How can we know that God is?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You don't know the difference between a premise and a conclusion?

I thought I had made reply to rogue06 but it seems I did not hit the Post Reply option.

The writer of Acts shows a detailed knowledge of Ephesus and a considerable number of verses take place in, or are related to, that city. Pisidian Antioch gets some verses about it but all we learn is that it had a synagogue. Cyprus and Asia Minor are little more than place names for the writer who also shows a limited knowledge of Palestine. Given that Ephesus was the centre of Paul's longest mission [Acts 19.10] and it would have had a Pauline legacy possibly including letters that no longer survive. This city and its Christian associations would seem the most likely place for where this text was composed.

We have no recorded information about this individual or whether the author of these two works was actually called Luke. Justin in his First Apology did not seem overly anxious to ascribe names to the authors of the gospels. However, for Irenaeus it was important to establish Luke as the author of that particular gospel and Acts and to consider this character to have been an "inseparable companion" of Paul in order to support his stance against Marcion. The earliest argument that Luke the physician and companion of Paul was also the author of Luke and Acts is premised on deductions made from later post-Pauline epistles. Nothing else. And it may be possible that Irenaeus [with no independent or external tradition apparently available] was the originator of this claim.

The author shows a limited understanding of Judaism and a detailed familiarity with the LXX which suggests a gentile. He could write serviceable Koine Greek had some knowledge of rhetorical techniques and in the first two chapters was able to imitate the language of the LXX. The author is also a skilled story teller and the text shows many narrative techniques including the ability to build suspense and create an atmosphere, as well as develop the narrative by alternating a scene of speech or summary with that of an event or story.

But our beloved theolagicians tell us that the prophecy is significant, that it shows that Jerusalem had already fallen and that the temple had been destroyed. It is the cornerstone of their philosophical maunderings: without it they are without anything substantial to support the claim that the gospels are of late date.

Not entirely. It is a fundamental acknowledgement by most academics who study the Synoptic Problem that the first three Gospels share some kind of literary relationship. Or to put it another way there is a degree of dependence at a literary level.

The evidence, while not conclusive, does indicate that Mark is the earliest gospel [predating Matthew and Luke] with a decisive question being whether or not these gospels refer [however, obliquely] to the events of 70 CE.

Matthew 23.37-39 and Luke 13.34-35 in a Double Tradition passage [the close verbal agreement needs to be noted] appear to have Jesus prophesying about events that would later occur in Jerusalem. The phrase "your house" clearly refers to the Temple which after 70 CE did indeed lie in ruins. However, there is also a passage in Josephus which bears a remarkable parallel with Jesus' oracle in both Matthew and Luke.

There was one Jesus, the son of Ananias, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.[JW 6.300-301 ]

As Jesus ben Ananias cries "a voice against Jerusalem" so too does Jesus lament "Jerusalem, Jerusalem". As Jesus ben Ananias singles out the "holy house" so too Jesus remarks "your house is forsaken". And just as Jesus ben Ananias raises "a voice against this whole people", Jesus too exclaims "how often would I have gathered your children".

Of course this is not conclusive evidence but it is suggestive in that both Matthew and Luke stress a passage wherein the Temple's destruction is central.

You need to brush up on the claims of evolutionary theory. The origins of life (or if you prefer, the emergence thereof) are indeed considered, though they are not a major focus.

The various theories surrounding the origin of life are tangential to, but are not part of, the evolutionary theory.

Given that I know for a fact that prophecy is possible

That cannot be substantiated via this medium.

[tabibito]

Matthew 23.37-39 and Luke 13.34-35 in a Double Tradition passage [the close verbal agreement needs to be noted] appear to have Jesus prophesying about events that would later occur in Jerusalem. The phrase "your house" clearly refers to the Temple which after 70 CE did indeed lie in ruins. However, there is also a passage in Josephus which bears a remarkable parallel with Jesus' oracle in both Matthew and Luke.

It is one interpretation. It might even be valid.

There was one Jesus, the son of Ananias, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.[JW 6.300-301 ]

IIRC this Jesus' yelling was brought to an end by an arrow. Should I assume that you will call this a flight of fancy on Josephus' part? How could this Jesus (a very common name in 1st Century Judaea) possibly have foretold the destruction of the temple* four years before the event, when (by Josephus' account) there was nothing to indicate a problem so early in the piece.

{{*"holy house" by contrast with "house" as stated in the gospels which might be a significant distinction, or "my father's house" which would be the "holy house"/temple}}

As Jesus ben Ananias cries "a voice against Jerusalem" so too does Jesus lament "Jerusalem, Jerusalem". As Jesus ben Ananias singles out the "holy house" so too Jesus remarks "your house is forsaken". And just as Jesus ben Ananias raises "a voice against this whole people", Jesus too exclaims "how often would I have gathered your children".

Of course this is not conclusive evidence but it is suggestive in that both Matthew and Luke stress a passage wherein the Temple's destruction is central.

Suggestive of what? Certainly not that the gospel authors drew on Josephus' writings. If Josephus is granted credibility, it is suggestive (and only suggestive) that prophecy might (and only might) be an actuality. Even Jesus' actual prophecy of the temple's destruction is no more than an aside. There is no stress even there, nor do the authors in any way indicate that they regard the statement as prophecy. At least one of them should have called it a prophecy after the temple had been destroyed, even if none of them referred directly to the destruction.

That cannot be substantiated via this medium.

In theory it could be. I'm not sure how it would be achieved, and I am very sure that it would be dismissed if not simply ignored; but then, every prophet is named Cassandra.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is one interpretation. It might even be valid.

Indeed it might.

IIRC this Jesus' yelling was brought to an end by an arrow.

Apparently it was a stone from the ballista that finished him off during the siege.

Should I assume that you will call this a flight of fancy on Josephus' part?

It could certainly be a narrative embellishment on Josephus' part.

Suggestive of what? Certainly not that the gospel authors drew on Josephus' writings.

We cannot know that.

If Josephus is granted credibility, it is suggestive (and only suggestive) that prophecy might (and only might) be an actuality.

I think Albinus had it right - this character was a religious maniac. They are still around today prophesying the End is Nigh!

In theory it could be.

How?

[tabibito]

How?

As I said, I don't know how it would be achieved. In general terms it would be easy, a prediction of an event (giving the time down to the hour), perhaps. The only certainty is that any prophecy would be dismissed after the event, though the rationalisation used to dismiss it would vary depending on the actual prophecy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As I said, I don't know how it would be achieved. In general terms it would be easy, a prediction of an event (giving the time down to the hour), perhaps. The only certainty is that any prophecy would be dismissed after the event, though the rationalisation used to dismiss it would vary depending on the actual prophecy.

Can you give me the winning numbers for next week's Euro lottery?

[rogue06]

Can you give me the winning numbers for next week's Euro lottery?

A pertinent question only if he ever indicated having prophetic powers.

[tabibito]

Can you give me the winning numbers for next week's Euro lottery?

Mockery noted, not that it is noteworthy: something original might be.

I rather doubt that anyone who can prophesy, even if he had been appointed to the office of prophet, would be given that kind of information to pass on. That isn't saying it wouldn't be done, just that it is among the least expected of scenarios.

[rogue06]

Mockery noted, not that it is noteworthy: something original might be.

I rather doubt that anyone who can prophesy, even if he had been appointed to the office of prophet, would be given that kind of information to pass on. That isn't saying it wouldn't be done, just that it is among the least expected of scenarios.

Yeah, you get the impression it wasn't for personal gain.

[tabibito]

A pertinent question only if he ever indicated having prophetic powers.

A most impertinent question under any circumstances, in fact.

I have prophesied in the past, seldom and at quite lengthy intervals (maybe half a dozen times over a span of forty odd years). It is has never happened at an expected time or under predictable circumstances.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Mockery noted, not that it is noteworthy: something original might be.

I rather doubt that anyone who can prophesy, even if he had been appointed to the office of prophet, would be given that kind of information to pass on. That isn't saying it wouldn't be done, just that it is among the least expected of scenarios.

It was deliberately intended to be jocular. Perhaps I should have added to my question:


Or do you know someone who can?

[Sparko]

It was deliberately intended to be jocular. Perhaps I should have added to my question:


Or do you know someone who can?

The answer is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

[Tassman]

Try "on the basis of a comparison of the premises with what is actually written," which is what any dedicated student should do. When Okurigana San PhD says, "You make a solid case, but I just can't accept it," you (whoever "you" might be) knows that there is a problem, but it is not with his argument. People didn't turn to a different theology through the formation of the Roman Church, the Reformation, and again through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because they considered conclusions of earlier theologians unquestionably correct. During the arguments with Pelagius and Arius, their opponents declared (paraphrased) "We cannot make our case by reference to the scripture, we must rely on our own understanding." Pelagius and Arius are the ones who stuck with scripture, and they are the ones called heretics. (Arius perhaps properly so, but not because his opponents were right.)

The theology of scripture is not what’s in dispute. The historical accuracy and dating of the gospels are what’s under discussion.

People have died because they or others followed that course. Blind acceptance of and adherence to authorities' pronouncements can be dangerous. Me - I'll call a person an expert if it can be shown that he knows his stuff well beyond the demands of ordinary competence.

One does not blindly accept the pronouncements of authorities. One recognizes valid professional standards and relevant qualifications for a specific discipline – as per Critical Historical Methodology in the case of gospel historians.

Western university theologians do not comprise a majority of theologians: it would be hard to make a case that they comprise even a majority of university theologians

The history of gospel composition is NOT necessarily theology. The latter evolved over centuries via various Ecumenical Councils – such as the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

Regarding the gospels: “The dating [of the Gospels] is approximate, but it is likely that all four Gospels were written in the last half of the 1st cent. AD. The majority of scholars date Mark in the late 60’s before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, but the number of those who would date it shortly after 70 is increasing (Ernst, Gnilka, Pesch, Schmithals). The dating of Luke-Acts is more disputed than the dating of Matt. but ca. 85 is the most often suggested date for both. John is customarily assigned to the 90s, with final redaction in 100-110.”

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/new-testament-scholar-raymond-brown-the-authorship-and-the-dating-of-the-gospels/

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The theology of scripture is not what’s in dispute. The historical accuracy and dating of the gospels are what’s under discussion.



One does not blindly accept the pronouncements of authorities. One recognizes valid professional standards and relevant qualifications for a specific discipline – as per Critical Historical Methodology in the case of gospel historians.



The history of gospel composition is NOT necessarily theology. The latter evolved over centuries via various Ecumenical Councils – such as the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

Regarding the gospels: “The dating [of the Gospels] is approximate, but it is likely that all four Gospels were written in the last half of the 1st cent. AD. The majority of scholars date Mark in the late 60’s before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, but the number of those who would date it shortly after 70 is increasing (Ernst, Gnilka, Pesch, Schmithals). The dating of Luke-Acts is more disputed than the dating of Matt. but ca. 85 is the most often suggested date for both. John is customarily assigned to the 90s, with final redaction in 100-110.”

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/new-testament-scholar-raymond-brown-the-authorship-and-the-dating-of-the-gospels/

I think we have to recognise that all datings for these texts are tentative and speculative. However, the generally accepted view is:

Mark 65-75 CE
Matthew 80-90 CE
Luke 90-100 CE
John 100-110 CE

Although there is a degree of flexibility either way.

The issue of the prophecy of the Temple's destruction perhaps also needs to be considered as a literary function of prediction.

Unfulfilled prophecies tend not to attract a great deal of attention. Therefore would the remarks made to Jesus in Mark 15.29-30 "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, ³⁰ save yourself, and come down from the cross" resonate more effectively with an audience who already that that event [the Temple's destruction] had taken place?

In other words does the author want the audience/reader to think "Yes he did prophecy that because it did happen"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think we have to recognise that all datings for these texts are tentative and speculative. However, the generally accepted view is:

Mark 65-75 CE
Matthew 80-90 CE
Luke 90-100 CE
John 100-110 CE

Although there is a degree of flexibility either way.

The issue of the prophecy of the Temple's destruction perhaps also needs to be considered as a literary function of prediction.

Unfulfilled prophecies tend not to attract a great deal of attention. Therefore would the remarks made to Jesus in Mark 15.29-30 "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, ³⁰ save yourself, and come down from the cross" resonate more effectively with an audience who already knew that that event [the Temple's destruction] had taken place?

In other words does the author want the audience/reader to think "Yes he did prophecy that because it did happen"?

I omitted the verb!

[tabibito]

One does not blindly accept the pronouncements of authorities. One recognizes valid professional standards and relevant qualifications for a specific discipline – as per Critical Historical Methodology in the case of gospel historians.

Just so. Whether or not a person is a noted scholar is irrelevant to a discussion about whether the person has accurately assessed the material under consideration. Which is to say, whether the assessment has been made according to appropriate standards.

Regarding the gospels: “The dating [of the Gospels] is approximate, but it is likely that all four Gospels were written in the last half of the 1st cent. AD. The majority of scholars date Mark in the late 60’s before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, but the number of those who would date it shortly after 70 is increasing (Ernst, Gnilka, Pesch, Schmithals). The dating of Luke-Acts is more disputed than the dating of Matt. but ca. 85 is the most often suggested date for both. John is customarily assigned to the 90s, with final redaction in 100-110.”

Has your source adhered to appropriate standards in producing this assessment? Which is to say, has the author shown his working, and does the working prove valid?
Does the claim of inconsistency or contradiction rest on a solid foundation?

Start with an easy one concerning John.

After his first sign at Cana (John 2:11), Jesus works signs in Jerusalem (John 2:23); yet his next miracle at Cana is apparently designated as his second sign (John 4:54), as if there were no signs intervening.

Is that assessment correct?