A Free One for the Apologists

[Jagella]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 60 by Realworldjack]

Luke, along with the other Gospel writers, would not have known what "A" Gospel was. Of course they knew what "THE" Gospel was. As already demonstrated, these authors did not call their writings "Gospels." This was done much later, along with the fact that they did not title their writings, nor did they break them up into chapter and verse.

I was not aware that we were arguing what the Gospel writers called their stories. I'm arguing that they were addressing as many people as they could muster.

Luke, set out to write a letter...

I agree that he addressed his letter to Theophilus, but you have the burden of proving that he meant his work to be read by Theophilus only.

These are the facts, and to claim that others must have been intended, is to place something in the authors intent that is not there.

How do you know what was in "there"? We really don't know what the author of Luke intended regarding the size of his readership. He doesn't say, but I've posted the reasons I think that he meant his work for a large audience.

The word "probably" here sticks out like a sore thumb! Where is the evidence to suggest such a thing?

You'll need to go back and read the reasons I already posted that convince me that Luke was meant for more than one person.

We also have pretty strong evidence that the writer was indeed Luke. So to say his writings may have been, "open letters" would be to make an assumption, with no evidence whatsoever, and it would also be going outside what the author actually says himself.

If you disallow assumptions, then we would need to disallow your assumption that because Luke is addressed to one person, then it was meant for one person only. Your logic disproves your own argument.

Well then, thanks to you, we can all know that we cannot listen to what the author claims his intentions were.

You assume you know those intentions. Sorry, but you just disallowed assumptions!

If this is the case, then why would Luke not write exactly the way in which the other Gospel writers did, by not addressing anyone at all?

Jack, you're doing my work for me. The Gospel of Luke is written in a very similar way to Mark and Matthew. In fact, these three Gospels are called "the synoptic gospels" because they are so similar. I always did think it was odd that Luke is addressed to a person like a letter is. Aside from that, Luke is written as a gospel.

What evidence do you have that this was the intention of Luke when he wrote?

Luke includes many of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. These doctrines are intended for all people to know in the hope that some will be converted. It would then be important for Luke, a Christian, to make sure as many people as possible know those doctrines.

Then why would Luke not address his writing to the world?

He didn't need to.

Where did you come up with the idea that Luke is only meant for Theophilus? Did you come up with that idea yourself, or did you read it somewhere?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

So you are saying that the contents of the N.T. were never meant to circulate? And so, the fact that they did circulate went against the intention of the authors?

Let's consider the fact that the corpus of the N.T. DID circulate. Why? Is one plausible explanation that they were intended to, because they were written to circulate?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 57 by Realworldjack]

Many scholars disagree with the assumption that the gospels were intended to be private. They argue that public writings were not infrequently 'addressed' to a patron, someone sponsoring the work, or requesting it.

Did Paul himself not ask that his letters be exchanged?

I am not sure what RWJ's ultimate argument is, but it is most certainly the case that the authors of the gospels were not writing personal letters. They were 'bios', and as such intended for circulation. Hence they circulated, and quite speedily.

Many scholars disagree with the assumption that the gospels were intended to be private.

OH, WELL, GOOD GRIEF! I did not realize that this is what the "scholars" say? If this is the case, then it most certainly has to be correct, now doesn't it? I mean, certainly the "scholars" could not be wrong! And there is no way that any of them would have some sort of bias. Therefore, what they say, certainly beyond doubt would have to be the case, and without question! I am usually not the type of person who simply takes the word of others, but if it is the "scholars", then by all means, it must, and has to be true.

Meanwhile back in the "real world" there is some problems with the "scholars" conclusions.

First, I have never suggested, "that the gospels were intended to be private." You see, we would have no way to know the intentions of Matthew, Mark, or John, because they never address anyone, nor do they give the reasons for their writing.

Therefore, it would be presumptuous on my part, to simply assume they were meant to be private, and I do not. However, it would also be presumptuous on the part of the "scholars" to suggest that it was meant for many to read, because in reality we have no way to know.

On the other hand, when we turn our attention to Luke, none of us has to assume anything at all, now do we? Here is what the author says, right from the beginning,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

He says plainly, "write it out for YOU, most excellent Theophilus so that YOU, (not you, and others) may know the exact truth about the things, YOU have been taught. So then, I am not assuming anything at all, other than it should be read just the way in which it was written. It is you, the "scholars" and others who assume that it should not be read just the way it is written.

Did Paul himself not ask that his letters be exchanged?

The only letters I know of that Paul asked to be exchanged would be the letter to the Colossians, and Laodiceans. In Colossians 4, beginning in verse 16 Paul says,

When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

It would be a mighty big leap to suggest that Paul meant all his letters to circulate among all the Churches, simply because he made this request among these two Churches, and the evidence is against it.

First off, as you can see from this passage, there are letters that Paul wrote that we do not have. More than likely there were many more letters written by Paul that we do not have, because just as we know he wrote to the Laodideans, and we do not have this letter, we also know that Paul wrote 3 letters to the Corinthians, and we do not posses one of these letters. This should clearly demonstrate that Paul, nor Luke were writing letters that they wanted, or intended to be read by all Christians throughout all time. This was not on their minds as they wrote.

The reason you, and many others want to insist that Luke was addressing a wider audience than Theophilus, is because you realize, if Luke was simply writing to a friend, then this certainly lends more credence to the claims, and you cannot simply call what he wrote, "religious propaganda." However, in order to do this, you must force something into the letter that is not there, while ignoring what the author actually says, which is the exact opposite of what you are attempting to insert.

I am not sure what RWJ's ultimate argument is

It is that, Luke, and Paul had only the audience they were addressing at the time in mind, and would have had no idea that there would be those of us thousands of years later who would be reading what they wrote, and they certainly had no idea that what they wrote would one day end up in what we now call the Bible.

As far as the other Gospel writers, we have no way to know who their intended audience was, how many folks were being addressed, nor the reason for their writing. With this being the case, I do not assume anything at all concerning these things, rather I simply read what they wrote. One thing is for certain though, and that is that these other Gospel writers, along with Luke, and Paul, would have had no idea, of the Bible.

However, you certainly seem to, and the "scholars" absolutely do, assume the intentions of these authors. Not only is there assumptions concerning the intentions of the other Gospel writers, when they never state an intention, nor an intended audience, there is the assumption that, even though Luke, and Paul state their intentions, along with their intended audience, that this could not have possibly been the case, and they certainly must have had a wider audience in mind.

My question now is, who is doing the assuming here? It ain't me! And here is a great example.

but it is most certainly the case that the authors of the gospels were not writing personal letters.

Well, lets deal with the facts we have. Matthew, Mark, and John, never state a purpose, nor do they identify an audience. With this being the case, if there are those who claim these writings were personal letters, then they would have to be assuming because there is not evidence in the letters themselves to suggest such a thing.

On the other hand, if there are those who claim, "it is most certainly the case that the authors of the gospels were not writing personal letters" then they "most certainly" would have to be assuming this, because there really is no way to know who the intended audience was.

However, when we turn our attention to Luke (who never claimed to write a Gospel, and would have had no idea what a Gospel was) he, not only identifies his audience, he tells the reason he is writing, and also the way in which he received his information.

So then, for one to claim, "it is most certainly the case that the author of Luke was not writing personal letters", this person would not only have to be assuming, they would also have to be assuming the author did not mean what he actually wrote.

They were 'bios', and as such intended for circulation.

So, are you suggesting that if I were to write a letter to a friend, and in this letter I begin to tell this friend of another long lost friend, along with all the things we had done together, and all of the great, and wonderful things he had done, that this would absolutely have to be a "bio", and it could not have possibly been intended for one person, and that I absolutely must have intended that it circulate?

There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that Luke intended his letters to circulate. However, there is indeed evidence that his intended audience was someone by the name of Theophilus.

You are attempting to force upon the letters of Luke, what it is you would like to believe, and you are also attempting to force what you would like to believe upon others. But the fact remains, Luke only addressed one person. The only thing that I am assuming is, that the author actually meant what he said, while you are assuming that this could not be possible, and the only reason seems to be, because he wrote about the life of someone, and no one would do such a thing, unless they intended their writing to circulate. That does not in any way, add up!

Again, the only reason you are attempting to force this upon the author, is because you realize that if the author only intended one person, then he cannot be accused of "religious propaganda" because he was only intending one person.

The only other reason would be, is because this writing is contained in the Bible, and your mind is bondage to what you have been told concerning the things contained in the Bible, that it is what God intended for us to read.

However, the author of Luke actually tells us how he received his information, and he claims it was through "careful investigation of everything from the beginning", on top of the fact, in his second letter he actually begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, as if he is actually there to witness the events.

So this is the way in which the author claims to have obtained his information, and notice carefully that he never mentions God at all. In other words, he never says he received any of his information from God, nor does he claim to have been inspired in any way to write. Rather, the way in which he claims to have come across this information would all be natural, and he never mentions the supernatural, when describing the way in which he received this information.

So then, for those to claim that this author was writing what God would have him to write, or that he was inspired by God to write, would be to absolutely go against what the author actually has to tell, Theophilus.

Since the author never claims to have received his information from God, and he never claims to have been inspired, this is evidence that he did not believe that what he wrote was something that all should read, and that he rather had only Theophilus in mind as he wrote.

In other words, this author tells Theophilus that he had "carefully investigated everything form the beginning" so that Theophilus could be "certain of the things he had been taught." More than likely, Theophilus would have known the author very well, and would think that he could have confidence in the author, and the author knew that Theophilus would have confidence in what he wrote.

If the author meant for others to be included, then it would have been pointless to say these things, because we do not know the author, and would have no idea if we could have confidence in him, or not. This is simply more evidence to suggest that this letter was intended for Theophilus, and him alone.

So then, as we can see, it is very easy to throw out these dogmatic statements without any facts to back them up. It is quite another to actually know what one is talking about.

It is also quite easy to throw out the opinion of the "scholars" as if this proved anything at all. However, there are those of us who would rather not simply take the word of others, such as the "scholars" and would rather investigate the evidence ourselves, when, and if we can.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 63 by Realworldjack]

He says plainly, "write it out for YOU, most excellent Theophilus so that YOU, (not you, and others) may know the exact truth about the things, YOU have been taught. So then, I am not assuming anything at all, other than it should be read just the way in which it was written. It is you, the "scholars" and others who assume that it should not be read just the way it is written.

Jack, I did some research on Luke. Here's what Edward P. Blair's The Illustrated Bible Handbook has to say on pages 252-253:

Theophilus, meaning 'friend (or beloved) of God,' was a proper name borne by both Greeks and Jews of the period. It is probably not meant to be understood here as meaning any reader beloved of God into whose hands the two-volume work might come. ...
...Apparently Luke, according to the custom of the time, expected Theophilus, as the addressee, to see to the distribution of the book.

The mistake in your reasoning is that you assumed that since Luke is addressed to Theophilus, then Luke was meant only for Theophilus. But you are not considering the customs of the place and time that Luke was written. As Blair explains, it was customary for the addressee, in this case Theophilus, to see to the distribution of the book to others so others could read it.

I hope this post clears up the issue for all of us.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 63 by Realworldjack]

He says plainly, "write it out for YOU, most excellent Theophilus so that YOU, (not you, and others) may know the exact truth about the things, YOU have been taught. So then, I am not assuming anything at all, other than it should be read just the way in which it was written. It is you, the "scholars" and others who assume that it should not be read just the way it is written.

Jack, I did some research on Luke. Here's what Edward P. Blair's The Illustrated Bible Handbook has to say on pages 252-253:

Theophilus, meaning 'friend (or beloved) of God,' was a proper name borne by both Greeks and Jews of the period. It is probably not meant to be understood here as meaning any reader beloved of God into whose hands the two-volume work might come. ...
...Apparently Luke, according to the custom of the time, expected Theophilus, as the addressee, to see to the distribution of the book.

The mistake in your reasoning is that you assumed that since Luke is addressed to Theophilus, then Luke was meant only for Theophilus. But you are not considering the customs of the place and time that Luke was written. As Blair explains, it was customary for the addressee, in this case Theophilus, to see to the distribution of the book to others so others could read it.

I hope this post clears up the issue for all of us.

I hope this post clears up the issue for all of us.

I am afraid it does not, though I am sure you wish that it did.

Jack, I did some research on Luke. Here's what Edward P. Blair's The Illustrated Bible Handbook has to say on pages 252-253:

I am quite aware of what the "scholars" have to say, and also the reasons behind why they want this to be the case, but there are some major problems with these theories.

First off, they are exactly that! They are theories and not facts. In other words, the "scholars" that have put these theories out there have not demonstrated these theories to be the actual case.

Next, you do realize that many proper names carry a meaning, right? So what would this prove? Absolutely nothing other than these folks are grasping at straws in order to make Luke's audience bigger than he identifies.

As an example let us consider my name which is, Jack. Actually the Hebrew meaning for Jack is, "Yahweh is gracious." So then now, are we going to assume that any letter addressed to a Jack could be meant for all those who may consider "Yahweh is gracious?" Certainly not! So then, why do we want to do this with a letter addressed to, Theophilus? Well, because there is an agenda.

In other words, when there are those who want to believe a certain way, they will come up with all types of strange reasons to support what it is they would rather believe, in spite of the evidence against it, and there is strong evidence against these theories.

Luke does not simply address Theophilus. Rather, Theophilus is addressed as, "most excellent." This certainly, and strongly suggests one individual. In fact, this very same author in question, claims that Paul actually addressed the Governor Felix in this way at his trial. Paul addressed him as, "most excellent Felix."

However, even if we were to concede that what the "scholars" say is a possibility, this still would not demonstrate that the letter was intended for a wide audience. You see, when the author gives his reasons for writing, he states,

so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

With this being the case, the audience that is addressed could have only been those at the time. In other words, it is addressed to those, who had already been taught.

You see, if this letter were meant for a wider audience, then this statement would be pointless, because the author would not have known who would read it, or if they had been taught anything at all.

Again, the author addresses, one who has been taught, and expresses knowledge of the fact that they had been taught. This would absolutely rule out anyone else outside of these bounds being addressed, and the overwhelming evidence is, that it is one individual that had been taught, which was Theophilus!

The mistake in your reasoning is that you assumed that since Luke is addressed to Theophilus, then Luke was meant only for Theophilus.

Oh really? Well, am I making the same mistake with the letter that Paul wrote to, Philemon? Was there others intended other than, Philemon? What about the letters Paul wrote to Timothy, and Titus? Did Paul have a wider audience in mind when he wrote these letters?

The evidence is abundantly clear that Paul only had these men in mind when he wrote these letters. But for some reason, Luke could not possibly have had only one person in mind as he wrote, even though he only addressed one person.

So listen, you can go ahead a take the word of others such as the "scholars" if you like, but please do not expect others to simply accept what they have to say, especially when the evidence is against it.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 65 by Realworldjack]

In other words, when there are those who want to believe a certain way, they will come up with all types of strange reasons to support what it is they would rather believe, in spite of the evidence against it, and there is strong evidence against these theories.

Yes, I have noticed that.

Unfortunately, the writers of the New Testament are not here to tell us exactly who they were writing to or who their intended audiences were. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they were just engaging in chit chat between two friends. I think that view is very unlikely based on what they wrote. These writers were evangelists who were out to convert anybody they could to their religion. If they went to all the time and expense of writing what they did, then it makes little sense that their writings were merely private correspondence.

I agree that scholars don't have the last word, and amateurs like you and I might get something right that they get wrong. I try to think for myself and decide if those scholars are right. In the case of the intended audience of the New Testament, I must agree with scholars that the intended audience was as many as possible.

And--I guess that's all I can say on this issue.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 65 by Realworldjack]

In other words, when there are those who want to believe a certain way, they will come up with all types of strange reasons to support what it is they would rather believe, in spite of the evidence against it, and there is strong evidence against these theories.

Yes, I have noticed that.

Unfortunately, the writers of the New Testament are not here to tell us exactly who they were writing to or who their intended audiences were. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they were just engaging in chit chat between two friends. I think that view is very unlikely based on what they wrote. These writers were evangelists who were out to convert anybody they could to their religion. If they went to all the time and expense of writing what they did, then it makes little sense that their writings were merely private correspondence.

I agree that scholars don't have the last word, and amateurs like you and I might get something right that they get wrong. I try to think for myself and decide if those scholars are right. In the case of the intended audience of the New Testament, I must agree with scholars that the intended audience was as many as possible.

And--I guess that's all I can say on this issue.

Unfortunately, the writers of the New Testament are not here to tell us exactly who they were writing to or who their intended audiences were.

You are correct to say, "the writers of the New Testament are not here", however many of them, if not most, tell us exactly who they were writing to, and who their intended audience was at the time of writing.

Take for example the letters of Paul. All of his letters are addressed to, either a particular Church, or a particular individual. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul is addressing major concerns inside this particular Church.

At one point, Paul begins to scold the Corinthians because there was one member who had taken his father's wife. Paul goes on to tell the Church, they "should expel such a member from their midst." Well, I was not there, I was not a member of that particular Church, and as far as I know, I have never been a member of a Church where such a thing has been done. So how would this apply to me, or anyone else who was not a member of this Church? It would not!

This should clearly demonstrate the Corinthian Church is the only audience Paul had in mind as he wrote this letter, which is exactly the Church he addressed at the beginning.

Next, in some of Paul's letters, he actually makes personal request such as when he asked Timothy to, "bring my cloak when you come", and "come to me quickly." So how would this apply to anyone other than Timothy, which is the one he addressed? It could not possibly, which demonstrates again that Paul only had Timothy in mind when he wrote this letter.

On top of this, in some of his letters he asks the audience to send greetings to certain people. If Paul intended many to read his letters, this would make no sense at all, and again this clearly, and beyond doubt demonstrates that Paul only had his intended audience in mind when he wrote.

Now you can go ahead and believe as you wish in spite of the evidence to the contrary. As I said, "there are those who will continue to believe, what they want to believe in spite of the evidence."

Now, as we turn our attention to the "Gospel" writers, (who never intended to write "a Gospel" because the term, "a Gospel" had not even been coined as of yet) what we see is, there is no way to know who, Matthew, Mark, or John, had in mind as they wrote, because they never address, nor identify their audience.

This could mean they were attempting to write for a wide audience, and as many people as possible were intended. However, for one to claim this to be the case, it would absolutely have to be based upon assumptions.

However, it could also be the case that there were folks who were requesting that these men write out an account for them, and since these folks requested such a thing, the author may have saw no need at all in addressing those he was writing to, since they would have known that the author was simply responding to their request.

What I have just said above is certainly a possibility, but for someone to claim such a thing, it would also have to be based upon assumption as well. If the above is the case, then what was written would have been intended for that particular audience, and the author could not be accused of propaganda.

But again, this would have to be an assumption, and since I do not like to assume, I do not assume anything at all when I read, Matthew, Mark, or John. Rather, I simply attempt to read what they wrote, not concerning myself with who the intended audience may have been, since there is no way to know.

However, you certainly seem to claim to know, that they could not have possibly had only one audience in mind. My question is, how would you know this, since no one is addressed? How would one know that Matthew, Mark, and John, intended "as many people as possible?" This may be a possibility, but it certainly is not a known fact.

In fact, we do know that at the beginning of the Christian movement, all thought including the Apostles, that the message of Christ was only meant for the Jewish people. With this being the case, anything they would have said, would have been confined to the Jewish people.

At any rate, as we now turn our attention to Luke, we do not have to guess. wonder, nor assume who the author was addressing, because he tells us plainly from the beginning who he is addressing, and it would take a lot of assuming, and twisting of the facts to claim to know that Luke had a wider audience in mind.

This author could have done exactly like the other three, and addressed no one at all, or he could have went on to address all those that were intended, but like Paul, Luke does address someone, and as the evidence shows, Luke had this audience in mind as he wrote.

To insist that the author could not have possibly had one person in mind, is to demonstrate that one wants to continue to believe as they wish. More than likely this is the case, because it would help to support a certain agenda.

So, who is dealing with the facts? I do not claim to know who Matthew, Mark, or John were addressing, because they do not tell us. However, you claim that it was, as many people as possible. Luke tells us who he is addressing, and it is your claim "this is more than likely not the case."

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they were just engaging in chit chat between two friends.

No one has said a word at all about, "chit chat." These tactics are really comical! But lets think about this.

In the job that I have, I must send, and receive e-mails continuously. I assure you that it does not involve "chit chat." Rather, it is a way for all of us involved to get the information to others that need to know the information. If there would be those hundreds of years later, that were to read these e-mails, these e-mails would be evidence that I did indeed exist, and it would also "tell the tale" of what I did. One could more than likely learn a lot through reading such e-mails.

Now, as we turn our attention to the Biblical writers, they did not posses things such as, e-mail, cell phones, and the like. Rather, if they had information that they needed to get to another person that they were away from, they had to depend upon letters.

So then, these letters do not contain, "chit chat", rather they contain information that one person believed another person at the time, needed to know. Or like Paul, he may have been in one city, and hear of concerns of a Church in another city, and he would have to depend on letters, in order to address these concerns.

It is not as though Paul sat down and said, "well, it is about time I write a letter to the Corinthian Church," and then went on to ask himself, "what can I write to this Church, that would be good for all to read, through out all times?" This is not how it happened, and the evidence is clear.

Rather, the evidence is clear, that Paul must have heard of things going on in this Church, and sat down to address these issues, with that Church, through letter since that is the only option he had.

I think that view is very unlikely based on what they wrote.

The only thing that is "unlikely" is, they were not involved in "chit chat" but were rather involved with different concerns at the time, which is clearly the evidence, and explains clearly what they wrote.

These writers were evangelists who were out to convert anybody they could to their religion. If they went to all the time and expense of writing what they did, then it makes little sense that their writings were merely private correspondence.

Claiming, that these men "were out to convert anybody they could to their religion" is not exactly accurate, but I am sure that this is another example of what you would like to believe. At any rate, with that aside, even if they "were out to convert anybody they could to their religion" this would in no way mean that they did not have to converse, and exchange information among each other, and that they intended everything they wrote, and said to be read by all.

You do understand that there are evangelists today, and they write books, preach, and hold conventions, but this does not mean that behind the scenes, that every letter they write, every e-mail they send, every phone call they make, is intended for all.

Since this is the case, then why would we believe that everything that the Biblical writers wrote down, had to be intended for all?

Now we could go through all the letters in the NT, but a good and easy example of what I am talking about is the letter Paul wrote to Philemon. This is clearly a personal letter, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with me, nor anyone else besides, Philemon. So then, it does make sense that some of what they wrote would be "private correspondence."

And--I guess that's all I can say on this issue.

That is more than likely a wise decision on your part at this point, because your evidence is lacking!

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 67 by Realworldjack]

Again, if you're so sure that you're right, then try to get your idea peer-reviewed by specialists in the field of New Testament studies. Such specialists are probably much better equipped to judge your idea than anonymous people in an online forum. It is a novel idea that I never before considered. If the writers of the New Testament meant their work for only certain individuals, then it is very surprising that those writings have been so effective in converting enormous numbers of individuals. I composed and sent an email to a person earlier today. I meant the email for her only. What a surprise it would be if in the future that email would be read by millions of people!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 67 by Realworldjack]

Again, if you're so sure that you're right, then try to get your idea peer-reviewed by specialists in the field of New Testament studies. Such specialists are probably much better equipped to judge your idea than anonymous people in an online forum. It is a novel idea that I never before considered. If the writers of the New Testament meant their work for only certain individuals, then it is very surprising that those writings have been so effective in converting enormous numbers of individuals. I composed and sent an email to a person earlier today. I meant the email for her only. What a surprise it would be if in the future that email would be read by millions of people!

Again, if you're so sure that you're right, then try to get your idea peer-reviewed by specialists in the field of New Testament studies. Such specialists are probably much better equipped to judge your idea than anonymous people in an online forum. It is a novel idea that I never before considered.

I highly doubt that my work would even be considered, on top of the fact I would not be interested. However, what I can do is, join in here on this site, where there are those who may consider what it is I have to say, and point out those whose commits are not based upon the facts.

I composed and sent an email to a person earlier today. I meant the email for her only. What a surprise it would be if in the future that email would be read by millions of people!

This may not be as surprising as you think. Lets think about this as we look at what you say earlier.

If the writers of the New Testament meant their work for only certain individuals, then it is very surprising that those writings have been so effective in converting enormous numbers of individuals.

First here, I would like to point out that we are not really talking about how these writings may have been used by others. In other words, we are not concerned with how others may have used these writings in order to convert someone to the faith. Rather, our concern at this point is, what, and who were on the minds of the authors as they wrote? What were their intentions?

Well, as we look at Matthew, Mark, and John, all any of us can do is assume. However, when we take a look at Luke, we do not have to assume at all, because the author tells of his intentions, and he never claims he is attempting to convert anyone at all!

In fact, the person he is writing to, certainly must have already been a believer, since the stated intention was to allow the audience to be, "certain of the things he had already been taught."

With this being the case, we can say with confidence that the author was not intending that his writing convert anyone, no matter how anyone else may have used his writings. So then, if we can be confident that this author did not have converting anyone in mind, then it would be very possible that, Matthew, Mark, and John, were writing to those who were already believers, and had those folks in mind as they wrote, which would demonstrate as well that they had no intention of their writings converting anyone, no matter how it may have been used later by others.

Now, as we look at the letters of Paul, all of his letters were addressed to those who were already believers, therefore he could not have had converting anyone in mind as he wrote, no matter how others may have used his writings later on.

It is not uncommon at all, for there to be those who write with one intention one their mind, and then later on there are those who use their writings in a way they never intended, and it would be legitimate.

Lets take for example the letters written between, Caesar and Cicero. When these two men wrote these letters, they only had each other in mind, and never intended that these letters be used by us today, in order to better understand the history of that time. But this is exactly what has been done.

With this being the case, it is very possible, and in most cases concerning the NT writers it is very clear, that these men had only one audience in mind as they wrote, but this does not mean that we cannot use what they wrote to understand better the things going on at the time, and it is also evidence that these men did indeed exist, along with how they may have lived out their lives, even though they never intended this to be the case.

So then, as we can clearly see, this sort of thing is not uncommon at all. In other words, it is not uncommon for someone to have one audience in mind, with one purpose in mind, only to have those later use their writings in different ways than they had intended, or could have even imagined.

Allow me to give you a real life example. I wrote a letter to a particular pastor in the denomination I was a member of at the time, concerning some theological matters. This letter was triggered by some concerns I had with some of the things I had heard this pastor say.

Since this letter concerned theological matters, and I had to go through many different Biblical references, this letter became very lengthy, to the point, it would compare in length to some of the letters in the NT.

The point here is, I only had this one pastor in mind as I wrote this letter, and I only had these theological concerns in mind as I wrote. However, when this pastor received this letter, he contacted me to ask if he could share this letter with his Church. Once this was done, he began to share it with other pastors, but none of this has anything at all to do with the fact that, as I wrote this letter, I only had one audience in mind, and had no idea that it would be read by as many folks who did end up reading this letter.

The above clearly demonstrates that, not only could the NT writers only have one audience in mind as they wrote, the evidence demonstrates that most in fact did have only one audience in mind. Simply because there have been many others who have read these letters, has no bearing upon who in fact these writers were intending to write to, at the time of writing.

So again, we can look at the evidence involved, and make an educated conclusion. Or, we can simply continue to believe what we would like to believe, in spite of the evidence, because it better supports the conclusions we would like to continue to believe.

The problem with this is, if you would simply like to continue to believe as you do, despite the evidence involved, then it would be best to do this privately, and not put these ideas forward, in a debate forum.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 67 by Realworldjack]

Again, if you're so sure that you're right, then try to get your idea peer-reviewed by specialists in the field of New Testament studies. Such specialists are probably much better equipped to judge your idea than anonymous people in an online forum. It is a novel idea that I never before considered. If the writers of the New Testament meant their work for only certain individuals, then it is very surprising that those writings have been so effective in converting enormous numbers of individuals. I composed and sent an email to a person earlier today. I meant the email for her only. What a surprise it would be if in the future that email would be read by millions of people!

Again, if you're so sure that you're right, then try to get your idea peer-reviewed by specialists in the field of New Testament studies. Such specialists are probably much better equipped to judge your idea than anonymous people in an online forum. It is a novel idea that I never before considered.

I highly doubt that my work would even be considered, on top of the fact I would not be interested. However, what I can do is, join in here on this site, where there are those who may consider what it is I have to say, and point out those whose commits are not based upon the facts.

I composed and sent an email to a person earlier today. I meant the email for her only. What a surprise it would be if in the future that email would be read by millions of people!

This may not be as surprising as you think. Lets think about this as we look at what you say earlier.

If the writers of the New Testament meant their work for only certain individuals, then it is very surprising that those writings have been so effective in converting enormous numbers of individuals.

First here, I would like to point out that we are not really talking about how these writings may have been used by others. In other words, we are not concerned with how others may have used these writings in order to convert someone to the faith. Rather, our concern at this point is, what, and who were on the minds of the authors as they wrote? What were their intentions?

Well, as we look at Matthew, Mark, and John, all any of us can do is assume. However, when we take a look at Luke, we do not have to assume at all, because the author tells of his intentions, and he never claims he is attempting to convert anyone at all!

In fact, the person he is writing to, certainly must have already been a believer, since the stated intention was to allow the audience to be, "certain of the things he had already been taught."

With this being the case, we can say with confidence that the author was not intending that his writing convert anyone, no matter how anyone else may have used his writings. So then, if we can be confident that this author did not have converting anyone in mind, then it would be very possible that, Matthew, Mark, and John, were writing to those who were already believers, and had those folks in mind as they wrote, which would demonstrate as well that they had no intention of their writings converting anyone, no matter how it may have been used later by others.

Now, as we look at the letters of Paul, all of his letters were addressed to those who were already believers, therefore he could not have had converting anyone in mind as he wrote, no matter how others may have used his writings later on.

It is not uncommon at all, for there to be those who write with one intention one their mind, and then later on there are those who use their writings in a way they never intended, and it would be legitimate.

Lets take for example the letters written between, Caesar and Cicero. When these two men wrote these letters, they only had each other in mind, and never intended that these letters be used by us today, in order to better understand the history of that time. But this is exactly what has been done.

With this being the case, it is very possible, and in most cases concerning the NT writers it is very clear, that these men had only one audience in mind as they wrote, but this does not mean that we cannot use what they wrote to understand better the things going on at the time, and it is also evidence that these men did indeed exist, along with how they may have lived out their lives, even though they never intended this to be the case.

So then, as we can clearly see, this sort of thing is not uncommon at all. In other words, it is not uncommon for someone to have one audience in mind, with one purpose in mind, only to have those later use their writings in different ways than they had intended, or could have even imagined.

Allow me to give you a real life example. I wrote a letter to a particular pastor in the denomination I was a member of at the time, concerning some theological matters. This letter was triggered by some concerns I had with some of the things I had heard this pastor say.

Since this letter concerned theological matters, and I had to go through many different Biblical references, this letter became very lengthy, to the point, it would compare in length to some of the letters in the NT.

The point here is, I only had this one pastor in mind as I wrote this letter, and I only had these theological concerns in mind as I wrote. However, when this pastor received this letter, he contacted me to ask if he could share this letter with his Church. Once this was done, he began to share it with other pastors, but none of this has anything at all to do with the fact that, as I wrote this letter, I only had one audience in mind, and had no idea that it would be read by as many folks who did end up reading this letter.

The above clearly demonstrates that, not only could the NT writers only have one audience in mind as they wrote, the evidence demonstrates that most in fact did have only one audience in mind. Simply because there have been many others who have read these letters, has no bearing upon who in fact these writers were intending to write to, at the time of writing.

So again, we can look at the evidence involved, and make an educated conclusion. Or, we can simply continue to believe what we would like to believe, in spite of the evidence, because it better supports the conclusions we would like to continue to believe.

The problem with this is, if you would simply like to continue to believe as you do, despite the evidence involved, then it would be best to do this privately, and not put these ideas forward, in a debate forum.

I think this thread should be read by many people.

But I am drunk...again...but I am back on my feet...again...and what do I do?

Wellllll...I love music, so here we go...what do you think RWJ? Good music? Maybe we should put a list of songs together? What are people to do? You may not listen to music in that order? How crazy can people be? You may not put food together like that...crazy...dont you think?

We should bomb each other whit music or what do I know



[youtube][/youtube]