Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 2 Peter

[Silk Fiji]

For their own self-interest, Christians should admit the Gospels were intended as "cleverly devised myths" (2 Peter 1:16).

Muslims use the Gospels to portray Jesus as an Earthly preacher who does miracles merely through God's will.

If Christians admit the Gospels are fictions plagiarized from the LXX and Paul's letters, they can argue from Paul's letters and Philo of Alexandria. They can argue Jesus is God's top archangel/Logos.

[jimwalton]

There's no reason for us to admit an accusation that is misleading and untrue (that the Gospels are cleverly devised myths). Peter's exact point in 2 Peter 1.16 is that the Gospel stories are NOT mythological, and that Peter and the others were eyewitnesses of Jesus and all He said and did. Apparently Peter's accusers were much like yourself, slandering the record of the Apostles. But Peter says they have told the truth (1.12) and have based what they said on their witnessing of these things (1.16). He says, "We were there!" (v. 18).

> Muslims use the Gospels to portray Jesus as an Earthly preacher who does miracles merely through God's will.

Indeed they do. They miss the whole point of the Gospels pointing to Jesus as divine (Mk. 1.1; Jn. 1.1; 10.30, et al.).

> If Christians admit the Gospels are fictions plagiarized from the LXX and Paul's letters, they can argue from Paul's letters and Philo of Alexandria.

1. I need to see your evidence that the Gospels are fiction.
2. I need to see your evidence that the Gospels are plagiarized from the LXX
3. I need to see your evidence that the Gospels are plagiarized from Paul's letters.

You have to give me at least something to hang onto that's not just a personal opinion. Your accusations are as old as the hills, and they don't hold up under scrutiny.

But I'd love to talk about it. Let's see your support for your claims.

By the way, this is exactly the same conversation you brought up 2 years ago, and we've discussed it already.

[Silk Fiji]

Clement quotes the Old Testament when quoting Jesus.

Like Paul, Clement had no idea about an Earthly Jesus.

When Clement says, ‘Christ himself calls to us through the Holy Spirit’, and then quotes ‘Christ’ at length, what we find in fact is simply a quotation of the Psalms (1 Clem. 22.1-8, which matches Pss 34.11-17, 19; and 32.10). Thus Clement assumes that Jesus ‘speaks’ to us through the scriptures. Clement didn’t even have to say this. He simply assumes that a quotation of the Old Testament can be described as a quotation of ‘Christ’ without explanation or citation—the fact that the Corinthians don’t need this to be explained to them entails this was routinely understood within the churches of the time: that Jesus speaks through the Old Testament, rather than human tradition.

[jimwalton]

Why are you trying to tell that Clement quotes the Old Testament when quoting? You have edited Clement unfairly to skew the results. It doesn't prove the Gospels are fiction, nor that the Gospels are plagiarized from the LXX, nor that they are plagiarized from Paul's letters.

Clement ch. 1: ", to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ," speaking of the historical Jesus. It's a New Testament (NT) doctrine.

"Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied." Speaking of the historical Jesus. It's a NT doctrine.

Clement, ch. 2: "Content with the provision that God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, ye were inwardly filled with His doctrine, and His sufferings were before your eyes." This is speaking of the death of Jesus in space/time history. It's a NT doctrine.

"while a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon you all." A reference to Pentecost in Acts 2.

Ch. 7: He speaks of Christ's death.

Ch. 13: He quotes Mt. 7.2.

Ch. 15: He quotes Mt. 15.8 (which is also Mk. 7.6)

Ch. 16: He alludes to Lk. 22.26 (Mt. 23.11)

Ch. 46: He alludes or quotes from Mt. 18.6 (Mk. 9.42).

Even though he quotes extensively from the OT, he quotes the NT also. He treats Jesus, the Apostle Peter, and Paul as historical figures.

What's your point, anyway? This link doesn't show anything. Further down in the thread there's a long wall of text from you, but I'd have to ask: Why are you rehashing a conversation you already had? You already either got your answers, or possibly refuse to listen to what anyone has to say. I'm struggling to understand what your point is. What you quoted from Clement doesn't show that Jesus is mythological, or that the Gospels are fictionalized or mythography. You'll need to be more clear.

[Silk Fiji]

What do you have to say exactly? The Gospels plagiarize the LXX line by line.

[jimwalton]

The Gospels most often quote from the LXX when they are quoting OT texts. This is not plagiarism, but documentation. It's not plagiarism because they preface such use with "As the prophets say," or "In the Law it says." So first of all, this is not plagiarism, and secondly, it doesn't discredit the Gospel accounts as "therefore fictions" or "intended as 'cleverly devised myths'."

I have no problems with the Gospel writers using the LXX as their main OT source document. It was, as you know, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanakh). So what if they used it as their source? What's your point in bringing it up? Why, in your mind, does this discredit the Gospels?

[Silk Fiji]

This is plagiarism:

It happened after this . . . (Kings 17.17)
It happened afterwards . . . (Luke 7.11)

At the gate of Sarepta, Elijah meets a widow (Kings 17.10).
At the gate of Nain, Jesus meets a widow (Luke 7.11-12).

Another widow’s son was dead (Kings 17.17).
This widow’s son was dead (Luke 7.12).

That widow expresses a sense of her unworthiness on account of sin (Kings 17.18).
A centurion (whose ‘boy’ Jesus had just saved from death) had just expressed a sense of his unworthiness on account of sin (Luke 7.6).

Elijah compassionately bears her son up the stairs and asks ‘the Lord’ why he was allowed to die (Kings 17.13-14).
‘The Lord’ feels compassion for her and touches her son’s bier, and the bearers stand still (Luke 7.13-14).

Elijah prays to the Lord for the son’s return to life (Kings 17.21).
‘The Lord’ commands the boy to rise (Luke 7.14).

The boy comes to life and cries out (Kings 17.22).
‘And he who was dead sat up and began to speak’ (Luke 7.15).

‘And he gave him to his mother’, kai edōken auton tē mētri autou (Kings 17.23).
‘And he gave him to his mother’, kai edōken auton tē mētri autou (Luke 7.15).

The widow recognizes Elijah is a man of God and that ‘the word’ he speaks is the truth (Kings 17.24).
The people recognize Jesus as a great prophet of God and ‘the word’ of this truth spreads everywhere (Luke 7.16-17).

[jimwalton]

Well, let's look at this a little closer and more responsibly.

First, you are placing the Luke verses in order, but you're bouncing all over 1 Kings 17. Are you claiming Luke likewise bounced all over the 1 Kings chapter to pull a phrase like "he's dead"? That's a bit of a strange claim.

But I'll roll with it for now, as odd as it seems.

Luke 7.11. Luke uses ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς ("soon afterwards")
LXX 1 Ki. 17.17 uses μετὰ ταῦτα ("After these things")

Where's the plagiarism?

Luke 7.12. Jesus meets a widow, whose son is dead.
1 Ki. 17.10. You've moved backwards in this text to make your theory work. But her son was dead? No, actually. It wasn't the widow's son who died (v. 10), but "the son of the widow who owned the house (17.17).

Just perhaps widows were common in the ancient world. Where's the plagiarism?

Luke 7.6. Now you've popped to a completely different story. The centurion shows humility before Jesus, recognizing his authority. "That is why I didn't even consider myself worth to come to you."
1 Ki. 17.18: You claim she expressed a sense of unworthiness because of her sin. But if you actually read the verse (and I wonder if you have), she's bitter and angry, feeling that she is being unfairly judged: "Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?"

This is not plagiarism, not even close. None of the same terms are used. Not even the same concepts.

Luke 7.13-14. Now you've popped back to the original story. Jesus's heart was tugged in her direction (Luke says "καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ’ αὐτῇ": "And upon seeing her the Lord was moved in his bowels (their expression for compassion) towards her." In the Gospels, compassion and pity are often mentioned as the motives for Christ's miracles (Mt. 14.14; 15.32, etc.)
1 Kings. 17.21. Elijah stretches himself out on top of the dead boy and prayed three times for God to resurrect him. There is no mention of Elijah's feelings or attitude.

These are nothing alike. Where's the plagiarism? This case of yours is holding no water.

Luke 7.14. Jesus uses his divine authority to command the boy to rise, and he does rise. Jesus says, "σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι." ("I say to you, arise.")
1 Ki. 17.22. God answered Elijah's prayer, and God (not Elijah) raised the boy. The LXX says, "καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως καὶ ἀνεβόησεν τὸ παιδάριον" ("And it came to pass that the child was resurrected.")

Where's the plagiarism here? In one case Jesus raised the boy by his own power. In the other, Elijah prayed for God to raise the boy and He did. That's not plagiarism.

Luke 7.15. "καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ." "And He gave him to his mother."
LXX 1 Ki. 17.23: "καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ" And he gave him to his mother."

Finally an identical wording.

Luke 7.16-17. The people were amazed. I would be, too. They recognize Jesus as "a great prophet" (Προφήτης μέγας) is in their midst, and they spread the news.
1 Ki. 17.24. The woman recognized him as a man of God (didn't use the word "prophet" or "great") and uses the phrase "the word of the Lord from your mouth is the truth." None of these words or concepts are in Luke.

Plagiarism? Not even close.

And, I would add, most of the words and concepts in Luke's account have no parallel in the 1 Kings story. You've picked around the text to try to make a point, but all of it except the phrase "and he gave him to his mother" washes out in the laundry.

You know what? This case of yours is as leaky as the Titanic.