Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, contrary to your claim, they do not both quote Deut. 25:4. Only the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 does. The second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 which is ''The laborer is worthy of his wages'' is not part of Deut. 25:4.
And Luke 10:7 does not contain the phrase ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' and so does not quote Deut. 25:4 at all.
Deut.25:4 says only, - "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.''
Yup...Both of the parts are from the Old Testament...The second part is there if you'll look...
One important piece of information for anyone who is interested is that in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Luke 10:7.
1 Tim. 5:18For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wage.”
Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wage. Do not keep moving from house to house.
1 Tim. 5:18; kai Axios ho ergatés tou misthou autou - and worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Luke 10:7 Axios gar ho ergatés tou misthou autou - for worthy [is] the workman of the wage of him.
Paul writes, 'the Scripture says' and then references Luke 10:7 where the phrase is found. Since 1 Timothy was probably written approximately A.D. 63-66, that means that the Gospel of Luke had to have been written before that.
Of course the skeptic and the liberal will pipe up and say that the authorship of 1 Timothy is disputed, but for the believer who recognizes the inerrancy of the Bible, there is no question that Paul is the author because it says that it is. Luke of course was a close associate of Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Both of them quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
While the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'For the Scripture says,''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' quotes Deut. 25:4 - ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.,'' the second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 - 'and ''The laborer is worthy of his wages., '' does not quote Deut. 25:4.Deut. 25:4 does not contain the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages.'' While passages such as Leviticus 19:13 and Deut. 24:15 contain references to a hired man's wages, the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7.
Since the wording of 1 Tim. 5:18 is that of Luke 10:7, and since 1 Tim. 5:18 says, ''For the Scripture says,'' with reference to the phrase ''The laborer is worthy of his wages,'' this would seem to indicate that Paul was quoting Luke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
No...Why wouldn''t you muzzle the ox?...The second part is also from the Torah....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, contrary to your claim, they do not both quote Deut. 25:4. Only the first part of 1 Tim. 5:18 does. The second part of 1 Tim. 5:18 which is ''The laborer is worthy of his wages'' is not part of Deut. 25:4.
And Luke 10:7 does not contain the phrase ''You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing'' and so does not quote Deut. 25:4 at all.
Deut.25:4 says only, - "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.''
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Yup...Both of the parts are from the Old Testament...The second part is there if you'll look...
You've changed your claim. You specifically stated in post #45 that both Luke 10:7 and 1 Tim. 5:18 quoted Deut. 25:4. With that claim having been shown to be false you are now claiming that the phrase from Luke 10:7 and 1 Tim. 5:18, namely, ''The laborer is worthy of his wages'' is found somewhere in the Old Testament.
That specific phrase, that specific wording is not found in the Old Testament. However, as I already pointed out in post #46, Leviticus 19:13 and Deut. 24:15 contain references to a hired man's wages.
To @Mike 555, you are correct that many scholars not convinced of the Bible's inerrancy actively dispute the authorship of 1 Timothy. Your belief does not qualify as concrete evidence in favor of inerrancy even if you hold the opinion yourself.
I see 2 major issues with your reference to the Luke and 1 Timothy quotes which you have cited.
1) To suggest not only that Luke was already written at the time that Paul was writing his letters (setting aside the question of authorship of the Pastorals), but also that Luke and the other Gospels were sufficiently established for Paul to consider them part of the Canonical Scripture alongside the books of the Torah is preposterous. If your claim is true that 1 Timothy 5:18 was written by Paul, then he would be citing a line from Deuteronomy and a line from Luke and listing them equally as part of "Scripture". By comparison, the formal New Testament canon was not officially laid down until the Council of Carthage in 397.
2) The claim that Luke's Gospel was written by Paul's companion is just as doubtful as the authorship of 1 Timothy (at least to skeptical Liberals like myself). The identification of Luke as Luke the Physician would push the writing of Mark's Gospel much earlier than all evidence would suggest since Luke borrows extensively from Mark's work.
You have the God-given right (wording intentional given your orientation) to believe in the Bible and all things Christian as being inerrant and perfect. However, attempting to argue from a starting assumption of inerrancy will not get you many converts in the realm of rational, critical, historical discussions. A starting point of 50% belief is the statistical ideal, but of course few of us on either side of the debate are able to be quite that objective;-)
At the end of the day, there simply isn't any objective evidence to time the authorship of Luke earlier than Paul's letters. And as mentioned above, there is no way that Paul (a Pharisaic Jew up until his Conversion) would have been able to justify elevating a story written by his close friend (Luke the Physician) about Jesus at third hand (neither Paul or Luke knew Jesus in life) roughly 30 years after the Crucifixion to the level of established Scriptural canon (ignoring all of the problems of chronology and authorship).
As @Richard965 pointed out, the due of a wage to a workman is mentioned repeatedly in the OT albeit in different wording. The most logical (given a neutral starting point sans inerrancy) conclusions are a much later date for 1 Timothy when Luke was well-circulated, or more likely, that the author of 1 Timothy was referencing Deuteronomy 24 and other OT passages as "Scripture" in his quote and that Luke quoted 1 Timothy in his writing much later.
Last edited by RoyLT; 09-14-2015 at 03:22 PM..
Reason: Typo
Doing some research, I stumbled onto this reference in google results and thought it worth reposting especially since I stumbled onto a fascinating video which also mentions @15:30 and for 5 minutes or so after that Paul may actually have been Josephus . Fascinating stuff with a credible chronology that moves Jesus ben Ananias' crucifixion the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and Paul's (Josephus') epistles to 100 AD:
...because Mark wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, written down by Mark...so he clearly isn't an eye-witness.
I believe that Mark was likely writing from Peter's account. You stated that he had no historical accounts to draw from. While he may not have been an eyewitness, he was definitely under the direct supervision of one that was. For all intents, Mark might as well have been written by Peter.
So all you have to show now is that...
1. Peter told Mark what happened without elaborating on or embellishing the story in any way.
2. Mark wrote down exactly what Peter told him without elaborating on or embellishing the story in any way
And yet here we are nearly 2000 years later with billions of people both Christians and non Christians recognizing Jesus as a real person.
...and billions more not believing it at all!
Quote:
What is breathtaking is the hubris in thinking Jesus a hoax... must have been a moment of monumental genius to have fooled everyone..especially perpetrated by men considered unlettered and ordinary.
Do you think the same about the Hindu gods? Millions believe in them too. Must have been a moment of monumental genius to have fooled everyone huh..especially perpetrated by men considered unlettered and ordinary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
That is an interpolation...Where in his earthly ministry did he win over the Greeks?...His sole mission was to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel...It was after his ascension, when G-d let Peter know through a vision that the Gospel was now open to the Gentiles...
To @Mike 555, you are correct that many scholars not convinced of the Bible's inerrancy actively dispute the authorship of 1 Timothy. Your belief does not qualify as concrete evidence in favor of inerrancy even if you hold the opinion yourself.
I see 2 major issues with your reference to the Luke and 1 Timothy quotes which you have cited.
1) To suggest not only that Luke was already written at the time that Paul was writing his letters (setting aside the question of authorship of the Pastorals), but also that Luke and the other Gospels were sufficiently established for Paul to consider them part of the Canonical Scripture alongside the books of the Torah is preposterous. If your claim is true that 1 Timothy 5:18 was written by Paul, then he would be citing a line from Deuteronomy and a line from Luke and listing them equally as part of "Scripture". By comparison, the formal New Testament canon was not officially laid down until the Council of Carthage in 397.
2) The claim that Luke's Gospel was written by Paul's companion is just as doubtful as the authorship of 1 Timothy (at least to skeptical Liberals like myself). The identification of Luke as Luke the Physician would push the writing of Mark's Gospel much earlier than all evidence would suggest since Luke borrows extensively from Mark's work.
You have the God-given right (wording intentional given your orientation) to believe in the Bible and all things Christian as being inerrant and perfect. However, attempting to argue from a starting assumption of inerrancy will not get you many converts in the realm of rational, critical, historical discussions. A starting point of 50% belief is the statistical ideal, but of course few of us on either side of the debate are able to be quite that objective;-)
At the end of the day, there simply isn't any objective evidence to time the authorship of Luke earlier than Paul's letters. And as mentioned above, there is no way that Paul (a Pharisaic Jew up until his Conversion) would have been able to justify elevating a story written by his close friend (Luke the Physician) about Jesus at third hand (neither Paul or Luke knew Jesus in life) roughly 30 years after the Crucifixion to the level of established Scriptural canon (ignoring all of the problems of chronology and authorship).
As @Richard965 pointed out, the due of a wage to a workman is mentioned repeatedly in the OT albeit in different wording. The most logical (given a neutral starting point sans inerrancy) conclusions are a much later date for 1 Timothy when Luke was well-circulated, or more likely, that the author of 1 Timothy was referencing Deuteronomy 24 and other OT passages as "Scripture" in his quote and that Luke quoted 1 Timothy in his writing much later.
This post is almost a year old. I may have overlooked it or simply didn't bother replying to it. I don't remember. In either case a very strong argument can be made that all three synoptic Gospels, as well as the Book of Acts were written by the early 60's at the latest.
That argument rests upon the fact that the Book of Acts was written after Luke wrote his Gospel account, and that his Gospel account was written after Matthew and Mark wrote their accounts. And since the Book of Acts doesn't mention some important events which it seems that Luke would have included had they occurred before he wrote Acts, or while he was writing it, this suggests that those events occurred after the Book of Acts had been written.
Those events include the deaths of Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and Paul who is the focus of the latter part of Acts, as well as the Neronian persecutions against Christians which began in A.D. 64, and the Jewish rebellion against Rome beginning in A.D. 66. It's doubtful that Luke would have ignored these important events and not have written about them in Acts.
As for the dating of 1 Timothy, that would probably be somewhere in the 60's. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo write concerning the epistle,
If Paul was released from his imprisonment in Rome and wrote this letter during the course of his subsequent missionary activities, we should date it during the 60's, probably the early 60's. It has traditionally been held that the apostle was martyred under Nero (who died in 68).
An Introduction to the New Testament, D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, p. 571]
Carson and Moo do acknowledge J. A.T. Robinson's (a liberal theologian by the way) suggestion that Paul may have written 1 Timothy during his earlier ministry which would date the letter to the mid 50's.
Precise dating is simply not possible, but it is certainly possible that the Synoptic Gospels, and Acts were written before Paul wrote his later letters.
Making up stories about the origins of Christ belief
Quote:
Quote:
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, 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, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people! Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" " The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3
Any of this sound familiar?
Again, I am only presenting historical data for consideration. It's odd that we have a historical man named Jesus who went around prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem and was killed saying, "Woe to you, Jerusalem." Interesting that these same facts turn up a few years later in Mark's account, . . .
No they don't. Jesus Christ never said "Woe to Jerusalem!" in the gospel accounts. It was Jeremiah who said that.
Quote:
. . . the first gospel trying to put a human face on a person who was believed by many of His followers to be the Son of God whose appearance on earth was first as a spirit, . . .
What have you been smoking?
Quote:
. . . in conformity to many other sons of gods (Horus, Dionysius, Mithras) who later took on human form as required by other pagan mystic religions of the times.
No, if Horus and Dionysius and Mithras ever had human form it was very EARLY, in prehistory, as real humans in history to which later legends and fictions became attached.
Quote:
The parallels seem to be striking.
No, there are no parallels, other than your projection of your Christian culture back onto the earlier pagan deities. There's nothing in the pagan texts, the pre-Christian writings, to show any "parallels." You are getting this from modern Jesus-debunker theorists, without any facts or evidence taken from the early pagan myths.
Only just noticed this so I won't join in this late, but it came up on the Historical Jesus thread. I'm sure it's been pointed out that Jesus ben Ananaus was too late by 30 years to be Jesus and he was apparently a relative of Caiaphas, who had been High Priest. Hang on...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Making up stories about the origins of Christ belief
