Sentences with phrase «nt scholars»
A 2011 update on Jesus of Nazareth based on the conclusions of many contemporary (and not so contemporary) NT scholars.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/
-- fact as concluded by the NT scholars referenced above with Ehrman a «johnny come lately»
However, the evidence that you choose to ignore is that most NT scholars believe they have good reason to believe it was unlikely and it is one of several reasons, for instance, that they find it unlikely that Peter was the author of Peter 2, for instance.
Matt 24: 15 - 16 (also Mark 13:14) as with all the NT passages have been thoroughly analyzed by many contemporary NT scholars.
You will have to read the studies of contemporary historians and NT scholars to see how they decide the authenticity of historical events and passagess.
Said passage, as per many contemporary NT scholars, was not said by the historical Jesus.
And one more time, some of the references used by NT scholars for reviewing the life of the historical Jesus and the names of some of their books containing their conclusions:
Matt 24:36 / Mark 13:30 has been judged to be inauthentic by many contemporary NT scholars.
The 30 % authentic comment comes the studies of the previous referenced contemporary NT scholars.
History shows that NT scholars have long wrestled with the authorship of Peter 2.
Matt 19: 24 «Warren Buffett passing through the eye of a needle», is one of the few NT passages that was said by the historic Jesus as per most contemporary NT scholars.
Based on the use of rigorous historic testing (# of attestations, time of publication, grammar, analogous stories in the OT etc.) by many contemporary NT scholars, it is not.
Matt 7: 23 has been analyzed by many contemporary NT scholars.
Colossians 3:18, as per most contemporary NT scholars, was not written by «St».
For instance, he completely ignores the fact that the majority of NT scholars in the world believe that much of the NT is pseudepigraphic (that many of the NT books were not written by the authors whom tradition claims wrote them).
Luke 20:25 - authentic Jesus based on the conclusions of all contemporary NT scholars.
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars.
Analyses of Jesus» life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen) via the NT and related doc - uments have concluded that only about 30 % of Jesus» sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic.
To that end, contemporary NT scholars such as Professors Chilton, Crossan, and Ludemann are proficient in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, English and historical testing methods.
This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related doc - ument making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars» analyses.
As with all NT passages, Mark 7: 5 - 23 has been thoroughly analyzed for historic authenticity by many contemporary NT scholars.
This pa - ssage is not attested to in any other NT pa - ssage or in any other related doc - ument making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars» analyses.
Mark 9:1 = Matt 16:28 = Luke 9:27: As per many contemporary NT scholars, said passage is a single attestation i.e. Matt and Luke copied it from Mark plus its reconstruction makes its validity nil.
Jesus didn't say anything directly about polygamy either, yet NT scholars on all sides have recognized that if Jesus regarded remarriage after divorce as adultery (a form of serial polygamy), on the grounds that it violated the duality of «male and female,» he certainly regarded unions of three or more persons as adultery (concurrent polygamy or polygamy proper).
An - alyses of Jesus» life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen,) via the NT and related doc - uments have concluded that only about 30 % of Jesus» sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic.
As per many contemporary NT scholars after thorough an - alyses, said passage is a single attestation created by Mark and later copied by Matthew and Luke and therefore historically inauthentic.
You will have to read the studies of contemporary historians and NT scholars to see how they decide the authenticity of historical events and passages.
Is there any overwhelming agreement among NT scholars on the authorship of Peter or the rest of the inner circle?
An - alyses of Jesus» life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen,) via the NT and related doc - uments have concluded that only about 30 % or less of Jesus» sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic.
As with all NT passages, Matt 7: 14 has been thoroughly analyzed for historic authenticity by many contemporary NT scholars.
Luke 6:31 = Matt 7:12 - no he did not according to the findings of many contemporary NT scholars.
So where is that approval of Paul's word as divine scripture now that most NT scholars believe that Peter did not author Peter 2?
Most contemporary NT scholars do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors / rapture.
So after thorough analyses of the NT Christmas passages, what are a few of the conclusions of some of the top contemporary NT scholars?
Matt 24: 4 - 51 has been thoroughly analyzed by many contemporay NT scholars.
From what I've seen, most NT scholars that give good reasons why Peter 2 is not from Peter are Christians.
Matt 13: 38 as per many contemporary NT scholars is a single attestation found no where else in scripture and therefore historically unreliable.
John 3:16 by the way is a single attestation in the NT and many contemporary NT scholars have concluded that it was not said by the historical Jesus.
Also would add since I reread Mere Christianity and now going through Strobels The Case for the Real Jesus, his second book where he interviews NT scholars to answer the six objection mostly raised by Crossan and Ehrman.
The Jesus and lust passage after rigorous historic testing by a number of NT scholars is historically nil.
But OOOPS, most NT scholars have come to believe it is unlikely that Peter wrote Peter 2 where such blessing is alleged.
Luke 16: 31 as per many contemporary NT scholars, was not uttered by the historic Jesus.
«many contemporary NT scholars,»... «was not uttered by the historic Jesus» The early Ecclesia authenticated the letters written under apostoloic authority.
The stamp of approval that appears in Peter 2, where now, most NT scholars agree that it is unlikely that Peter authored Peter 2.
Said reference list was not cherry - picked as it has references to all the contemporary NT scholars to include conservative believers in the OT and NT and the scriptures themselves had you bothered to check.
Of course most NT scholars find good reason to think that Peter did not author Peter 2, where Peter allegedly deems Paul's works as divine scripture.
most NT scholars do not think that Peter authored Peter 2 where that stamp of approval appears, Theo.
Reality «most contemporary NT scholars have concluded» — this has never been qualified — those NT «scholars» who have disputed authenticity are not believers anyway, so why do you think Christians care?
And there are plenty of NT scholars of various types that question the authorship of Peter 2 ---------------- And there are plenty of scientists who say that evolution is bunk.
An - alyses of Jesus» life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen,) via the NT and related doc - uments have concluded that only 5 - 30 % of Jesus» sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic.