been the Biblical writers who would have an agenda. Their agenda of course was to write out their own spin on things, not really being concerned about the truth, but we can rest assured these scholars have no agenda in the least, and are simply attempting to make an honest living.

It really sort of seems strange that one could be so certain the Biblical authors would be the ones with the agenda, and be just as certain as well that the scholars would not have any sort of agenda. It also seems sort of strange for one to somehow have the impression that it must, and has to be the ones they would prefer not to believe who have the agenda, while it could not be possible for those they agree with to have an agenda. And I would guess this same person would also come to the conclusion, that those scholars today, who may not agree with the consensus, have some sort of agenda, and somehow, some way, those in agreement have no agenda at all? Funny how that works, isn't it?

Because you see, I am not insisting the scholars have it wrong, nor am I suggesting they have some sort of agenda, and I am not insisting that the Biblical writers would not have an agenda. Rather, I am sticking to the facts we have, while acknowledging the possibility of an agenda from both sides of the equation, while others seem to be convinced the agenda is totally, and completely one sided, and it just so happens to be on the side they are opposed to.

At any rate, the scholars would have us believe that someone (God knows who because it is not a demonstrable fact) decided to sit down and write a letter using the name of Paul. Okay, well I have a number of questions here, but I doubt that I will get to them all, and you will not have the answers anyway since the idea that Paul would not have been the author of this letter, cannot be demonstrated to be a fact. Therefore, this question will remain unanswered.

The first question would be, when was the letter written? Was it written during the life of both Paul, and Timothy? Or, would it have been after they were gone? If it were after they were gone, what would have caused this author to write out a letter, and decide to address this letter to Timothy, as opposed to someone else? I would then like to ask, exactly who would this author have sent this letter to? I mean the letter is addressed to Timothy, and if Timothy is alive, it would be very risky, and really impossible to actually send it to Timothy, and this brings us to the next question.

How would this author be able to get this letter into circulation? Do we not think there would be those who would question where this letter had been all this time? We would also have to consider the fact that this author would have been taking a very strong risk. I mean think about it. This author would have to first think about the idea of writing a letter under the name of Paul, in hopes of giving the letter authority. Then we have to think of the time, and effort it would take in order to sit down in order to forge this letter. He would also have to think about how he would be able to get this letter into circulation, and the fact is, he could go to all this trouble, and be completely unsuccessful, or even worse would be the idea of being found out, which would actually ruin his efforts of getting the message out there. However, somehow, some way, this author was able to accomplish all these things, to the point his forged letter makes it into the cannon.

At any rate, as we turn our attention to the letter itself, exactly what teaching, and or doctrine would have been communicated in this letter, which the author would be attempting to get out there under the name of Paul?

This author certainly begins by claiming to be the "Apostle Paul", and then goes on to address Timothy by name. Not only this, but the author goes on to mention the mother, and grandmother of Timothy by name. Now, was this the real names of the mother, and grandmother of Timothy? Or, did he simply throw these names out there simply to make the letter look genuine? If Paul, and Timothy would have been alive, then he would have had to get these names correct, otherwise it would be found out. If it would have been after they were gone, then maybe any names would do. Or would it?

Well then next, this author simply goes on to talk about the suffering he is facing right now, and we would assume that if this would have been Paul, he would have been speaking of his being in prison. However, since this may not have been Paul, this author must have had the presence of mind to write in such a way, as if he is suffering in prison just as Paul had done.

This author then goes on to name certain folks who had "deserted" him. He then goes on to name certain folk who had "refreshed" him, and even mentions his "chains". The point here again is the fact that this author has the presence of mind to think of writing as if he is in prison, just as it was recorded that Paul was by the author of the letters to Theophilus.

If this is not Paul, then all of these things are simply filler information in order to make the letter look genuine. It is one thing for one to use this sort of thing to make the letter look genuine. It is quite another for one to go on to name, actual names, which would allow the readers some sort of way in which to verify.

At any rate, whatever in the world this author would have been attempting to communicate under the name of Paul, would have clearly been communicated by verse 8 of chapter 4, and the author could have signed off with a short salutation, but this is not what he does in the least.

Rather, this author commands Timothy to, "do your best to come to me quickly". Now, why in the world would any author simply attempting to get out some sort of communication under the name of Paul go to such an extent? I would imagine your answer would be, "to make it look more authentic". The thing is, this certainly demonstrates this forgery would have had to occurred after Paul, and Timothy were gone, and the letter certainly could not have been sent to Timothy, because of course if Timothy were to actually go to Paul, he would surely find that Paul was not the author. So then, this command to "come to me quickly" is simply filler which would have nothing to do with the actual letter, and would have nothing to really do with anything other than to make the letter look authentic.

But the author does not stop there. He continues on, and he names, names again, but this time he names places as well. This is all completely unnecessary, and would again demonstrate, if Paul, and Timothy would have been alive, then the names, and places would have to be correct, and if they are no longer alive, these things are simply filler, and the names, and places would not matter.

Then all of a sudden, this author gives this command to Timothy, "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments".

I mean think about this? This author has already commanded Timothy to "come to me quickly", and then all of a sudden out of nowhere he says, "oh by the way, when you come bring these things to me, and here is where you can find them". Does this really sound like some sort of forgery to you? Or, does it sound more like one who may be stuck somewhere, like maybe under arrest, and making request to one who is coming to visit? In other words, if this is Paul, he is simply making request of Timothy. If it is not, then it is really useless filler.

Oh, and by the way, let us keep in mind the author of the letters to Theophilus, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest, which just so happens to line up with what we are reading now. Sort of strange isn't it?

And oh yeah, another thing I happen to forget is the fact that this author whom you claim would not have been Paul, just so happens to mention in passing, "only Luke is with me".

Let's think about this? We have evidence, upon evidence, that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. We have Paul, on more than one occasion, mentioning the name of one by the name of Luke. We have the author of the letters to Theophilus, ending his second letter with Paul being under arrest. We have a letter in which the author claims to be Paul, which would have clearly been written while the author was under arrest, and in this letter, the author just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me".

Now, I could continue on, because there is far more of what would be called filler to end this letter, but the whole point is, I have no problem whatsoever with you, having the opinion that this letter would not have been authored by Paul, simply based upon, "different vocabulary, different grammatical habits, a different compositional style, a different view of church heirarchy, and a different theological outlook" which would be all debatable, but for one to go on to say, "there would be no good evidence to suggest Paul may have indeed been the author" is to demonstrate one who simply prefers one view over the other.

Because you see, I am not insisting that Paul would have been the author, and that there would be no evidence against this idea. Rather, I tend to stick to the facts, and the fact of the matter is, it cannot be demonstrated one way or the other. But again, for one to suggest that there would not be very good evidence to support the belief that Paul would have been the author, is to surely demonstrate one who goes on what they would prefer to believe.

I said,

So then, we are to believe, these authors either knowingly orchestrated all these things, in order to make it look one way, all the while it is actually quite another way, which would make these men brilliant.

The which you reply, "you've lost me". Allow me to attempt to explain. There is no doubt something extraordinary occurred some 2000 years ago, no matter what it may have been. To demonstrate this, most of your scholars agree with these things.

1. Jesus was crucified

2. His burial in a tomb

3. The discovery his tomb was empty

4. There was indeed a claim of a resurrection which was said to be the cause of the empty tomb

5. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary


Notice carefully, nowhere on the list does it say these scholars believe a resurrection took place. However, what they do admit to is pretty extraordinary. Because you see, what this would mean is, "the original disciples" after watching their leader crucified as a criminal right in front of their eyes, were somehow able, in a very short period of time, to take a story of an empty tomb, in the face of those who we all know would have had to be very much opposed, and this story builds in the face of all the obstacles, and we have certain evidence that there were those of them who continued on with this story, well into their old age.

So then, the point is, these men either knowingly continued to claim, and also live out this lie in the face of all the obstacles. Or, they somehow did so, all being deceived into thinking that Jesus had resurrected, and they were so successful, they have scholars still today, who continue to attempt to explain away all the evidence we have in support of what they were claiming, and these scholars have yet to be successful in being able to explain it. Now, I don't care who you are, that is extraordinary.

The reasoning isn't that difficult. Seeing the pattern in the first place takes a bit of uncommon insight perhaps,

I guess we have the scholars to thank for this "uncommon insight"?

but "upon shoulders of giants" as it were, it's not that difficult to see much of what really happened.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would assume the "giants" you refer to would be the scholars? If I am correct, this is sort of comical, and seems no different than the many Christians who simply take the Bible at it's word. You know like when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". Seem we have some now who say, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it".

But, my friend, the scholars have not in any way demonstrated that the Gospels would not have been authored by those they have been attributed to. This would simply be their opinion. They have not demonstrated when these things would have been written. Rather, they can only share their opinion. The scholars cannot assure you that Paul did not author all the letter attributed to him.

You know, this sort of reminds me of those who were at one time a very convinced Christian. Then, all of a sudden one day they wake up and suddenly realize they never really put much thought into being convinced, and were only taking the word of others. They then begin to read the word of others, and become convinced they were wrong to be convinced as a Christian, and in the end all they are really doing is to exchange putting their faith into what one group is saying, and placing that faith into what another group is saying.

It is one thing to acknowledge that historical methods can never claim certainty, but quite another to then insist that all outcomes are to therefore be treated with the same level of respect no matter how improbable or outlandish.

My friend, the "historical method" should never work on the "probabilities", but should rather work on the facts, and evidence at hand. But hey, what would we expect from those who were somehow once convinced Christians, who now want to claim there would be no reason to believe? How exactly does that work?

Because you see, it is one thing for one to claim to have been a convinced Christian at one time, and go on to acknowledge that there would be reasons to believe. It is quite another for such a one to now tell us they were convinced of something, there would be no reason to believe. It speaks VOLUMES in my ears!

[Difflugia]

That is quite a prodigious wall of text there. I'll at least briefly address the points that aren't repeats, but I want to make clear up front that none of it actually matters to the main discussion. The verbatim agreements between the Synoptics are enough in themselves to justify a literary dependence that requires copying of written sources. At a minimum, you have yet to offer a satisfactory explanation for how a Greek translation of the Baptist's words in Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9 came to be the same between two authors without one of them copying words from a page. Beginning with "You brood of vipers...," the two authors differ four times out of 63 Greek words total. Red is Matthew, blue is Luke:

, - ; | | -|- - " . - . - - - .

If you want to see for yourself just how unlikely this is otherwise, take a look at two translations into English of the same text in a foreign language. The autobiography of Josephus, for example, can be read as translated by Robert Traill, William Whiston, and in selections by Henry St. John Thackeray. I won't bother quoting any of them here, but suffice to say that I'm confident that you won't be able to find a single sentence that matches between any two of the three, despite them starting with the same Greek text. Your assertion that agreements like those between Matthew, Mark, and Luke can nonetheless be explained by oral repetition and shared experiences simply beggars belief.

Now, to your tangents:

Allow me to point out two things to you here. First, I am not a "fundamentalist", and far from it, having a completely different, and contradictory view of the Biblical record which would not even allow me to be considered a "fundamentalist".

That's fine. Though I've come to use both Pauline authorship of the Pastorals and Luke as a "travelling companion" of Paul to be accurate shibboleths for fundamentalism, I recognize that they're not infallible. A perennial favorite author of apologists, Sir William Ramsay, for example, was as you describe yourself. He wasn't an inerrantist, but yet was still willing to read copious amounts of imagined detail into the biblical text in order to make a case for its overall trustworthiness. One of my favorite examples of this is how he somehow managed to turn two short sentences from Acts (12:13-14) into a 13-page chapter about the devotion of the slave girl Rhoda to Peter and Luke's meticulous attention to detail.

Next, I certainly do not "want to believe" Christianity to be true. Who in the world would really want to believe it, if they truly understood it?

Perhaps someone that already has a large emotional and social investment in Christianity?

The problem with the Synoptics is the same one that we have between the Deuteronomistic history and the books of Chronicles.

My friend, we are not talking about the OT here. We are talking about the letters contained in the NT.

I can't tell if you didn't understand my statement or are just trying to dismiss a valid point out of hand. We're talking about the New Testament, but parts of the Old Testament show the same pattern we're discussing and the approach scholars take to them are illuminating here.

As we can see, you have your mind so set on the idea that these men had to have copied each other...

Based on the evidence we have, yes.

...ignoring the fact that folks see, hear, and have different perspectives of the same events, which can, and has caused folks to report the same events in different ways, even adding their on spin on the events.

The patterns we see aren't the ones you're describing, no matter how many times you repeat the claim.

My friend, this is not the first time I have heard this argument, and I understand it very well. You seem to be ignoring the fact that we have other evidence to support the idea that this author would have been present with Paul on these journeys.

I haven't ignored what you're calling evidence, but instead told you why it's bad evidence. Those two aren't the same thing.

Because you see, we know for a fact that there would have been others along with Paul on his journeys, and we also know that Paul mentions some of these men to his audiences.

"[K]now for a fact" is pretty strong, but it's a reasonable inference, so I'll give it to you.

One of the names Paul mentions as being with him would be Luke.

Not everyone Paul mentions was a travelling companion and Luke wasn't called such. You also haven't established any reason for thinking that Paul's Luke was the author of Luke/Acts that is independent of Paul's mention of him. The name of the evangelist was pulled out of Paul's letters and he's called a "travelling companion" because of Acts. Even if 2 Timothy was written by Paul, you're still making a circular argument.

We know that Paul ended up in prison, and we know that the author of the two letters to Theophilus ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest.

We know from Paul's epistles that he was imprisoned, but you've yet to establish that Acts is independent of the epistles themselves. I don't think you can (I'm pretty sure the author of Acts did, indeed have access to Paul's epistles), but you're welcome to try.

We also know that we have a letter which is addressed from Paul to Timothy, and it is clear this letter would have been written while Paul would have been under arrest.

The pseudonymous author explicitly claims such, so OK.

In this letter, the author just so happens to mention in passing several of the other men who had left, and or deserted him, and goes on to tell Timothy, "only Luke is with me". By the way, I am certain that a pseudonym author would have thought to mention such a thing, on top of thinking to write in such a way as to make it look as though he would be under arrest at the time of writing.

Care to expand on your logic here? Paul mentions his acquaintances in his genuine epistles, so it would be an obvious point for a forger to emulate. The only other epistle that mentions Luke is Philemon, which also happens to be another where Paul calls himself a prisoner. Philemon also happens to mention both Mark and Timothy. The details you describe are exactly the ones we would expect to see if a forger were attempting to emulate the style of Philemon.

Oh yeah! I forgot about something else here. Have you ever thought about the fact that the author of the letters to Theophlus, begins his second letter reporting on the actions of the 11 Apostles, which become 12? However, have you also noticed, that once Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys we begin to hear nothing at all concerning what the Apostles in Jerusalem may be doing, until, or unless, Paul comes back in contact with the Apostles in Jerusalem? Can you imagine why this would be?

Because the goal of the author of Acts is to reconcile an Asian, Pauline Christianity with a Jewish, Petrine sect. We first have an introduction to the 11/12 Apostles, then the establishment of Paul's orthodoxy, then the the two formerly independent groups come together in a big Paul/Peter lovefest.

Sure you can. Because you see, if this author would have been along with Paul on his journeys, then he would have no way to know what the other Apostles would be doing, and could only report of what Paul would have been doing, until, or unless, Paul were to come back in contact with them again. My friend, this is just one more piece to the puzzle. which gives us a pretty good idea, that this author would have indeed traveled with Paul, because of the fact that he begins to concentrate on the actions of Paul, because he is with Paul, and cannot report on the actions of the others.

Or he has enough literary education and experience to write a good story.

At any rate, we have evidence right here that the author of the two letters to Theophlius would have been with Paul on his journeys.

All the evidence you've presented has another, better explanation.

Moreover, even if it could be demonstrated that the author was using the literary device you refer to, (which bty it cannot be demonstrated) this would not in any way demonstrate that the author would not have been along on these travels.

The parallels with other ancient literature using "we" constructions during introductions and sea voyages specifically make it probable. But, you're right, we can't prove Luke wasn't there. That leaves you with pure speculation, though. We equally can't prove that Gulliver wasn't with Paul during his travels.

In other words, the author could have very well been along on these travels with Paul, and as a reporter of the events of Paul's life, simply writing about Paul. However, when we get to the "we", and "us" passages, he may well revert to this device, but this would not in any way demonstrate that the author would not have been there to witness what he wrote.

But neither does it demonstrate that he was and that's the argument you are (or at least were) making.

On top of this, there are "we" and "us" passages which are not referring to any sort of sea voyage. Let us also keep in mind, the author of the letters to Theophilus, assures him that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" after speaking about the "things which have happened among US".

Yep. Reread the article. Sea voyages and introductions.

I could go on, and on, and as you can see...

Yes.

Now of course, you may have facts, and evidence in support of your take on these facts, and evidence, but the point is, neither you, nor I can demonstrate our case as being correct.

So, you're back to arguing that all possible things are equally probable.

Okay. Here goes, and hold on tight, this will take a while.

The scholars would have us believe...

Your argument is that the scholars are in cahoots to discredit the Bible. Did I summarize that accurately?

The first question would be, when was the letter written? Was it written during the life of both Paul, and Timothy?

Early to middle of the second century, certainly after Paul's death and probably after Timothy's. It's not clear which period of imprisonment that Philemon refers to, so Timothy was written anywhere between 30 and 100 years after Philemon.

Or, would it have been after they were gone? If it were after they were gone, what would have caused this author to write out a letter, and decide to address this letter to Timothy, as opposed to someone else?

Because he wanted to add the gravitas of Paul's name to his ideas. He already had a copy of Philemon, which was a letter to a specific person, which contained a short list of other names. The author picked a name out of Philemon and used it. It could just as easily have been to Onesimus or Aristarchus.

I would then like to ask, exactly who would this author have sent this letter to? I mean the letter is addressed to Timothy, and if Timothy is alive, it would be very risky, and really impossible to actually send it to Timothy, and this brings us to the next question.

For a forger, that's a feature, not a bug.

How would this author be able to get this letter into circulation? Do we not think there would be those who would question where this letter had been all this time?

He "found" it in the church archives? I know you don't like me returning to the Old Testament, but maybe read 2 Kings 22. That's the story of how the priests of Yahweh "found" the "book of the law" that Josiah used as an excuse to shut down all of Yahweh's competitors.

However, somehow, some way, this author was able to accomplish all these things, to the point his forged letter makes it into the cannon.

These are all things that we know people attempted. We have false epistles that are outside the canon and attributed to Paul and others. 2 Thessalonians itself warns (2:2) against spurious Pauline epistles (which, ironically, it may itself have been).

At any rate, as we turn our attention to the letter itself, exactly what teaching, and or doctrine would have been communicated in this letter, which the author would be attempting to get out there under the name of Paul?

Adherence to and trust in "the gospel" as it has been passed down by church tradition. Furthermore, it exhorts members to obey traditions and leaders within a heirarchical structure as a soldier does (2:3-4), one does when playing games (2:5), or (somewhat oddly, as though a rhetorician were struggling to come up with a third example) as a farmer does when he carries seed from one generation to the next (2:6).

Or, did he simply throw these names out there simply to make the letter look genuine?

Yep.

Well then next, this author simply goes on to talk about the suffering he is facing right now, and we would assume that if this would have been Paul, he would have been speaking of his being in prison. However, since this may not have been Paul, this author must have had the presence of mind to write in such a way, as if he is suffering in prison just as Paul had done.

Yep.

This author then goes on to name certain folks who had "deserted" him. He then goes on to name certain folk who had "refreshed" him, and even mentions his "chains". The point here again is the fact that this author has the presence of mind to think of writing as if he is in prison, just as it was recorded that Paul was by the author of the letters to Theophilus.

And as recorded by Paul himself in other epistles that a forger might want to emulate.

If this is not Paul, then all of these things are simply filler information in order to make the letter look genuine.

Yep.

I would imagine your answer would be, "to make it look more authentic".

You would be right.

The thing is, this certainly demonstrates this forgery would have had to occurred after Paul, and Timothy were gone, and the letter certainly could not have been sent to Timothy, because of course if Timothy were to actually go to Paul, he would surely find that Paul was not the author. So then, this command to "come to me quickly" is simply filler which would have nothing to do with the actual letter, and would have nothing to really do with anything other than to make the letter look authentic.

Exactly.

But the author does not stop there. He continues on, and he names, names again, but this time he names places as well. This is all completely unnecessary, and would again demonstrate, if Paul, and Timothy would have been alive, then the names, and places would have to be correct, and if they are no longer alive, these things are simply filler, and the names, and places would not matter.

Yes.

Then all of a sudden, this author gives this command to Timothy, "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments".

I mean think about this? This author has already commanded Timothy to "come to me quickly", and then all of a sudden out of nowhere he says, "oh by the way, when you come bring these things to me, and here is where you can find them". Does this really sound like some sort of forgery to you?

Yes.

Or, does it sound more like one who may be stuck somewhere, like maybe under arrest, and making request to one who is coming to visit? In other words, if this is Paul, he is simply making request of Timothy. If it is not, then it is really useless filler.

Yes. Keep in mind that if Timothy really is coming and this is a message for him specifically, then he would have an opportunity to make all of his arguments about faith in and obedience to tradition when Timothy arrives. Philemon, by contrast, is to a person that he won't be seeing soon, and the matter discussed is practical: "please treat Onesimus as a fellow Christian rather than a slave." 2 Timothy purports to be a letter to someone that Paul will soon see in person, but that lays out a rhetorical, written argument for why this person should eschew new teachings and hold fast to the old.

Let's think about this? We have evidence, upon evidence, that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul.

Sigh.

Now, I could continue on...

Yes.

Allow me to attempt to explain. There is no doubt something extraordinary occurred some 2000 years ago, no matter what it may have been. To demonstrate this, most of your scholars agree with these things.

1. Jesus was crucified

Yes.

2. His burial in a tomb

3. The discovery his tomb was empty

4. There was indeed a claim of a resurrection which was said to be the cause of the empty tomb

5. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary

This construction really misrepresents the scholarship. The part that most scholars agree with is that there was some sort of resurrection claim (since it matches 1 Corinthians 15 in a way that makes it likely pre-Pauline), but not that it was bodily or that there was even a tomb for the disciples to find empty. When it's phrased the way you have it, it's usually a way for someone like Gary Habermas or William Lane Craig to sneak in a few contested premises with one that isn't.

As Michael Goulder concludes his essay, "Jesus Without Q" from The Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus:

But was not at least the empty tomb story historical? Its trouble is that at so many points it is implausible, and even contradictory. If Jesus body is to be found missing, it will have to be buried in the tomb of a wealthy sympathizer. Joseph of Arimathaea supplies this need: he is an honourable councillor and has been expecting the kingdom of God. But then surely this is what Jesus has spent the week proclaiming in the Temple; and if he is a councillor, presumably that means a member of the Sanhedrin, and he will have been present at the recent meeting, and so have been part of the unanimous vote condemning Jesus for blasphemy. A group of women goes out to anoint Jesus body exceedingly early, not knowing who is to roll away the enormous stone covering the tomb: although they are part of a community of tough men, some of them their relations, they would rather take a chance on meeting a gardener, or some such person, who happened to be around at 4 a.m. The point of the angels message is to have the disciples directed to Galilee, but the women say nothing to anyone in their fear, so the whole tale is pointless. The thought must arise that it is a late development of the Markan church, and that the womens silence is an explanation of why it has not been heard before. In a divided church, those who thought physical resurrection an absurdity would not take kindly to a brand new story that Jesus body was buried in a strangers tomb, and had left it in the night. They would inevitably ask, Why have we never heard this before? Ah, replies the wily evangelist, the women said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.

An early tradition, known to Paul (1 Cor 15:5) spoke of Jesus burial before his resurrection; but this includes no reference to Joseph. Josephus describes the crucifixion of many thousands of Jews, but the bones of only one such victim have been uncovered, and this has raised the suspicion that often when a criminals body had hung long enough on the cross, it was taken down and thrown in a common grave. If this happened with Jesus, we should still have an explanation for all the New Testament traditions. The Jerusalem Christians held to some form of spiritual resurrection. And they only saw the risen Jesus. The tales of Jesus body leaving a tomb, and of his eating and touching, are in our later evidence, especially in the Pauline gospels of Mark, Luke and John.

but "upon shoulders of giants" as it were, it's not that difficult to see much of what really happened.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would assume the "giants" you refer to would be the scholars? If I am correct, this is sort of comical, and seems no different than the many Christians who simply take the Bible at it's word. You know like when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". Seem we have some now who say, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it".

You've missed the point of the reference. It's not at all about blindly taking anyone's word for it. I'll let Wikipedia's excellent article explain it for me.

My friend, the "historical method" should never work on the "probabilities", but should rather work on the facts, and evidence at hand.

Since these two things are necessary complements instead of somehow being in conflict, I suggest that you might be somewhat mistaken about how historians reason.

[Difflugia]

Beginning with "You brood of vipers...," the two authors differ four times out of 63 Greek words total. Red is Matthew, blue is Luke:

, - ; | | -|- - " . - . - - - .

I was absentmindedly pondering this and wondering why one of the evangelists would have changed - ("do not presume to say...") to - ("do not begin to say...") without changing anything else. While I was looking at it, it hit me that one of the evangelists was working from a smudged source. Here's what the two words look like in modern Greek capitals:

"


It's often hard to discern between and " or and when handwritten, especially if the bottoms of the handwritten letters were illegible and if one of the evangelists had to pick a word that fit both the context and legible fragments, then this substitution makes sense.

This one instance, at least, points to a written medium and legibility as a source of corruption rather than something misheard (simlar sounding words) or misremembered (a synonym, for example).

Of course, I can't prove it.

[Renon89]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

[Difflugia]

God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

How are you applying that to the Synoptic problem?

Did the Holy Spirit inspire the different authors to write identical words or did it inspire them to copy each other? Was it something else entirely?

[Difflugia]

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but I find this particular topic fascinating. I was looking at various ancient Greek documents to imagine smudged and faded letters and ran across this page, which briefly describes the history of uncial Greek script. The site author put together an image showing letters from various ancient Greek sources (mostly New Testament manuscripts) to accompany a discussion of which letters are often mistaken for each other:

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 24 by Difflugia]



This is really comical, and expected. In other words, you have demonstrated nothing in the least, but have rather simply shared an opinion, which is more than likely not an opinion of your own, but rather the opinion of the scholars, and then going on to share the opinion, that your opinion is the better opinion, because it is your opinion, that this opinion of the scholars, would be the better explanation.

Before we continue on here, I want to be sure to stress again, I am not suggesting that the scholars would have to be incorrect, nor that there would be no reason, or evidence to believe some of the opinions they hold. Rather, I am pointing to the fact, that there would be other very good explanations, while you simply continue to insist that your opinion, (which just so happens to line up with the opinion of the consensus of the scholars) would be the best opinion, which again, is simply an opinion.

And again, this sort of reminds me of those who were at one time convinced Christianity would have been true, simply based upon what others had sold them, who have now all of a sudden become convinced, there would be no reason to believe as they once did, simply based upon what another group is selling.

The verbatim agreements between the Synoptics are enough in themselves to justify a literary dependence that requires copying of written sources.

I don't think so? Because you see the "verbatim agreements" might be enough to "justify" the IDEA of copying (which in the end it is only an idea), but it certainly does not "require" such a thing as you are attempting to make out.

The fact is, many, if not most of the Jews would have been able to speak more than one language, which would include Greek. The other languages would have included Aramaic, and Hebrew. The language they would speak, would depend on the audience they may be speaking to at any given time.This would give us a very good idea that the Apostles would have understood, and communicated in more than one language, and we have certain evidence of this fact.

First, we have certain evidence that Paul did indeed speak more than one language, because we have this recorded as being a fact. Moreover, we know it to be a fact, that Jews from all over the known world at the time, would have traveled to Jerusalem on holidays such as, "The Day of Pentecost", and we know that not all these folks would have spoken in the same language on a daily basis. Of course, this would not mean they would not be able to understand, or speak other languages, but rather they would have spoken a certain language which would have been common in their hometowns.

The historical evidence suggest, the overwhelming majority of the Jews who would have been there on, "The Day of Pentecost" would have spoken one, of two languages, which would have been, Greek, and, or, Aramaic, with most of these Jews being able to understand, and, or speak, Hebrew.

Moreover, we have it recorded to be a fact, that many of the Jews from all over the world at the time, on this particular "Day of Pentecost", believed the reports of the Apostles, and decided to remain in Jerusalem, instead of returning to their hometown, which is why we have it recorded that there were some of these early Christians who were selling their land, in order to support these Jews from other lands, and it would be also why we have it recorded that there were divisions among these Jews, as far as the distribution of the funds, which is exactly why we have it recorded that men such as Stephen, and Phillip would have been appointed.

The whole point here is, although these different Jews, would have communicated in different languages on a daily basis, the overwhelming majority would have been able to communicate, understand, and interpret in another language, and as we have already discovered, the overwhelming majority of Jews who would have been present there on this particular "Day of Pentecost" would have communicated on a daily basis in either Greek, or Aramaic, with most having the ability to understand Hebrew as well, with most, if not all being able to understand, and or communicate in all three.

But this is not the only evidence we have. Because you see, on this particular, "Day of Pentecost" how do you suppose the Apostles were able to communicate to all these different folks, if they would not have all shared some sort of common language? Of course, most folks will point to the fact that it is recorded that the Apostles began to speak in tongues, and are under the impression that this would mean they would have been speaking in languages they did not already understand, and speak themselves.

However, as we look at the list of these Jews who were recorded to have been there, and the list of their homelands, what we discover is the fact that the overwhelming majority of these folks would have spoken, in either, Greek, or Aramaic, with most, if not all being able to communicate in both, and as the evidence points out, this would have included the Apostles.

Because you see, after the Apostles were said to have been "speaking in tongues" there were those in the crowds who were accusing the Apostles of "having to much to drink". Now, can you imagine why these men would have been accused of drinking? In other words, how would drinking cause one to have the ability to speak in a language they did not already know? In my experience, when one has been drinking, it may cause them not to be able to speak clearly in the language they would have known all their life? I have never witnessed, and never even imagined that drinking would be able to give one the ability to speak in a language foreign to them?

But the evidence continues. Once the Apostles are said that have "spoken in tongues", and were accused of "having too much to drink" we are told that, "Peter stood up among the eleven" and began to address the crowd.

Now, how do you suppose the crowd would have been able to understand Peter? How many different languages do you suppose one person can speak at one time? This sort of demonstrates, the text itself from the author of this letter to Theophilus, is allowing us to understand that all these folks would have shared a common language, with most, if not all having the ability to communicate in more than one language.

So, what we have thus far is then, evidence that the Jews, including the Apostles, would have had the ability to communicate, and understand more than one language, and also evidence that the idea of "speaking in tongues" would have nothing to do with speaking in a language one would not already posses the ability to communicate in.

Now, I certainly can understand that it may be difficult for one to wrap their mind around all of this, when they are simply use to taking the word of others, without thinking for themselves. In other words, when they were a convinced Christian, they simply accepted the fact that "speaking in tongues" must, and had to be the ability to speak in a language one would not know, and then when they somehow become convinced that what they were once convinced of, there would now be no reason at all to believe it, they bring this faulty knowledge with them, and are under the impression that there was some sort of translation.

So then, as we turn our attention to Jesus, we have evidence which would indicate that he would have understood, and spoke more than one language, which would include, Greek, Aramaic, and Jesus would have certainly been fluent in Hebrew, and it would depend upon the audience at the time, which would dictate which language would be used.

As we couple this with the fact that the Gospels could have very well been written by those they have been attributed to, along with the fact that the Apostles would have been dealing with Jews from all over the world, and could have been, and more than likely were, communicating their message, over, and over, on a daily basis, in the Greek language with the authors of the Gospels either being involved in this communication, or being there overhearing this same communication over, and over, again, in that language, could very well explain the text which are verbatim, no copying required.

But hey! I get it. When one is use to taking the word of others, it seems to blind them to the other possibilities, and it is a lot of work to actually think through these things yourself, as opposed to allowing others to think for you, which seems to cause folks to then go on to be under the impression, their opinion is "required".

However, what I do not get is, although there may be evidence to suggest there may have been copying involved, this does not, and would not answer all the questions, which is exactly why your scholars must, and had to come up with the idea that there must, and had to have been another source which some of them must have had access to, which they have no idea what this other source may have been, nor any evidence that it ever existed, but we have those who for some reason seem sure that this must, and has to be the answer. But again, this answer has some serious holes in it, which those who simply take the word of the scholars, seem to be more than happy to ignore.

The whole point here again is, there are those who cannot in any way demonstrate what it is they claim to believe, but are somehow under the impression, that their opinion, of the opinion of others, not only is the best opinion, but is the opinion which is now "required", when they held this same sort of opinion, when they were convinced in a completely, and contradictory way, which goes on to demonstrate one who does not seem to have the ability to understand there may be other explanations which would indeed be possible.

In other words, I have been on this site for a good number of years now, with no one able to demonstrate what it is they happen to believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have as far as the resurrection is concerned, but somehow, someway, everyone's opinion is the best opinion, and now we have those who are claiming their opinion which they have not demonstrated in the least, is the "required" opinion. GOOD GRIEF!

A perennial favorite author of apologists, Sir William Ramsay, for example, was as you describe yourself.

I'm sorry, but I have never in my life ever heard of, "Sir William Ramsay".

He wasn't an inerrantist, but yet was still willing to read copious amounts of imagined detail into the biblical text in order to make a case for its overall trustworthiness.

Well, I am not concerned in the least in attempting "to make a case for the overall trustworthiness of the Biblical text". In other words, I am simply sticking to the facts, and evidence we have, and allowing those facts, and evidence to speak for themselves, not insisting that my opinion, must, and has to be the better opinion, and that it would be "required", because I understand that I cannot demonstrate my opinion to be fact, and allow others to use their own mind in order to the interpret the facts, as they see them. If one could demonstrate the case that their opinion would be required, there would be no more debate.

Next, how in the world would it be an "imagined detail" that we have two letters addressed to one by the name of, Theophilus? How would it be an imagine detail, that the author tells Theophilus that he had, "investigated everything from the beginning" concerning, "the things which have been accomplished among US"? How is it an imagined detail that this author begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events himself? How is it an imagined detail that this author only describes the actions of Paul when the journeys of Paul begin, and never mentions the other Apostles, until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again? How is it an imagined detail, this author just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest? How is it an imagined detail, that we have letters in which the author claims to be Paul, and in these letters mentions the name of other men who would have happen to be with him? How is it an imagined detail, that one of the names Paul happens to mention would be, Luke? How is it an imagined detail, that we have a letter addressed from one claiming to be Paul, to one by the name of Timothy, and in this letter this author just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me"?

I could continue on, and on, but as you can see, these things are not in any way, "imagined details" but are rather simply facts, listed as we have them. Now of course, you, and I, may have a different idea of what these facts, and evidence mean, but we surely cannot refer to these facts, and evidence, as "imagined details".

One of my favorite examples of this is how he somehow managed to turn two short sentences from Acts (12:13-14) into a 13-page chapter about the devotion of the slave girl Rhoda to Peter and Luke's meticulous attention to detail.

Again, since I have no idea who "Sir William Ramsay" would be, nor familiar with any of his works, I would have no way to comment on this.

Perhaps someone that already has a large emotional and social investment in Christianity?

If you will go back and notice, we were not talking about, "someone". Rather, we were talking about me. So exactly what kind of "large emotional and social investment in Christianity" would I have?

Next, what of those who were out to oppose Christianity, and somehow become Christians in the process? There are certainly a number of folks I could refer to here, but one who comes to mind would be, Rosaria Butterfield. You see, Miss Butterfield was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University. She was a lesbian, and had been in a lesbian relationship for years. She was also head of the LGBTQ at the university. Miss Butterfield, not only claimed to be afraid of Christians, she also claimed to be afraid of Christian ideas. She was in the process of writing a book on the "Rise of the Christian Right in America". At any rate, is was during this process, that she began to read, and study, which took a number of years, and it was during this long process that Miss Butterfield became convinced Christianity was indeed true, and she credits her education in language for coming to this conclusion.

Because of this conclusion, Miss Butterfield lost her job as professor at Syracuse, along with her life partner, and many life long friends. The question then is, what sort of, "large emotional and social investment in Christianity" would Miss Butterfield have had? It seems clear to me that she had everything to lose, and nothing whatsoever to gain.

Of course this would have nothing whatsoever to do with demonstrating Christianity to be true, but it does however demonstrate there are those who become convinced of it's truth, who have no "emotional, or social investment" in Christianity in the least, and in fact the exact opposite would be the case.

This should clearly demonstrate to all involved, that there are very well educated, and very intelligent folks on both sides of the equation, which is at least one of the reasons why I continue to talk, discuss, and debate the issue, not in order to convince others that my way is the "required" way, but rather to challenge my own thinking.

So then, while they are indeed many Christians who would be Christians because of the "emotional, and, or social investment" they may have, this would have nothing to do with determining the truth of the matter, and it would certainly not explain the many who were once opposed to Christianity, and were out to speak out against it, only to become convinced of it's truth, such as Miss Butterfield. It is not that this point of yours is a weak point, but rather it is no point at all, and it is surprising anyone would attempt to make it.

I can't tell if you didn't understand my statement or are just trying to dismiss a valid point out of hand. We're talking about the New Testament, but parts of the Old Testament show the same pattern we're discussing and the approach scholars take to them are illuminating here.

What I have done is to demonstrate you have no valid point at all. The OT, and the NT would have nothing to do with each other, and even if you, or your scholars, could demonstrate such a thing in the OT, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the NT.

I said,

As we can see, you have your mind so set on the idea that these men had to have copied each other...

To which you reply,

Based on the evidence we have, yes.

Well you see, I have no problem with this opinion of yours, but to suggest that your opinion, would be the best opinion, would simply be an opinion which you have not demonstrated, and to insist that your opinion would be the "required" opinion, would be a statement of fact, which would simply be false, unless you can demonstrate this to be the case, which you cannot.

The patterns we see aren't the ones you're describing, no matter how many times you repeat the claim.

Exactly what "patterns" am I describing? As far as I can see, I am simply giving the facts, exactly as we have them. If I have given any opinions of these facts, I surely have not insisted they must, and have to be correct, and would be "required". However, my opinion would have nothing to do with the facts, as we have them. In other words, you may not agree with my opinion, but you cannot deny the facts, as we have them.

I said,

My friend, this is not the first time I have heard this argument, and I understand it very well. You seem to be ignoring the fact that we have other evidence to support the idea that this author would have been present with Paul on these journeys.

To which you reply,

I haven't ignored what you're calling evidence, but instead told you why it's bad evidence. Those two aren't the same thing.

This is really funny! You have not in any way, "told me why it's bad evidence" because this would be demonstrating that it would be bad evidence. Rather, you have simply explain to us your opinion as to why you believe it to be, bad evidence.

As an example, it would be a fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus begins to us the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul. You have not in any way demonstrated this would be "bad evidence", but have rather pointed out that the scholars have uncovered a known literary device. This does not in any way demonstrate that this author was using this literary device, and even if your scholars could demonstrate that the author was using this device, this would still not demonstrate the author would not have traveled with Paul.

I said,

Because you see, we know for a fact that there would have been others along with Paul on his journeys, and we also know that Paul mentions some of these men to his audiences.

To which you reply,

[K]now for a fact" is pretty strong, but it's a reasonable inference, so I'll give it to you.

Of course it would be "reasonable" because no one would be under the impression that Paul would have traveled alone. But again, there is the fact that Paul mentions these folks who would have been with him. What would be unreasonable, is to think that Paul may have traveled all alone, and that he would have never mentioned any of his traveling companions in his letters. So then, I really do not see how you have given anything to me, since what you say you would "give me", would be a given anyway.

Not everyone Paul mentions was a travelling companion and Luke wasn't called such.

You would be correct that "not everyone Paul mentions was a travelling companion". However, there would be those who Paul mentions who would have been traveling companions. So then, allow us to look at the evidence concerning Luke, and see what we come up with?

Paul mentions the name of Luke sending greetings in his name in the letter to the Colossians, along with several other folks. This letter, would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest. Paul, also mentions Luke in his letter to Philemon. However, in this letter the name of Luke would be mentioned in the same sentence as the name of Mark, and they are referred to by Paul as, "my fellow workers". Sort of strange don't you think? I mean here we have 2 letters in which Paul mentions Luke as sending greetings, and in one of these letters Luke is mentioned as a "fellow worker", and we are to imagine that this Luke would have not been a traveling companion of Paul, but was somehow his "fellow worker"?

Then of course we have the letter to Timothy in which the author, (who claims to be Paul) just so happens to mention the fact that all these other folks have left, and, or deserted him, and, "only Luke is with me". When we couple these things with the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus, begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the travels of Paul, to the point of Paul arriving in Rome, and being placed under arrest, and ending his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, we have reason to believe that this Luke would have been a traveling companion of Paul, with also reason to believe that he would have been with Paul while under arrest for these 2 years, along with reason to believe this Luke would have been the author of the two letters to Theophilus, and these 2 years spent with Paul being under arrest, would have given this author the time to actually sit down to write out these two long, and detailed letters to Theophilus.

I would like you to notice that saying, "we have good reason to believe these things" is not the same as saying, "we can know these things". However, for one to insist that we would have no reason to believe that Luke would have been a traveling companion of Paul, and, or, that we have no reason to believe that this Luke would have been the author of the letters to Theophilus, would be to ignore all the facts, and evidence we have, in order to insist upon what one would rather believe.

You also haven't established any reason for thinking that Paul's Luke was the author of Luke/Acts that is independent of Paul's mention of him. The name of the evangelist was pulled out of Paul's letters and he's called a "travelling companion" because of Acts. Even if 2 Timothy was written by Paul, you're still making a circular argument.

As you can see, there is plenty of reason to believe the Luke, Paul mentions would have been the author of the letters to Theophilus. And again, there is a difference between there being reason to believe he would have been, as opposed to establishing this to be a fact. However, as already stated, one who would like to insist there would be no reasons to believe these things, demonstrates one who simply would rather believe one thing, as opposed to the other.

But, the real question I have is, what does it matter? In other words, why are you, and the scholars so opposed to the idea that the Luke, Paul mentions would have been a traveling companion of Paul? Why are you, and the scholars, so opposed to the idea, that this same Luke, may have been the author of the letters to Theophilus? And, WHY, OH WHY, are there so many, including the scholars, who have such a problem with the idea that this Theophilus, who was addressed in these letters, would have been one individual?

In other words, if we are so sure these reports would be false, then the reports would be false, no matter who these folks may have been, or who they may have been addressing. So then, why would it be so important to you, and the scholars to question these things, which we do have evidence to support?

Well, I think we all know why these things are so important, when they really shouldn't be in the least, if these reports are indeed false reports. It is because, if this Luke would have indeed traveled with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul was under arrest, and if this Luke was indeed with Paul for the 2 years of the arrest, as the evidence we have suggests, then we have pretty good evidence of the idea that this Luke would have indeed been the author of the letters to Theophilus, which would mean this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles along with the claims they were making from their very lips, and would have had every opportunity to "investigate everything carefully from the beginning", just as he assured Theophilus that he had.

But you see, none of this would even matter still, if we can determine all these reports to be false. However, here is why it matters. It matters because, your scholars have sold out on the idea that, all the Gospels would have been written decades after the events, by authors who would were only reporting what would have been past down to them, none of them being around to actually witness any of the things they report.

Because you see, the scholars have not in any way demonstrated, or established the fact that the Gospels would not have been authored by those they have been attributed to. Rather, they have simply cast doubt, and if there would be any reason to believe that the Luke which Paul mentioned, would be the actual author of the letters to Theophilus, then this whole idea of all the authors simply writing down what would have been past down to them through the years, comes crashing down. Because you see, the fact is, these scholars cannot determine the reports to be false, and they cannot determine the authors would not be those they are attributed to be, so all they can do is to cast doubt, and this doubt is in jeopardy, if there were evidence to support the idea that this Luke would have authored the letters to Theophilus. Otherwise, it would not matter, and the scholars could simply demonstrate the reports to be false, and settle the matter, but as it stands they do not have that option.

Okay, so why, oh why, are the scholars so upset about the idea that the author of the letters to Theophilus, would have been addressing one individual, so much so, they come up with the idea that the author may have been using the meaning of the name Theophilus, in order to address a wider audience? Why would this matter so much to the scholars? In other words, if these reports are so easily demonstrated to be false, and there is no evidence, or reason to believe them, then why would it matter so much as to whether this author would have been addressing one individual?

Well my friend, it is exactly because these reports are not so easily demonstrated to be false, and there would be facts, and evidence in support of the reports which leaves the scholars with only the option to cast some sort of doubt.

One of the ways in which these scholars attempt to cast doubt, would be to suggest that these authors would have all had agendas, and one of these agendas would have been to spread propaganda, in order to persuade the masses over to the belief system they were attempting to sell. But you see, if this author did in fact address one individual as the evidence suggests, and if the intent would have been out of concern for this one individual, "knowing the exact truth" as the author claims, then this clearly would not be good for the scholars, because they would not be able to accuse this author of attempting to spread propaganda, in order to persuade the masses.

But you see, the fact of the matter is, Theophilus would have been a common name at the time, on top of the fact, the author actually uses the words, "most excellent" in front of the name, giving us even more evidence it would have been an individual who was being addressed. Moreover, it is abundantly clear, that whoever is being addressed would have already been a believer, demonstrating even more this author had no attempt to spread his agenda to those who would not have already believed.

So then, as we look back, we have the scholars who suggest, (not demonstrate) this author may have been using the name Theophilus to address a wider audience. We have the scholars who suggest, (not demonstrate) this author may have used a literary device. We have the scholars who suggest, (not demonstrate) that Paul may not have authored the letter which would be 2nd Timothy, in which the author just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me". These scholars suggest all these things, (not demonstrate) because they clearly understand, and realize these things to be strong evidence against the doubt they are so desperately are attempting to cast.

We know from Paul's epistles that he was imprisoned, but you've yet to establish that Acts is independent of the epistles themselves. I don't think you can (I'm pretty sure the author of Acts did, indeed have access to Paul's epistles), but you're welcome to try.

I don't need to try my friend. Because you see, I am not insisting this author would not have had access to the letters of Paul. Rather, what I am insisting is, there would be reason to believe the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, and would have been the Luke which Paul referred to in his letters, and I have supplied this evidence.

What you are suggesting is, this author would have had a copy of Mark, a copy of the unknown source "Q", and also copies of at least some of the letters of Paul. The question is, what sort of evidence do we have to support these ideas? Because you see, I am wondering just how many copies would have been available at the time? I mean it is not like they had copying machines back then? Heck, they did not even have the printing press, and you would think that copies would be hard to come by, and yet you seem to have everyone, with the luxury of having their very own copy of all sorts of different materials, and a number of them have copies of the same material enough to actually copy from?

So again, I am not insisting the author of the letters to Theophilus would not have had copies of the letters of Paul, because I am open to the idea, but I would need some sort of evidence this would have been the case. As it is, I am not insisting that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, but am rather supplying the facts, and evidence in support of the case which would explain why this author would have known about the imprisonment of Paul, while you seem to asking me to simply assume the author would have had copies of Paul's letters with no evidence in support. So then, I do not think that it is me who "has to try" to demonstrate the author would not have had the letters of Paul, but rather you who would at least have to try to give some sort of evidence that he would have.

The pseudonymous author explicitly claims such, so OK.

You see here, you are making the definite statement that the author of this letter would have been a "pseudonymous author" when this has not been established in the least, which sort of demonstrates one who struggles in understanding the differences between facts, which have been demonstrated, as opposed to one's opinion of the facts, and evidence we have.

I said,

In this letter, the author just so happens to mention in passing several of the other men who had left, and or deserted him, and goes on to tell Timothy, "only Luke is with me". By the way, I am certain that a pseudonym author would have thought to mention such a thing, on top of thinking to write in such a way as to make it look as though he would be under arrest at the time of writing.

To which you reply,

Care to expand on your logic here? Paul mentions his acquaintances in his genuine epistles, so it would be an obvious point for a forger to emulate.

This is really hilarious! First, we have not established in any way whatsoever, that the author would have had access to the letters of Paul. I mean, let's think about this for just a moment. The letters which Paul would have authored while under arrest, would have had to have been written when Paul would have been well into age. The letter to Philemon, (which is agreed by most scholars to be an authentic Pauline letter) would have been penned somewhere around 60 A.D.

However, at this point, Philemon would be in possession of this letter, which would be the only one of it's kind. Since this was a personal letter to Philemon, which would have had nothing to do with anyone else, I cannot imagine why Philemon would have began to make copies of this letter. However, when, and if he would have made copies of this letter, it certainly would not have been in order for anyone, and everyone to have their very own copy of this personal letter.

The whole point here is, you have not in any way demonstrated that 2 Timothy would be a forgery, nor have you demonstrated that it would have even been a likely forgery. Moreover, you have not in any way demonstrated the author of this alleged forgery would have had access to the letters you refer to, nor that it would even be likely, because as we know, copying letters at this time would have been a painstaking process, and not everyone would have had the luxury of having their very own copies of anything at all, much less personal letters addressed to another.

In fact, more than likely no one would have their very own copy of such writings, but it would rather more than likely be the Church in the community who may have a copy. Because you see, it was not until the invention of the printing press which would have been some 1000 years later, that folks could have the luxury of having their very own copies of any sort of Scripture, and you would have us believe that we have numerous folks back in the day, who would have all had copies of numerous different materials?

At any rate, Paul would have wrote these letters in the 60's. Polycarp would have been born in the late 60's, and by 110 Polycarp is quoting from 2 Timothy which demonstrates the author would not have had much time in order to get this forgery into circulation under the name of Paul, especially after the death of Paul.

The bottom line here is, we certainly have evidence this letter would have indeed been authored by Paul. What we need from you is, some sort of evidence that this author would not have been Paul, other than, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it". Next, we have the facts, and evidence which would allow us to understand that copies in those days would have been hard to come by, and not everyone would have had the luxury of having their very own copy of anything at all. What we now need from you is, some sort of evidence, that the Gospel writers would have had numerous copies of the same materials, long enough to actually all copy from, and also evidence the one who may have forged 2 Timothy having a copy of the letters of Paul.

The only other epistle that mentions Luke is Philemon

Not exactly! Actually there a 3 letters bearing the name of Paul which mention the name of Luke as sending greetings. These would be, 2 Timothy, Philemon, and Colossians.

Philemon also happens to mention both Mark and Timothy.

I think you are missing something here. This letter also mentions Aristarchus, and Demas, along with Mark, and Luke, and refers to them all as, "fellow workers". Now, as we couple these things with the fact that, the author of the letters to Theophilus begins to use the words, "we", and "us", when describing the events of the travels of Paul, up until Paul would be under arrest, and ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest, with the fact that this author begins to report upon only the actions of Paul, and does not report on the other Apostles until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again, with also it being a fact that we a letter which bears the name of Paul who just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me", then we have pretty good evidence that the author of these letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul.

Next, as I said the letter to Philemon also mentions one by the name of Demas. This name "Demas" just so happens to be mentioned along with the name of Luke in the letter to the Collosians, which certainly gives us evidence that both Luke, and Demas would have been with Paul. However, when we get to 2 Timothy, this forger of yours, not only mentions this same, Demas, he also happens to mention that this one had "deserted" him.

So........? We are to think this author years after the death of Paul, who somehow has copies of the letters of Paul, mentions the name of some of the same folks who Paul may have mentioned, and just so happens out of nowhere to decide to say, "this Demas who I have mentioned in the past, "because of his love for the world, has deserted me"? I mean, you believe this stuff? Upon what evidence? Because the scholars say so?

The details you describe are exactly the ones we would expect to see if a forger were attempting to emulate the style of Philemon.

Sure? In that this author just so happens to claim all the rest, including Demas, would have deserted him, and "only Luke is with me" which just so happens to be evidence that this Luke would have traveled with Paul, and been the author of the letters to Theophilus, when all the author would have had to do would be to mention the name of Demas, just as he was mentioned in the other letters.

Because the goal of the author of Acts is to reconcile an Asian, Pauline Christianity with a Jewish, Petrine sect. We first have an introduction to the 11/12 Apostles, then the establishment of Paul's orthodoxy, then the the two formerly independent groups come together in a big Paul/Peter lovefest.

This is simply an opinion, with no evidence in support, while the fact that the author would not mention the other Apostles during the travels of Paul, until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them, would indeed be evidence the author was along with Paul.

Or he has enough literary education and experience to write a good story.

Right? So, we are to think, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, claiming that it would be out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth" and he does so simply in order to write a "good story" to this individual? Nice work!

All the evidence you've presented has another, better explanation.

This is simply an opinion, which cannot be demonstrated in the least! Sure? It is a better explanation that this author sits down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, in order to simply write a "good story".

The parallels with other ancient literature using "we" constructions during introductions and sea voyages specifically make it probable.

I'm not thinking you truly understand what "probability" means. Because, I will assure you this would have nothing whatsoever to do with making it be, "probable". This does not even make it "probable" that the author was using the literary device". It surely does not make it "probable" that the author would not have traveled with Paul.

But, you're right, we can't prove Luke wasn't there. That leaves you with pure speculation, though.

No! I'm a thinking I have supplied some very good evidence to support the idea the author would have been with Paul. So then, what evidence do we have which would suggest that he would not have been. And allow me to assure you that this literary device would not qualify.

But neither does it demonstrate that he was and that's the argument you are (or at least were) making.

No! I'm afraid not. I have simply made the argument that we have evidence to support the idea that this author would have been with Paul, which is not the same as insisting that he would have been.

I said,

Now of course, you may have facts, and evidence in support of your take on these facts, and evidence, but the point is, neither you, nor I can demonstrate our case as being correct.

To which you reply,

So, you're back to arguing that all possible things are equally probable.

Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding probabilities. It has nothing to do with the "probabilities", but everything to do with the facts, and evidence we have.

Your argument is that the scholars are in cahoots to discredit the Bible. Did I summarize that accurately?

Well, let's think about what you say here for just a moment. You, and the scholars seem to be arguing that the writers contained in the Bible would have all had some sort of agenda, and would have had very little concern with the truth, and you all, go to great extents in order to attempt to make the case.

A few examples of this would be, the author of the letters to Theophilus, using the meaning of the name Theophilus, in order to address a wider audience. The idea this author would have simply intended to write out a "good story". The idea that the Gospel writers would have copied each other, only attempting to get their version, and, or spin, on the story. The idea that the author of 2 Timothy would have used the name of Paul in order to get a message out there. The idea that when one of the Biblical authors claims, "for we did not follow cleverly devised fables, but were eyewitnesses" this author was either lying, or, this was another author using the name of an Apostle, and says these things in order to deceive.

These would just be a few of the examples in which you all seem to be insisting that all these men, must, and had to have some sort of an agenda, and were not concerned with communicating the truth all that much.

Now, I am not insisting that this would not be the case, and that it would not be possible for these men to have an agenda. Rather, I happen to acknowledge this as a possibility, and look for evidence which may suggest such a thing, because I understand that all of us as humans can be guilty.

With this being the case, I also acknowledge that it very well could be the scholars who have an agenda. Because you see, if these scholars have sold out to these ideas, they can, and just may, do whatever they can in order to defend the stance they now hold. In other words, there very well could be scholars who despise Christianity, and what it stands for, and will do whatever they can to discredit it.

So then, is it only these Biblical writers who you suspect of having an agenda, and in your mind this would not be a possibility for the scholars? Is it only the scholars you happen to agree with who would not possibly have an agenda, and those who happen to be opposed to the consensus who would have an agenda?

I have to tell you, if this is the case, it would not be shocking to me at all. As an example, just take a look at the "likes" here on this site. I think what you will find is, the overwhelming majority of "likes" given on this site, will be from those who would already agree with the points being made, which sort of makes my point.

In the end, what we have seen is that you have certain opinions, and these opinions rely heavily upon the opinion of the scholars, which have in no way been demonstrated to be fact. You then go on to insist, that your opinion, would be the better opinion, which again is simply an opinion. You then want to bring the "probabilities" into the equation, as if "probabilities" would have anything at all to do with what the truth may be. The fact of the matter would be, the only place in which your opinions, would be the better opinion, would be in your own mind.

On the other hand, I acknowledge all the possibilities, and tend to stick to the facts, and evidence we have, very rarely sharing an opinion, and when I do, I do not insist that my opinion would be the better opinion, nor that my opinion would be required.

It seems sort of strange, how one can be so convinced one way, and be so certain they are correct, to only change their mind, and be just as certain they were incorrect at one time, about being so certain they were correct?