biblical inerrancy

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

IN a single letter from Clement (30- 95 A.D.) he used 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 book of the New Testament.

Various Gospels
Acts
Romans
I Corinthians
Titus
Hebrews
1Peter
2Peter
James

Which letter are you referring to?

If you are referring to 1 Clement, it is entirely possible that the author of 2 Peter quotes him rather than the other way round.  2 Peter is almost certainly not written by the author of 1 Peter. For someone writing a pseudoepigraph attributed to Peter, including references to 1 Clement would be quite appropriate, given the association between Clement and Peter. Besides, the dating and authorship of 1 Clement is disputed itself.

If you are referring to 2 Clement, the scholarly consensus is that it was written in the mid 2nd-century (and thus obviously not by Clement).

That's the problem with proof by referral to authority.  You then need to check the provenance of the authorities you refer to.

Still, the scholarly consensus is with the possible exceptions of James and 2 Peter, the canonical books of the NT were all written in the first century, tho some scholars argue for later dates for some of the other books.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2 Peter is almost certainly not written by the author of 1 Peter.

 As if 2Peter contains knowledge that the Apostle Peter didn't know...in fact, 2Peter (as well of Jude) teaches the same general doctrines found throughout the rest of the New Testament.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taken together, then in order to be consistent with the doctrine of absolute biblical inerrancy, one must believe that not only that both 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the same person, but that the person in question was Peter.  That they are doctrinally compatible is necessary but not sufficient to buttress that doctrine.

---

I wasn’t attempting to pin down the date of 1Clement, rather I was proving that the vast majority of the books of the NT were well known by the mid second century, thus proving false the idea that they could have been written around 300AD.

You should thank Tweed for providing that strawman for you in the original post of this thread.  I don't know of any serious scholar who would make such a claim as he did.

The historical accuracy of the NT is the best evidence that it was written by those who lived in Judea prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

With the exception of the Pauline epistles that were actually written by Paul, it is likely that the NT was mainly written in the first century after the fall of Jerusalem.  Evidence that those first century authors lived in Judea prior to the First Revolt is lacking, and the fact they wrote in Greek using rather than Aramaic and largely used the Septuagint version of the OT argues against (but certainly does not disprove) the hypothesis that said writers were Judeans. They certainly weren't writing for a Judean audience, but for an audience of Gentiles and Hellenized Jews.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, the mere fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul living in his own rented apartment and awaiting trails shows that it was written before Paul died.

By that argument, Margaret Mitchell must have written Gone With the Wind before she was born.

Also, if the NT books had been written after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, then the NT surely would have mentioned the fact since its destruction is of extreme doctrinal importance to the NT.  (The book of Revelation is the only book that would have an excuse not to mention the destruction of the Temple since it is simply a account of a number of visions given to John about the endtimes and is not intended to given an historical accounting.)  So, outside of Revelation, there simply would have been no reason not to mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, demonstrating once again that it was written prior to 70AD.  And since the individual books of the NT were written in various locations by various people and over a period of decades, it is very hard to contemplate a grand conspiracy to not mention the destruction of the Temple.

Who needs a grand conspiracy?  The destruction happened well after the crucifixion, so it had no impact upon the life and times of Jesus.

While the temple buildings might be important to Dispensationalists today, that doesn't imply that Christians at the time would have thought it significant.

Assuming a pre-70 AD, writing, John 2:18-22 shows, that by the time Herod's Temple had come crashing down, Christians had come to the opinion that what happened to it was irrelevant. (A cynic might argue that the passage was written post-destruction to show why the destruction of the temple was irrelevant.)

Even if it had been considered relevant, at least according to tradition, there were apostles such as John who lived for some years after the destruction of Herod's Temple, and who could have written commentary on the destruction of the Temple had they thought it important.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, the mere fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul living in his own rented apartment and awaiting trails shows that it was written before Paul died.

By that argument, Margaret Mitchell must have written Gone With the Wind before she was born.

what?

Margaret Mitchell was born in 1900, well after the last events depicted in her novel would have occurred had they been true.  I was trying to humorously point out the utter absurdity of your claim that because the last events depicted in Acts would have happened at a particular point in time, it proves that Acts must have been written at that time.

1)   It is simply impossible for the writer of the book of Acts not to have been an eyewitness to the events of Paul’s ministry.  His geographic and geopolitical knowledge of so many countries during the era of 35AD to 60AD is unmatched by anyone else in history, Christian or otherwise.  Only someone who had lived during that time and had traveled to those countries could make such accurate statements.  In fact, his knowledge is so unique, many of his recorded details were doubted because of lack of corroborating witnesses and this lack of corroboration was used by skeptics to cast doubt on the authenticity of the book.  But over the last few centuries, archeology has proven the book of Acts to have unsurpassed accuracy.
2)   Since the accuracy of the book proves that it was written by an eyewitness, there is no reason to end the book of Acts in the middle of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome while awaiting trial. Therefore, the endpoint of the chronology as recorded in the book of Acts marks the time that the book of Acts was written.

There are a number of details in Acts that call into question its accuracy and especially the date of its composition as being before the destruction of the Temple.  The most telling is these with respect to the date issue is the reference to the Roman province of Cilicia in Acts 6:9.  That province did not exist during the period 27 B.C. to 72 A.D.

3)   And since the beginning of the book of Acts notes the Gospel of Luke, both written by the same author and addressed to the same person, the Gospel of Luke was written before the book of Acts was written.

No serious scholar doubts that Luke and Acts were written by the same author (traditionally Luke the Evangelist).

Even if it had been considered relevant, at least according to tradition, there were apostles such as John who lived for some years after the destruction of Herod's Temple, and who could have written commentary on the destruction of the Temple had they thought it important.

To think that the only letters John wrote are contained in the NT is crazy.  He obviously made oral and written comments not contained in the NT, so lack of surviving commentary is NOT proof that he made no other commentaries.

By the same argument, that Acts ends where its does, is not proof of when it was written.  It is quite possible that the author wrote, or intended to write, a third book which continued the story of Luke-Acts but which was either never written or has been lost. Said third book would probably cover the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and possibly continue on to cover the destruction of Jerusalem.  The death of Luke the Evangelist is traditionally held to have happened in 84 AD, so if he is the author, he certainly could have continued the story if the tradition is accurate (and even if it missed his date of death by a good decade).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the same argument, that Acts ends where its does, is not proof of when it was written.  It is quite possible that the author wrote, or intended to write, a third book which continued the story of Luke-Acts but which was either never written or has been lost. Said third book would probably cover the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and possibly continue on to cover the destruction of Jerusalem.  The death of Luke the Evangelist is traditionally held to have happened in 84 AD, so if he is the author, he certainly could have continued the story if the tradition is accurate (and even if it missed his date of death by a good decade).

That’s pure conjecture and a bunch of rubbish, as both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are unabridged – The Gospel of Luke stated its goal (see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2) and completed it, therefore Acts is NOT meant to be simply a continuation of the Gospel of Luke (the history of the actions of Jesus), rather the book of Acts has a completely different focus (the history of the church)…and since Luke did NOT leave the reader hanging at the end of Gospel of Luke, there is no argument to be made that Luke all the sudden decided to leave the reader hanging at the end of the book of Acts.

I agree it's conjecture, but not that it is rubbish.  Unless all of the tradition concerning Luke is woefully inaccurate, he had plenty of time to finish the story had he written Acts in the period you believe Acts had been.  Of course, it is possible that Luke-Acts was written by someone other than Luke, but that doesn't throw any light on the question of dating.

Acts has a style consistent with the second book of a trilogy.  If Luke had planned on writing a hypothetical third book centered on the ministry and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, it would explain both why Paul's personal history ends where it does and why Peter disappears in the middle of Acts.

Even if one accepts your conjecture that Luke had not intended to end Acts abruptly, that does not prove that it was written c. 60 AD.  If Luke's death in 84 AD halted his writing, that too would explain what you consider an abrupt ending.

There are a number of details in Acts that call into question its accuracy and especially the date of its composition as being before the destruction of the Temple.  The most telling is these with respect to the date issue is the reference to the Roman province of Cilicia in Acts 6:9.  That province did not exist during the period 27 B.C. to 72 A.D.

Again, I don’t understand your point, but let me give it a try…the province of Cilicia had been under Roman control for a hundred years, then for about 30 years some of it was divided up among various client kings, all subject to Rome, and with the rest of the province falling under the governor of Syria who was also subject to Rome …and you think that greater Cilicia was NOT still commonly referred to as the province of Cilicia during that brief interlude, as if people just turned on a dime and instead of referring to greater Cilicia, started listing instead all the individual pieces in order to refer to the sum total, even though it still remained under Roman control?!  That hasn’t been my experience with people.

But, hey, I guess I have to make a note to stop calling the upper northeastern part of the United States by the name “New England”, since it hasn’t been an official confederation for a couple of hundred years, and therefore no one is going to know what geographical area I am talking about….although it is completely clear the reader would understand what geographical area to which Luke referred.

Sorry, but that is a very dumb argument you just made and is contrary every day experience.

The period of Cicilia being divided up was ten decades, not three, but that is beside the point.  While looking to buttress my argument, I see my problem was in relying upon the translation in the NIV, which stresses that Cicilia was a province, a stress not found in the original.  Absent that stress, I withdraw that point, as your point about regional names remaining in use is quite valid.

There are other problems with assuming that the dating of Acts absolutely must be before the destruction of the Temple, but none that I think would convince you that it could have been written post-Jewish revolt.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

jmfcst, your reply exemplifies why I declined to further attempt reasoning with you on this issue.  You view the uncorroborated aspects of Acts as proof of its "unsurpassed accuracy" when such aspects prove nothing.  Even where we do have corroboration, there are problems. At this distant remove, we can only judge Acts as an eyewitness to history by comparing it with other contemporary writings (and I mean history, not architecture or geography).  Acts has discrepancies with both Josephus's writings and the Pauline epistles, mainly concerning the order in which certain events occurred. (And no matter what I think of Paul himself, I do not doubt he lived and that most of the epistles attributed to him were written by him.)

As for your objections to my conjecture that Acts was intended as the second work of a trilogy, I find your particular rebuttal totally without merit. While Paul claimed for himself the title Apostle to the Gentiles, he never was the only apostle to preach to them, nor did Peter restrict himself to be just the Apostle to the Jews. Nor can I see why the Author of Acts would believe in such a dichotomy.  In Acts 9 Paul confines his preaching to the Jews.  In Acts 10, the first conversion of a Gentile is recorded as being that of Cornelius by Peter, not by Paul.  In Acts 11 it is Peter, not Paul who is required by the Church at Jerusalem to explain why he as been converting Gentiles without first converting them to Jews.  At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it is Peter and not Paul who first speaks in defense of including Gentiles in the Church, and then asks Barnabas and Paul to speak of their ministry.  When James renders his judgment, he refers to Simon Peter's testimony.  Whatever may have been the intent of the author of Acts, portraying Peter as Apostle to the Jews and Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles is refuted by the very text of Acts itself.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now to prove by using the book of Acts that Paul had indeed become the premier “Apostle to the Gentiles” as Paul claimed in Rom 11:13; Gal 1:16; 2:8:

1) First and foremost is the commission Paul received upon his conversion as recorded in the account in Acts:  “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15)

That one single point should end the whole argument, but I am going to give you more proof:

Agreed, it should end the argument, but you insist on twisting everything to conform to your preconceived viewpoint.

No where in Acts 9:15, or anyplace else in Acts, is Paul identified as the premier apostle to the Gentiles.  Taking the text literally, all it says is, "I am accepting Paul to speak of me to everyone."  It contains no emphasis on Gentile or Jew.

2) Notice in the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which occurred 14-17 years after (based upon Gal 1:18 and Gal 2:1) Paul’s conversion, Paul is able to give long testimonies about his conversion of Gentiles (Acts 15:4 and Acts 15:12), but when it came time for Peter and James to speak, they could only point to Peter’s initial Gentile conversion – they couldn’t match the volume of Paul’s stories of Gentile conversions…showing that Paul was already much more familiar with converting Gentiles than the rest of the Jewish believers put together.  And, obviously, if Peter or James had had lots of experience converting Gentiles, then there wouldn’t have been any need for the Jerusalem Council for there wouldn’t have been an argument between Paul and the Jewish believers from Jerusalem in the first place.

I agree that James and church at Jerusalem had placed no effort into converting Gentiles.  I note that you are entirely ignoring Barnabas' role in the matter. "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them." (Acts 15:12)  That sentence, in which Paul shares the credit for what he had done with Barnabas, is all that is recounted of his testimony at the Council of Jerusalem while Peter gets 5 full verses.

Indeed, based on the perceptions of the Gentiles, one would think that in that period, Barnabas was considered preeminent over Paul, since Barnabas was identified with Zeus, while Paul was identified with Hermes (Acts 14:12).  So why not call Barnabas (the) Apostle to the Gentiles?

Given your assumptions that Acts was written by someone who traveled with Paul (most likely Luke, tho that identification comes from tradition rather than the text itself) and in preparation for Paul's trial, the emphasis upon Paul is most easily explained not because the author thought he was the primary apostle to the Gentiles, but because that was who the author had first hand knowledge of, and that once a person no longer became important in describing Paul's background, the author no long had need of that person.

3)   Notice that it was decided at the Jerusalem council that Paul and Barnabas were to continue the ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22). Judas and Silas who were members of the Jerusalem Church were sent along with them to provide a stamp of approval from the Jerusalem mother church, but Judas and Silas later returned to the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:33), but Paul and Barnabas remained to preach to the Gentiles…this EXACTLY matches Paul’s own account (Gal 2:9) that he was recognized as the main apostle to the Gentiles.

Even in his letter to the Galatians, the self-aggrandizing Paul has to admit that a charge preach to the Gentiles was given to him and Barnabas, not just himself.

"James, Peter, and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. " (Gal 2:9)

This dichotomy between a mission to the Gentiles and a mission to the Jews is not found in Acts.

4)   Notice in the book of Acts, Peter is always orbiting within a short travel distance from Jerusalem, but Paul is up and down and all around the countries of the Mediterranean…again showing that Paul is the primary apostle who is pushing the Gospel into Gentile territory.

I agree that Paul was the more widely traveled, which contributed to the survival of Pauline Christianity after the First and Second Jewish Wars.

Now for the boatload of evidence from the rest of the New Testament:
5)   All 13 of Paul’s letters, making up half of the New Testament, are addressed to distinct Gentile churches (or the distinct Gentile leaders of Gentile churches) and address specific problems within whatever specific church he is writing to….proving that Paul was intimately active and familiar with the problems within those churches and proves Paul was indeed the apostle most active in spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.

It proves Paul was a prolific letter writer and engaged in self-promotion as evidenced by the seven to ten letters of his preserved in the Bible.  (I agree with those who argue that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, and of the other three disputed epistles I have no set opinion.)

6)   Unlike Paul’s 13 letters, Peter’s 2 letters are general in nature and were meant to be circulated across a broad area…proving that Peter wasn’t intimately familiar or active within the churches located in Gentile lands.
7)   Unlike Paul’s letters, the book of Hebrews and James are addressed to Jewish Christians, not Gentiles.  And John’s letters and Jude are also general letters, just like Peter’s
8 )   The only hint of another Apostle stepping in and addressing specific problems within specific Gentile churches is in the book of Revelation, written by John after Paul was long dead.

So, not only the book of Acts, but all the NT epistles testify to the fact that Paul became the primary apostle responsible for spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles.  And Paul held that role until he died and then John, being the longest surviving Apostle as predicted by Jesus in John 21:20-23, stepped in to help oversee the Gentile churches after Paul was dead. (Peter may have filled this role but didn't live long after Paul.  And, in fact, tradition states that John did move to Ephesus and oversaw the Gentile churches in the area, the same churches he writes to in the book of Revelation)

Paul was quite good at tooting his own horn.  Given what happened in the Jewish Revolts, it is not at all surprising that Christianity survived among the Gentiles and died off among the Jews.  Given that, it is not surprising that the man who sought to aggrandize himself among the Gentiles in the name of Jesus gained such high preeminence in the surviving canon.  That is true no matter what intent one ascribes to Paul for his actions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You could argue that Paul, Peter, and james agreed on their beliefs and you may well be right, but you are neglecting the fact that there were other early Christian sects. For instance there was Marcionism, or the Ebionites. I'm sure you're also aware of the other writings and books of early Christians that did not make it into the Bible. So when he says "Pauline" Christianity he's either referring to what made it into the canonical Bible or something of that nature.

no, sounded like Ernest was saying Paul promoted himself enough that his version of the gospel won out over what was preached by Peter and James and the other apostles.

For whatever reason he chose to do so, Paul was one of the most widely traveled of the early church leaders, never choosing to shepherd a church in one specific spot.  The events surrounding the Jewish Revolts of the 1st and 2nd centuries, meant that the original core of the church in Jerusalem was destroyed and that the Jews largely turned their back on anyone who claimed messianic connections.  Under the historical circumstances, it is not surprising that the Church that survived was Gentile, that its corpus was written in Greek and not Aramaic, and that Paul, who was the most voluminous early writer about Jesus in Greek should become a key figure.

As for Paul's boasting about his sufferings and deprivations in the service of Christ, let me say this.  First, there have been many instances in history of similar behavior for a number of religions and ideologies in which the person has done so for reason either sincere or duplicitous.  Paul is hardly unique in his actions in that regard.  Secondly, such boasts directly contradict the teachings of Matthew 6.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men." (Matthew 6:2)

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (Matthew 6:5)

"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (Matthew 6:16)

It is of course, a conundrum that everyone who believes in Christ must face, how to spread His message without being boastful.  However, speaking of one's own afflictions and promoting that as a reason to believe is clearly not the answer to that conundrum.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, knowing Paul claims in Galatians ch 1 that he wasn’t taught Christianity by any man, but rather received it by revelation directly from the resurrected Jesus Christ...and seeing that Acts shows Paul immediately fully prepared and went immediately preaching Christianity in the synagogues…how do you explain how he came into a knowledge of Christianity that was 100% in agreement with Peter and James?

If he had always been in 100% agreement with them, why should there have even been a need for a Council of Jerusalem.  For that matter what group of men have ever been in 100% agreement?

If the Apostles were infallible and never considered changes in doctrine, why then did Paul write in Galatians 2:11-14 of Peter while in Antioch after the Council of Jerusalem of siding with the Judaizers?

You seem to have a view of the Apostles that holds them to be infallible demigods, incapable of error or change, yet Paul's own writings contradict that view.

And to fault him for not settling down and pasturing a church is really unbelievable considering the role of pastor and the role of missionary are both different and both required, and being a missionary is MUCH tougher and much more dangerous than being a pastor…Again, who in their right mind would fault a missionary for being selfish and self-promoting for not settling down and pasturing a church?!  In my experience, missionaries are much meeker than pastors (though I do not fault pastors for being pastors as it is a very required and respectful role in the church.)…again, your charge is simply unbelievable!

I wasn't faulting Paul for moving around, but pointing out that doing so made it far likelier for his writings and viewpoint to have survived the events associated with the Jewish Revolts in Judea.

That’s not to say I think the members of this forum normally deal from the bottom of the deck with other people in their daily lives, rather they simply deal from the bottom of the deck when they confront their own beliefs.  Example:  I do not believe that you, Ernest, would ever view someone giving up everything and pouring themselves to others in  some secular cause and invent a bunch of conspiracy theories against the person and saying, “They’re just promoting themselves!”  That’s not the way you are.  But that’s the way you approach Paul.

It's probably how quite a few chiefs of staff for various Congressmen got their start.  People engaging in sacrifice now in the expectation of reward later is a common enough occurrence. Depending upon the price a person puts on the sacrifice, and the value they place upon the expected reward, it's rational behavior, even if others may think otherwise because they assign a different price to the sacrifice or value to the reward.

Even before the reported conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus, he was by his own admission a person who placed great store on being able to tell people how to live their lives. That certainly did not change afterward.

If you ask me why I won’t even consider Islam I’ll simply tell you that there is no human history backing up Islam’s claims that Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament were Muslims.

I can't say that I've ever studied Islam in depth, but as I understand it the core of Islamic theology is submission to God.  Indeed, the literal meaning of "Muslim" is "one who submits". In that sense, I think you would agree that Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament were Muslims. That they would have agreed in all of the doctrines of the Quran, almost certainly not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Peter and Paul agreed about as much as we all agree on here. Please explain to me how it is possible that they would agree??? One knew Jesus and the other didn't but both spread the gospel. That is a perfect recipe for conflict. They hated each other and if they didn't they certainly weren't friends.

According to Acts 15, you have a very vivid imagination!!!

According to Galatians 2, not so vivid, but Derek definitely is making some overly broad inferences.  At times, Peter and Paul did have doctrinal differences, but I don't think there is anything in the Bible to support the idea that they hated each other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Remember Peter’s vision in Acts 10 before he converted the Gentile, and that both Peter and the Gentile had a vision from God to lay the groundwork for Peter to meet the Gentile?….God didn’t give the gentile convert a vision that told that told the gentile to start living like a Jew, rather God gave Peter a vision giving Peter permission to start eating unclean meats and to consider gentiles acceptable to God.

I remember us arguing over the interpretation of that vision before, and neither of us convinced the other before, nor do I think either of us will convince the other now concerning either the previous argument, nor the current one.