The law of the two or three witnesses.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Our discussion of Paul has brought the Law of two or three witnesses into question, so I thought it is a topic that deserves more attention.

The law of the two or three witnesses.

http://www.bibleman.net/Two_or_three_witnesses.htm

2 Corinthians 13:1 THIS [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Obviously the word "every" is well clear.

The law of the witnesses was given from God with a precise purpose:"refute or confirm a truth, human or divine. Usually "our friends" locate what they thinks is the weak ring in the chain and from there they start to attack.

If we consider seriously to the light of the scriptures, and above all on the light of the law of the witnesses, we will see what are the real weak rings in the chain of the great apostate doctrines.

The law of the two or three witnesses was given in the law of Moses and many people maintain that it was given in cases of justice, but instead its purpose was far greater like Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 13:1 It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it in these particular cases like we are going to prove by the scriptures.

John 8:13-18

The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

John 8:14
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, [yet] my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

John 8:15
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

John 8:16
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

John 8:17
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

John 8:18
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Jesus accepted the challenge because He knew that the challenge was fair and here it is interesting also because Jesus compare His Father to a man.

Jesus, previously, had already referred to this law personally.

John 5:31-34

¶ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 5:32
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

John 5:33
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

John 5:34
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
Also in Matthew 18:15-16

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Matthew 18:16
16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

At this point it would be very interesting to garble the great doctrines of the different churches, if they have no witnesses in the Bible or just one, surely they will fail the test.

___________________________________________

As a footnote I think it is rather curious that when Paul cites the rule of three witnesses, he apparently seems to think that his testimony given three times counts as 3 witnesses. Me, myself and I? Is he crazy or what?

2 Corinthians 13:1 THIS [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

[Abogado del Diablo]

So who are the two or three witnesses to the life, crucifixtion and ressurection of Jesus?


Certainly none of the authors of the Canonical Gospels. Certainly not Paul. Who does that leave?

[JJM]

If you wish to proceed with this not only did Paul receive a vision that he should go to Damascus but Ananias received a vision to get Paul when he got there. That is two people enough to believe as a fact. Not to mention the people with Paul on the journey who didn’t understand/ hear the message.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

So who are the two or three witnesses to the life, crucifixtion and ressurection of Jesus?


Certainly none of the authors of the Canonical Gospels. Certainly not Paul. Who does that leave?

Actually both Mathew and John where apostles. That is two. Although only John was actually at the cross.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

Actually both Mathew and John where apostles. That is two. Although only John was actually at the cross.

How do you know this?

Most scholars think Matthew was copying from Mark (who also wasn't a first hand witness). And the only evidence about the author of John is double hearsay from Iraeneus - the book itself doesn't identify its author.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

If you wish to proceed with this not only did Paul receive a vision that he should go to Damascus but Ananias received a vision to get Paul when he got there. That is two people enough to believe as a fact. Not to mention the people with Paul on the journey who didn’t understand/ hear the message.

The law of the two or three witnesses is widely accepted by theologians (and by common sense).

Since Luke was never mentioned by any of the original apostles, he is basically an unknown, and therefore not an authority for anything. Anybody can write a book and claim it is is inspired. If I wrote one, you would not accept it. The Catholics accepted Paul and his disciple, Luke, only because their agendas were compatible.

The claims of Paul to receive a vision from Christ without witnesses are doubly doutful because they are contained in a fictional book written by Luke, a person who was never recognized to be an authority by the Twelve.

And besides, the events in Acts are soundly contradicted by Paul's own account in Galatians (in which he never mentioned a vision on the road to Damascus) and are also contradicted by Matthew, Mark and John. Holy scripture cannot contain blatant contradictions.

And Jesus never predicted the arrival of new apostles beyond The Twelve, He only predicted the arrival of new false apostles.

[JJM]

I will read Galatians today but you are wrong about none of the other apostles mentioning him:

2 Peter 3
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.



2 Peter was written by Peter thus the name. So unless you wish to claim that this letter is a fake too simply because it contradicts you. Also if you think that Acts is fictional you have no reason not to think the entire bible is fictional unless you just want a reason to hate Paul and now that all of your other excuses have fallen through you resort to pretending that Acts is false. Also if it is fake then why did you use it to prove things against Paul? Obviously if these things never happened then it doesn't Matter what Paul does in these books. And also if it is a fake then it shouldn’t matter what Paul wrote in Galatians because it doesn’t have anything to contradict.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

How do you know this?

Most scholars think Matthew was copying from Mark (who also wasn't a first hand witness). And the only evidence about the author of John is double hearsay from Iraeneus - the book itself doesn't identify its author.

True Matthew was copying form Mark but he was also elaborating on it. THe reason I think that these books where written by those authors is the same reaons I trust that Jesus did in fact rise from the Dead. the answer is faith.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

True Matthew was copying form Mark but he was also elaborating on it. THe reason I think that these books where written by those authors is the same reaons I trust that Jesus did in fact rise from the Dead. the answer is faith.

Exactly. Faith - that's all there is as the basis of literal Christianity. There are no "two or three witnesses" though, which was my point.

As far as Matthew "elaborating" on Mark, that is unsupported and doubtful.

As J. C. Fenton argues in "The Gospel of Saint Matthew" (p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

I would add that not even Iraeneus and Eusebius dared suggest the author of Mark was a first-hand witness, as it's author wasn't even familiar with basic geography of the region. As Randal Helms explains in "Who Wrote the Gospels" (p.6):

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

Nobody seriously argues (except based on "faith") that the authors of John (probably written around 90 CE) or Luke (who was at best a disciple of Paul - possibly Philemon) were eyewitnesses either. The evidence pretty clearly suggests that none of the authors of the canonical Gospels were witnesses to the events described in them. Have we fallen into the trap of discussing arational vs. irrational faith?

[Abogado del Diablo]

I would also add that the Gospel of John has a number of passages that strongly suggest a Gnostic origin. The version we see now may, in fact, as Helms argues, be a revised version of a Gnostic Gospel. Elaine Pagels gives this theory some consideration as well. Helms, after reviewing anti-heretic writings of the second century CE opposing the early belief that John was written by Cerinthus, concludes that there may have been an early "Gnostic" John that was revised to create the version we have today. The would certainly explain Pagels' misgivings about the strange mix of Gnostic and Literalist thought in the Gospel of John.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

I will read Galatians today but you are wrong about none of the other apostles mentioning him:

Originally Posted by JJM

2 Peter 3
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.



2 Peter was written by Peter thus the name. So unless you wish to claim that this letter is a fake too simply because it contradicts you. Also if you think that Acts is fictional you have no reason not to think the entire bible is fictional unless you just want a reason to hate Paul and now that all of your other excuses have fallen through you resort to pretending that Acts is false. Also if it is fake then why did you use it to prove things against Paul? Obviously if these things never happened then it doesn't Matter what Paul does in these books. And also if it is a fake then it shouldn’t matter what Paul wrote in Galatians because it doesn’t have anything to contradict.

Many prominent scholars think that 2 Peter was a pseudonymity,that is, it was written by somebody other than Peter. (And some think it may have been written by a Pauline sympathizer. One of the reasons for this view is that 2 Peter is written in the style of Paul, and his writing often includes condescending and threatening language to intimidate people.)

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As Pauline doctrine became the major dogma of the Catholic church, such heavy-handedness helped pave the way for centuries of oppression and Inquisitions. It must be noted that Pauline doctrine enforces its will by stressing faith instead of reason and fear of punishment on this earth and in Hell for those who dare to think on their own.

Here are some notes on the authorship of 2 Peter:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/2_Peter.htm

The informed skeptic is aware that out of all the epistles accepted into the cannon, none has received as much difficulty as Second Peter. Rejection of Peter as the author of Second Peter is the most common opinion today, and is supported by one of Christianity’s most authoritative conservative biblical scholars, Bruce Metzger, (a scholar that I personally have high regard for). Metzger writes:

"Although the author of this letter calls himself ‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter’s name....In light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 258).

In scholarly circles, Second Peter is classified as a pseudonymity, a term referring to, as Metzger mentions, an author assuming the name of another and writing supposedly on his behalf. Gary Ferngren, author of Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament, states the situation as to Second Peter accurately:

"...a majority of informed scholars regard 2 Peter as pseudonymous, and this view is taken by many as a proven fact...A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive" (Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 134 #536: 341).


-----------------------
Contradictions in chronology of Paul's life between the Acts and Galatians.

Acts
(1)Paul converted on the way to Damascus (9:1-8).
(2)He goes to Ananias in Damascus and stays there 'several days' (9:20).
(3)After 'some time'*, Paul goes to Jerusalem (9:23,26) and meets the apostles there (9:27).
(4)Paul preaches in Jerusalem, but due to threats to kill him, he is sent to Tarsus (9:30).
(5)Relief to Jerusalem and Judea taken by Paul & Barnabas (2nd visit) (11:30)
(6)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd time) (12:25)
(7)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd or 4th time) (15:1ff).

Galatians.
(1)Paul is converted (1:16).
(2)He does not go to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and then Damascus (1:17)
(3)After 3 years, Paul goes to Jerusalem, meeting only Cephas and James there (1:18-19) staying only 15 days.
(4)He then goes to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (1:21).
(5)14 years later, Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus (2:1).
(6)Paul confronts Cephas at Antioch (2:11).
(7)No further information.
The 'some time' in Acts 9:19 is not clear as to how long this was; different translations render this 'some time passed' (Jerusalem), 'after a number of days' (Moffatt); the literal Greek is "'many' with the view of being sufficient"; however it is rendered, it is difficult to reconcile this with the three years of Gal 1:18.
*It is not clear whether 12:25 is a return to Jerusalem, or a return to Antioch from Jerusalem; if the former, and the Acts 15 visit is the Gal 2:1-10 one, then in Acts it would be the fourth visit, whilst Paul states it was only the second.
Paul's method of counting in Gal. is not absolutely clear, ie. whether his 14 years in Gal 2:1 is 14 years after his starting point in Gal (ie. his conversion) or 14 years after the first Jerusalem visit 3 years after his conversion which he had mentioned immediately beforehand (ie. a total of 17 years after his conversion).
Numerous others problems arise when trying to reconcile the two accounts, e.g. Acts has Paul in Jerusalem and Judea in his early life (21:17 then 22:3) and as a persecutor of the church there (7:58, 9:1-2,13,21, 26:10) which makes Paul's comment that (Gal 1:22) he was not known by sight by the churches in Judea even after his time in Jerusalem, Syria and Cilicia (1:17- 21) appear impossible. Furthermore when Paul has a dispute with Peter at Antioch about Gentile fellowship in Gal 2, why does he not remind him of what was agreed at the Acts 15 conference on this very subject ?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

-----------------------
Contradictions in chronology of Paul's life between the Acts and Galatians.

Acts
(1)Paul converted on the way to Damascus (9:1-8).
(2)He goes to Ananias in Damascus and stays there 'several days' (9:20).
(3)After 'some time'*, Paul goes to Jerusalem (9:23,26) and meets the apostles there (9:27).
(4)Paul preaches in Jerusalem, but due to threats to kill him, he is sent to Tarsus (9:30).
(5)Relief to Jerusalem and Judea taken by Paul & Barnabas (2nd visit) (11:30)
(6)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd time) (12:25)
(7)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd or 4th time) (15:1ff).

Galatians.
(1)Paul is converted (1:16).
(2)He does not go to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and then Damascus (1:17)
(3)After 3 years, Paul goes to Jerusalem, meeting only Cephas and James there (1:18-19) staying only 15 days.
(4)He then goes to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (1:21).
(5)14 years later, Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus (2:1).
(6)Paul confronts Cephas at Antioch (2:11).
(7)No further information.
The 'some time' in Acts 9:19 is not clear as to how long this was; different translations render this 'some time passed' (Jerusalem), 'after a number of days' (Moffatt); the literal Greek is "'many' with the view of being sufficient"; however it is rendered, it is difficult to reconcile this with the three years of Gal 1:18.
*It is not clear whether 12:25 is a return to Jerusalem, or a return to Antioch from Jerusalem; if the former, and the Acts 15 visit is the Gal 2:1-10 one, then in Acts it would be the fourth visit, whilst Paul states it was only the second.
Paul's method of counting in Gal. is not absolutely clear, ie. whether his 14 years in Gal 2:1 is 14 years after his starting point in Gal (ie. his conversion) or 14 years after the first Jerusalem visit 3 years after his conversion which he had mentioned immediately beforehand (ie. a total of 17 years after his conversion).
Numerous others problems arise when trying to reconcile the two accounts, e.g. Acts has Paul in Jerusalem and Judea in his early life (21:17 then 22:3) and as a persecutor of the church there (7:58, 9:1-2,13,21, 26:10) which makes Paul's comment that (Gal 1:22) he was not known by sight by the churches in Judea even after his time in Jerusalem, Syria and Cilicia (1:17- 21) appear impossible. Furthermore when Paul has a dispute with Peter at Antioch about Gentile fellowship in Gal 2, why does he not remind him of what was agreed at the Acts 15 conference on this very subject ?

Ok let’s start off with showing that Paul says that he received a revelation from God in 1:12 and his conversion in 1:16 also implies that he was given divine authority to be an apostle to the gentiles. Something that is also mention in the revelation he received in Acts. Secondly just because you don't want the "some time” to be the three years doesn't mean it isn’t. Now I will also admit that Paul leaves quite a bit out but this letter was written during Paul's 2nd journey. He lived at least another 10 years after it was written. Also this was a letter written only from the memory of Paul where Acts is story meant to contain much as possible and we know that Luke wrote down everything Paul did meticulously. Maybe Paul's other exploits slipped his mind at the time or maybe he didn't feel it was necessary to write them all in a condensed summery of his life that was only meant to show his authenticity. As for the fight with Peter maybe Paul didn’t think of the council at the time of his writing it. Also because only relative dates are known of these events it is possible that this letter was written anytime form 1 year before the council to 6 years after it so it is possible the council hadn't happened when this argument occurred. What is certain is that the people Paul was rebuking with this letter would have been arguing that the council was invalid so quoting it would have done little more than to waste time, ink, and paper. So I don’t think that these two writings truly contradict each other.







Secondly since when ever I quote a bible passage you seem to invalidate the book (don’t get me wrong I think that you truly didn’t accept the books before I quoted them) let’s look at how many New Testament books are left after using your logic. Let’s start off with all of the New Testament books.



Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation



Now we must remove all the books written by Paul



Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation



Now the books by Luke



Matthew

Mark

John

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation



Now because the gospel of Luke was based on Matthew and Mark they must have been supported by Paul so out they go:



John

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation



Also because as you pointed out the writing styles of 1 & 2 Peter seem to be different so we can’t know which was actually written by Peter so we must loose both of them.



John

James

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation



Also since you seem to accept any biblical theory that suggests that a book wasn’t attributed to its author and those books must be removed because they are fakes. That leaves these:



James

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude



So this leaves the New Testament at Thirteen short Chapters. This is all we can really go on about the message of Christ because tradition is obviously out the window. Now obviously I don’t believe this but by your standards you had better. And of course I just did this to show how ridiculous this is. However if you don’t accept 2nd peter or Paul’s writings you must only accept these five letters.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Exactly. Faith - that's all there is as the basis of literal Christianity. There are no "two or three witnesses" though, which was my point.

I would have to agree sorry for the post I made. May I ask what does literal christianity refer to? (my ignorance is showing )

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

I would have to agree sorry for the post I made. May I ask what does literal christianity refer to? (my ignorance is showing )

Early on in the history of the Church it came under fire for being little more than another verion of the "Pagan" mysteries. You can see the Churches response in the earliest "Christian" writings - those of Justin Martyr in his First and Second Apologies. As a result, the early Church had to set it self apart from the dozen or so other, major, mystery religions (many of which were more prevalent and widespread than the "Christian" version). As a result, early Christian apologists seized upon the notion that its version of the "mysteries" was literally, historically true and that the fundamental aspect of Christianity was to have faith that its version of the story was literally, historically true. Justin Martyr dismissed the other versions of the story (many of which pre-date the alleged time of Jesus by centuries) as "diabolic mimicry."

This was the birth of Literal Christianity.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

just because you don't want the "some time” to be the three years doesn't mean it isn’t.

Now because the gospel of Luke was based on Matthew and Mark they must have been supported by Paul so out they go:


Also because as you pointed out the writing styles of 1 & 2 Peter seem to be different so we can’t know which was actually written by Peter so we must loose both of them.
Also since you seem to accept any biblical theory that suggests that a book wasn’t attributed to its author and those books must be removed because they are fakes. That leaves these:

gg
Gal 1:16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

According to Paul's story in Galatians, he did not wait for 'some time' but went immediately to Arabia (Edom).


As to throwing out all those NT books, you are engaging in hyperbole, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the 'gospel of Luke' was built upon the gospel of Mark does not mean Mark is false, and just because some books were not written by their namesake does not necessarily mean they have no value.

I hope you are also aware that the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was added during the 4th century AD, and this therefore tends to discredit the Pauline phenomena of 'speaking in tongues' and drinking poison and handling vipers as a sign of faith.

Finally, please realize that Jesus accomplished his mission without once quoting the words found in Paul's epistles or Luke's Acts. If He could do without Paul or Luke, we can certainly manage without them as well.

By the way, what did Paul say that was so important that you cling to him so much?

Wolfgang