Paul Williams Finally Withdraws Before Any Further Silly Fundamentalist Claptrap

The ex-president of MDI, international speaker, debater and former-Christian, pro-Sharia advocate, Sufi lover and Muslim revert Paul Williams (PW) has made a post exposing and banning me from bloggingtheology.com from here at www.AnsweringAbraham.com (I hope this does not impact my co-author Jose Joesph). 

He claims claiming my theological, philosophical and exegetical defense of the doctrine of the Biblical Trinity is insincere or pretentious due to my aforementioned apostasy of Christianity mentioned (here, here and here).

In essence this criticism is nothing but an ad-hominem: "argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument"

This information was freely accessible and privy to inquisitive prying eyes ever since I have participated in PW's blog earlier this year, anyone has been able to click on my username and come and visit my blog and read about my views directly or even view my page from PW's web-blog sidebar. I have been an open book.

One Muslim who actually bothered to read my "credentials" or at least do a background check, even commented on this:

Eric 

February 15, 2014 • 7:21 am 

Hi Derek, 

I am curious to know, as a former christian and now an agnostic (atheist?) do you view the Gospels, especially John’s present historical biographies of Jesus or just are fictional parables? 

Regards, 

-Eric 

Reply ↓ 

Eric 

February 15, 2014 • 10:13 am 

Brother Abbas, 

I think brother Dk is a trinitarian in a sense that himself being an atheist thus an impartial observer he still thinks that the NT text has more evidences to trinitarian position that it teaches Jesus as some kind of super-God like being. 

He does not have to believe that the NT actually came from God or Divinely inspired

And if PW had of ready my short biography, he would have noticed I have never refrained from defending or asserting the affirmation of the Biblical Trinity, Incarnation, Divinity of Christ or Hypostatic Union:

"To be clear, I never had a problem with believing in a literal Genesis 1 or 2 or global flood and hence Young Earth Creationism, or the concept of the Trinity or Incarnation. I never believed the Bible was changed or corrupted (atleast not to a degree where the message was changed). I was able to believe God being one and many rather easily. I never placed science over the Bible or faith. Science was always subject to Faith. I never thought much of many Muslim objections like: "Where did Jesus say I am God", I thought there was marvelous, spectacular evidence (and still believe the NT teaches Jesus as some kind of super-God like being.) Most biblical contradictions raised by Muslims and Atheists never bothered me either."

Paul believes I am a Western Supremacist (which I don't mind being labelled at all, excluding the fact that I think some obvious regimes like the Obama administration are against Western Supremacy, they do not actively support our ideology), this information was also freely available on my profile:

"I created AnsweringAbraham, I am a skeptic. I cherish freedom. The west has so many flaws, but to work out our own flaws in liberty and as a democracy (without force) will be hard work, but all other ways fail." ~ Derek Adams

For more of my history dealing with PW, check out these links 1, 2, 3, 4 in link 4 especially note PW's position on enabling, supporting, defending Sharia Law.

While it's true I may be boastful in defending the textual veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity, I believe this is justified, while PW's rarely active, shallow claptrap has no substance at all, this can clearly be seen from the following massive thread, where if you specifically focus on the posts of Paul, you will see nothing substantial offered to me or almost anyone else for that matter, including Royalson. All credit due to the Unitarian David in this regard for most of the time trying to interact with the opposition and passionately defending his own unbiblical thoughts.

It truly is a day in history to be ranked along or even mentioned along with my brother and friend Sam Shamoun. While we sometimes have arguments, and may occasionally disagree and fight, no one can deny Sam Shamoun is truly a self-made scholar, a supremely brilliant teacher who deserves tremendous praise and respect for his hard work and contribution to the historical Muslim-Christian dialogue, from upgrading it from the likes of Ahmed Deedat, Anis Shorrosh, Jamal Baddawi, Zakir Naik, to actually substantive based interaction and polemics, the name that every dawahgandist fundamentalist Muslim fears: Sam Shamoun. A man who has made complex scholarship eloquently simple to the public. Whether you like him or hate him, you must address him. And I will be happy to defend the transparent scholarship of Shamoun over the shallow, flimsy claptrap offered by PW.

Finally, in the spirit of open honesty that I have always had on this blog and elsewhere. I will need to update my blog regarding my own world view, as some of these articles are close to two years old. I believe I am in the process of transforming into a new position, I believe my former atheism is now trumped and I lay somewhere between agnostic and desiring Christ. I do not want to make any rash decisions or attempts like my former years, I would rather ride this out and see where God takes me. In one sense I feel like my position and knowledge upgrade every day, so I never know where I will end up, I perpetually transform. However I do take serious scholarship of the Bible seriously (e.g. Erhman who I think is brilliant but not always correct), I do not believe in hell, and I may just be unorthodox in other regards aswell. Simply put: I am a work in progress.

Ever heard that one egg say: "Stop forcing your beliefs on me"? Exposing A Self Refuting Criticism

In Translation: "Stop Evangelism".

In reality, if the belief had already been forced upon the subject, then how would they be objecting to such a belief from the Proselytizer, since they already must possess the very belief that has been imposed on them? 

Firstly I ponder the content of the objection. Is the word "force" applicable? Synonyms that might belong here are impose or rape or to a lesser degree push and pressure .Intuitively speaking, no one can force any belief on any other human, perhaps the two exceptions I can think of are in raising an infant, and using psychological/sales techniques to manipulate others into having false beliefs, but neither of these methods are infallible or work completely wholesale.

In general no one can force a belief on another. For example if my house is red, and someone attempts to persuade me to believe my house is not red, can I knowingly believe this is true?  What I know to be false?

In this case then knowledge (or beliefs we hold to be certain), override externally imposed or pressured beliefs. Even if someone were capable of putting a gun at your head, you maybe able to falsely profess the house is not red, but internally you know the house is red. 

So what exactly is the question really meant to denote then?

The objection could be rephrased in several ways: 

"Do you mind, would you be kind enough as to please stop pushing your beliefs upon me?"

Pushing here may imply persistence on the part of the Proselytizer. However that is not necessarily so.

Most people who bring up this objection, do not wish to object to the repeated persistence of the Proselytizer but wish for the Proselytizer to completely stop in his or her evangelism because of the damage or harm it is doing to the individual, group or some portion of the society. 

The objection then could be more adequately be summarized in general as:

"Could you please stop preaching your beliefs to me?

But, does preaching imply force? Not unless someone is tangibly or physically restrained and/or arrested and forcibly pushed into listening to a message and/or sermon.

So what is the difference between the above and this:

 "Could you please stop sharing your beliefs with me?

By substituting the word: preaching as sharing and to as with, the sentence now seems less hostile and more realistic.

Preaching beliefs "to" could mean "at" someone  and may imply some sort of unwanted resistance but no one here in the West is under compulsion to obey or listen to Christians and other Proselytizers.

Unfortunately in some nations there are many people who must endure oppression and persecution and the plight of hearing an unwanted dark message, yet here in the West, generally speaking we do not fit that category and therefore the sentence "Stop forcing your beliefs on me" or in reality "Stop forcing me to listen to your beliefs" is not suitable for our circumstances.

And God forbid! there are actually even some circumstances where it may even be moral to share or preach to someone when the message is highly unwanted (such as a disobedient child, alcoholic, prisoner etc), and therefore in the eyes of many world views it is completely acceptable to even attempt to preach to those who may not agree or those who may not necessarily like everything the evangelist might have to say.

For some peculiar reason some sections from the uncritical, leftist, Jewish, Atheist and hippie segment(s) of society think that Religion should have a special exception, that everything else is honky dora, but religion is off limits. This is again, self refuting. It is religions like Judaism (who have this sort of) anti-proselytizing polemic embedded in the religion itself that end up preaching against evangelism as a command from religion itself! But this is itself a form of evangelism to outsiders of their faith, the very thing many Jews complain about. They don't want other faiths witnessing to them but they are quite pleasantly happy to witness to other faiths that they should not preach, which happens to be a very tenant of their faith! Total irony.

Some anti-Theists take this a little further and imply that they don't want religious teaching, symbolism, vacation days and iconography and gestures in the presence of public schools and government. 

When they say: "Stop forcing your beliefs on everyone else". What they really seem to mean is:

"Please stop voting and therefore imposing for your own personal beliefs that effect me "

The same could be argued in return very easily. If to vote for one's own position is an imposition on all other sides, then every one who votes is imposing their beliefs and policies on others including those who vote against Christians who desire prayer in schools, science in classrooms etc. 

In the general case and in the political arena, I shall make palpable the self-refuting content that exists:

A= Atheists

B= Believers

Group A wants group B to stop telling group A what to do. Group A is telling group B what to do in the process. Therefore in order for group A to be consistent, A must also stop telling group B what to do. 

One could object and say:

A man believes he has the right to rape a certain woman but she doesn't believe he has that right, nor does she want him forcing himself on her. By your logic she is wrong for pushing her beliefs that she shouldn't be raped, so she should just accept it. Your beliefs and actions should not be imposed on others.

Of course we have a clear false analogy here since the Believer is being equated with a rapist and a perpetrator and the Atheist is being equated with a female rape victim. 

But doesn't this at least illustrate a coherent point? At-least that Atheists are like a rape-victim, that by requesting the perpetrator stop (the Believer), they are merely being sensible and rational, and shouldn't have to tolerate listening to the obnoxious view of the Believer? who is "pushing" themselves on to the Atheist? In other words, the atheist is merely making a reasonable request, right? 

However comparing "rape" to both sides having an equal opportunity to present their own perspective is rather disturbing. Every home-owner is entitled to close their doors to evangelists. Freedom of religious expression (or lack of religious freedom) is a given right in our pro-human right societies, otherwise of course, it should be against the Law. I haven't notice atheists or anti-Theists rallying together any time presently or in the past to protest specifically against evangelism in general of course, because that would be self incriminating. 

I am also not saying its wrong to preach a view to someone, or share a view with someone. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists calling for Christians to stop doing it all the while they are doing it. They are guilty of the very act they accuse Christians of. 

Obviously it's not always wrong to tell people what to do or preach to them. If everyone was allowed to do anything it would be anarchy. Rules have to be set in place.

I believe it's true to say the religious try to sway the public, individuals or government to do what they believe is right and the non religious try to do the same exact thing. The difference is the non-religious deny that they do this.

In Translation the message really being argued is "Stop Evangelism", usually specifically Christian Evangelism. Yet this will never happen to Christians, as the faith commands them to preach and witness the Gospel (you are therefore asking them to relinquish freedom of religious expression and practice), nor will it happen to the western world in the wider community sense. Lets face it whether Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, or none of the above, or just a sales-person, I have one message for you:

Everyone is trying to sell something to somebody.

Oh by the way, to negate this statement is to confirm it

Sam Shamoun vs Sami Zaatar Is Jesus God debate

Common Objection by Muslims "How can God die" - Backfires Fires Against Them

The objection , how can God die is normally an argumentation that Muslims bring forth to attempt to disprove the deity of Jesus. Muslims are implying that God cease to exist since the physical body of Jesus was put to death on the cross. What's problematic is that physical death doesn't entail ceasing to exist. According the Quranic text  when someone experiences physical death they don't cease to exist, but  continues to have consciousness in the hereafter.

And say not of those slain in God's way, 'They are dead'; rather they are living, but you are not aware. S. 2:154

Count not those who were slain in God's way as dead, but rather living with their Lord, by Him provided, rejoicing in the bounty that God has given them, and joyful in those who remain behind and have not joined them, because no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow, S. 3:169-170

1. When humans physically die, they don't cease to exist according to the Quran.

2. According to Christianity Jesus who is God took on flesh, i.e human body.

3. Jesus's  human body was physically put to death.

4. Therefore when the physical body was put to death he did not cease to exist.

The Muslim's objection back fires against them because it presupposes that man is capable of physically dying but not ceasing to exist. But God himself, if he did take on flesh and physically died, he would cease to exist. Which would mean man has a mode of existence that is superior to God's on the term of physically experiencing death ,but yet not ceasing to exist.

Logically if God is capable of preserving someone who physically dies from ceasing to exist, why couldn't  he be able to take on flesh and physically die but not cease to exist? On what basis do Muslims believe when man dies he doesn't cease to exist, but if God took on flesh and dies he would cease to exist?

How even one objection from a Muslim against Christianity, refutes Islam: "How can God die on the cross?"

The Muslim objection: “How can God die on the cross?” does not make sense in the first place, unless Muslims are willing to concede that God can possess a human body in which to die. They would then be arguing that human body cannot die. But then if that human body could not die, how would it exactly be human? Wouldn't it be more like the invulnerability of superman? And how do they argue God cannot die, when they argue God cannot be God and more than God (human) in the first place?

I find this question problematic from a Muslim perspective. According to Islam, wouldn't God have died, when he became human, meaning God ceased to exist, when he transformed into a human, so why is the referenced objection specifically God died on the cross? This presupposes Jesus could of been God and human all the way up until his death on the cross. So do you believe it’s possible for Jesus to be God and Human, and if you don’t, why then make the specific objection that God only died upon the cross? unless you are presupposing the Hypostatic Union? (the two natures of Christ: God and Man).

Can Muslims explain specifically if the Creator stopped existing after his last breathe on the cross, why according to you did the Creator not stop existing before this point such as when he became incarnate? Or are you conceding the Creator can be God and Man? And therefore you don’t object to the incarnation, but only the incarnate ones death? Why are you arguing God died on the cross as opposed to God died at his incarnation, unless you agree with the Christians, Jesus can be God-man?

Is it not true that when God was conceived in the womb of Mary and later given birth by Mary, that is the exact moment that Muslims argue God ceased to exist since according to Muslims God cannot be God and Human. For God to exist as a human, means he no longer exists as God, yes?

However if a Muslim argues that God died on the cross, then they are indirectly admitting, God can be God and Human prior to the cross, as Jesus exists as both God and Human.

But if God can be God and Human (before the cross), then surely the objection that God died on the cross is also refuted, since God’s humanity was crucified not his divinity.

Why Gospel Genre Has Effected Explanations of "Wording" Differences in the Gospels

A False Genre Dichotomy: Theology or History or Fiction.

"The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts. New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that "the gospels are now WIDELY CONSIDERED to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies."[32] Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology.[4] E.P. Sanders states that “these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature.”[5] Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vögtle writing for Karl Rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items.[33] Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world."[6] Some critics have maintained that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[34] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[35] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device. 

• Graham Stanton, Jesus and Gospel. p.192
• Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of Canonical Gospels pg 42 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
• “The Historical Figure of Jesus," Sanders, E.P., Penguin Books: London, 1995, p., 3.
• Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-741
• Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word (Vol. II): Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew – Dr Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, Introduction
• Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
• Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)" (source)

As you can see, we have quite a diversity of views mentioned here ranging from the gospels are: "fictitious myth" to the gospels are: "ancient biography", with every imaginable theoretical position between these two sides listed.

My own personal view is between Stanton and Talbot, there maybe evidence I am not aware of yet to show the Gospels have a small element of intentional mythology. What is most surprising here, of course is that as Stanton points out is the wide majority of scholars believe the Gospels to be of the genre of: "Ancient Biography". This is further explained else where:

One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings.[74] " Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical Jesus,[49] then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography.[75][76][77][78][79] Although not without critics,[80] the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today.[81] 

• 75 Stanton, G. N. (1974). Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jump up
• 76 Talbert, C. H. (1977). What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.Jump up
• 77 Aune, D. E. (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster.Jump up
• 78 Frickenschmidt, D. (1997). Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evanelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.Jump up
• 79 Burridge, R. A. (2004). What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. rev. updated edn. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.Jump up
• 80 e.g. Vines, M. E. (2002). The Problem of the Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical LiteratureJump up
• 81 Burridge, R. A. (2006). Gospels. In J. W. Rogerson & Judith M. Lieu (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 437 (source)

However merely being classified as: Ancient Biography does not mean the authors may have always been right about all the historical events they report:

Scholars tend to consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be closer in genre to "pure" history,[7][7][36] although they also note that “This is not to say that he [Luke] was always reliably informed, or that - any more than modern historians - he always presented a severely factual account of events.” (source)

Therefore even if one accepts the view that the genre of the Gospels are ancient biography, this fact alone does not imply the author(s) were always correct about the events they report, they may have been misinformed, mistaken or deliberately fabricating mythology.

However this classification of genre does indicate that certain objections on the nature of Gospel differences reporting the same event must be relinquished (more on this soon).

According to the consensus view in scholarship both Matthew and Luke respectively took from Mark and Q. Yet Matthew and Luke did not just simply always copy verbatim in every instance Mark and Q, but rearranged and modified the language and words of Jesus according to their own understanding and for their own audience, making this a theological opportunity, rather than factual or historical presentation.

A prominent Muslim Theologian, Reza Aslan asserts that:

"the gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus’s life. These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds recorded by people who knew him. They are testimonies of faith composed by communities of faith written many years after the events they describe. Simply put, the gospels tell us about Jesus the Christ, not Jesus the man.” (Aslan, Reza (2013). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House. pp. n.p.)

Aslan therefore does not accuse the Gospel authors of intentionally misleading their communities with misleading history, since the gospels were never intended to be historical accounts, just theological treatises. Aslan is not alone in adhering to this view (as shown above), this view is shared by some very astute thinkers like John Dominic Crossan (dubbed: JDC), here he elaborates:

"DIFFERENCES AMONG THE GOSPELS

What do the gospels have in common? Is it possible to say what they do share? 

What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist. It is that Matthew is saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people." Now, there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult. He will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities' needs. They do not change at random. If you begin to understand how Matthew changes Mark, you see it worked again and again and again. You don't have to make up a different reason for every change. Once you understand Matthew's theology, you can almost predict how he will change. 

How significant and discrediting to belief are the differences between the four gospels? 

For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. I have no problem with that. 

So, in other words, they're doing what they set out to do, but it's not what we think they're setting out to do. 

We have the problem, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do a superb job, or Christianity would not be still around, of doing what they had to do. We want them to be journalists and we're very unhappy with them."

And,  Professor Allen D. Callahan tells us:

If you take the gospels as a factual account of the life of Jesus, they're not all in sync... 

Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. Some of this has to do with our methodology. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. I mean that there are certain concerns that are being addressed in this literature. And we become theologically and even historically tone deaf to those concerns, if we don't give them due consideration. It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that]... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things.... 

Are you saying that the gospels are of little value as eye witness accounts of his life? 

Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns..., and they are articulating those arguments and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did. (see more theological proponents here)

Are the Gospels intended to be exact transcriptions of Jesus sayings and teachings? Are there Alteration and Falsifications of Jesus words? 

Sami Zaatari, a popular Muslim speaker and critic of the Bible in several articles of his attempts to argue a Christological Evolution and utilizes this as an assault showing the inaccuracy of the Bible. Two Muslims Zaatari and Bassam Zawadi show a common perception among critics of the Bible, including many Atheist skeptics. The thought runs like this: 

"When The Synoptic Gospels mention the same event, they should report a word for word transcription of Jesus sayings and teachings, precisely identical in every Gospel, unless the Gospels do this, they are not reporting real genuine history, but rather presenting theology or creating mythology and contradiction". 

And here is how these two put forward this argument:

"Secondly, did they really call him Lord? Or did they call him rabbi? 

Let us quote an interesting piece from brother Bassam’s article on the evolution of the NT:
The word 'Lord' being exchanged for 'Rabbi' 

Mark 9:5 

Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 

Matthew 17:4 

Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 

So note the evolution in the text. Jesus goes from being called a teacher to being called a Lord in the newer version of Matthew. For easier understanding, Christian scholars agree that the earliest Gospel that was made was that of Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and so on. And as we read these Gospels, we see that the character of Jesus keeps getting more modified and changed. 

Here is another example take from brother Bassam’s paper: 

The word 'Lord' being exchanged for 'Teacher' 

Mark 4:38 

Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?" 

Matthew 8:25 

The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!" 

So note once again Matthew changes things around and makes the text say they called Jesus Lord. Whereas the earlier Gospel has Jesus being called teacher. This is an obvious evolution in the text of the NT. 

This should not be too surprising, since every Gospel writer wrote the Gospel to how he saw fit, making alterations, leaving things out and adding things to make the story seem better:.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew 

Like the authors of the other gospels, the author of Matthew wrote this book according to his own plans and aims and from HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW, while at the same time borrowing from other sources... 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm 

Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does not say, like Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix, 3 1; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of profound amazement, because "they understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded" (vi, 52), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or alterations of this kind are very numerous. 

The point of quoting all this is to basically show that Jesus being called Lord is doubtful and is an obvious evolution in the text of the Gospel on the character of Jesus. (source)

Now lets look at an example provided by Zaatari and Zawadi:

Mark 9:5 

Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 

Matthew 17:4 

Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 

Yet Matthew is not trying to diminish Jesus as being a Rabbi:

And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" And he kissed him. (Matthew 26:49 ESV) 

And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, "Rabbi!" And he kissed him. (Mark 14:45 ESV)

Nor is Mark trying to diminish the Lordship of Jesus:

But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." (Mark 7:28 ESV)

 "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." (Matthew 15:26-27 ESV)

It is also true that the Greek word kurios could easily be used as a synonym for Rabbi:

12.9  ku,rioj, ou m: (a title for God and for Christ) one who exercises supernatural authority over mankind - 'Lord, Ruler, One who commands' (see also 37.51). a;ggeloj kuri,ou katV o;nar evfa,nh auvtw|/ 'the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream' Mt 1.20; ca,rij u`mi/n kai. eivrh,nh avpo. qeou/ patro.j h`mw/n kai. kuri,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/ 'grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' 1 Cor 1.3.  

The most common equivalent of 'Lord' is a term meaning 'chief' or 'leader,' but frequently this cannot be employed as a title for 'God.' One may, however, combine such an expression with a term for 'God' and employ a phrase meaning 'God our leader' or 'God our chief.' In some instances, however, a term for 'Lord' is related to a verb meaning 'to command' or 'to order,' and therefore 'Lord' is rendered as 'the one who commands us' and combined with 'God' may form a phrase such as 'God, the one who commands us.'  

57.12  ku,rioj, ou m: one who owns and controls property, including especially servants and slaves, with important supplementary semantic components of high status and respect - 'owner, master, lord.' ku,rioj pa,ntwn w;n '(even) though he is owner of everything' Ga 4.1; luo,ntwn de. auvtw/n to.n pw/lon ei=pan oi` ku,rioi auvtou/ pro.j auvtou,j 'as they were untying the colt, its owners spoke to them' Lk 19.33; ouvk e;stin dou/loj mei,zwn tou/ kuri,ou auvtou/ 'no slave is greater than his master' Jn 13.16.  

37.51  ku,rioj, ou m: one who rules or exercises authority over others - 'ruler, master, lord.' ouvdei.j du,natai dusi. kuri,oij douleu,ein 'no one can serve two masters' Mt 6.24. For the meaning of ku,rioj as a title for God or for Christ, see 12.9.  (GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT BASED ON SEMANTIC DOMAINS © 1988, 1989 by the United Bible Societies Second edition. All rights reserved, UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES NEW YORK, Volume 1 Introduction & Domains, Volume 2 Indices)

And:

3900  ku,rioj  ku,rioj, ou, o` lord, Lord, master—1. generally—a. owner, master Mt 6:24; 20:8 ; 24:48; Lk 12:46; 19:33; J 13:16; Ro 14:4; Gal 4:1; lord, master, one who has full control of something Mt 9:38; Mk 2:28.—b. as a respectful designation used in addressing persons of varying social or political rank, often equivalent to our sir Mt 27:63; J 12:21; Ac 16:30; Rv 7:14. (My) master 1 Pt 3:6.—2. in specialized usage—a. as a designation of God Mt 5:33; Mk 12:29f; Lk 1:11, 15, 17, 32; 2:15, 22; Ac 7:31; 1 Ti 6:15; Hb 8:2; Js 1:7; 2 Pt 2:9.—b. as a designation of the Roman emperor Ac 25:26.—c. as a designation of Jesus Christ, with emphasis on his authority and frequently in contrast to dou/loj. Because of the editorial interests of the Evangelists it is difficult to determine the precise level of social recognition or status awareness in reported dialogue. Mt 20:31; Mk 11:3; Lk 7:13; 10:1, 39, 41; J 20:18, 20, 28; Ac 2:36; 9:10f, 42; 10:36; Ro 1:4; 10:9; 12:11; 16:12; 1 Cor 4:17; 6:13f, 17; 11:23; Eph 6:8; Col 1:10; Phlm 25; Hb 2:3; 7:14; 1 Pt 1:3; 2 Pt 1:2; Rv 22:20.—d. In some passages it is not clear whether God or Christ is meant, e.g. 1 Cor 4:19; 7:17; 2 Cor 8:21; 1 Th 4:6; 2 Th 3:16.—e. as designation of a divine messenger Ac 10:4.—f. in general of beings or persons who elicit devotion appropriate to deity (deities) 1 Cor 8:5. [pg 115] (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, second edition, 1979, revised by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. The first edition, by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, was published in 1957 by the University of Chicago Press as a translation and adaptation)

What about Rabbi?

6460  r`abbi, • r`abbi, (from br; ‘lord, master’, yBir; ‘my lord’; also r`abbei,; on the interchange of ei and i s. B-D-F §38; W-S. §5, 13a; s. Mlt-H. 76f.—EbNestle, ZNW 7, 1906, 184) properly a form of address, and so throughout our lit., then an honorary title for outstanding teachers of the law: master, sir, rabbi Mt 23:7f (here, too, r`abbi, is a form of address). Of John the Baptist, whom his disciples addressed in this manner J 3:26. Otherw. always of Jesus: Mt 26:25, 49; Mk 9:5; 10:51 v.l.; 11:21; 14:45; J 1:49; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8. ku,rie r`. Mk 10:51 D; s. the apocryphal gospel fgm. ZNW 22, 1923, 153f=PBerlin 11710 (in the form r`ambiou, and r`ambi,j, s. ASyn. 21, 74; 75; 76). With the transl. dida,skale, which paraphrases the sense J 1:38; cp. 3:2. —Schürer II 325f; The Jewish Encyclopedia X 1905, 294ff; Dalman, Worte 272-80; TReinach, REJ 48, 1904, 191-96 (ins fr. Cyprus: euvch. r`abbi. VAttikou/); Billerb. I 916; JNeusner, The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Later Antiquity, Numen 16, ’69, 1-20; Kl. Pauly IV, 1322f; TRE III, 608; BHHW III 1541ff; ABD V 600-602. M-M. EDNT. TW.(A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, Third Edition Copyright © 2000 by The University of Chicago Press)

Notice how both Kurios and Rabbi both overlap and can mean master, lord and owner.

Further more:

In Judaism, a rabbi /ˈræbaɪ/ is a teacher of Torah. This title derives from the Hebrew word רַבִּי rabi [ˈʁäbi], meaning "My Master" (irregular plural רבנים rabanim [ʁäbäˈnim]), which is the way a student would address a master of Torah. The word "master" רב rav [ˈʁäv] literally means "great one"... 

The word rabbi derives from the Semitic root R-B-B, in Hebrew script רַב rav, which in biblical Aramaic means ‘great’ in many senses, including "revered", but appears primarily as a prefix in construct forms.[3]Although the usage rabbim "many" (as 1 Kings 18:25, הָרַבִּים) "the majority, the multitude" occurs for the assembly of the community in the Dead Sea scrolls there is no evidence to support an association with the later title "Rabbi."[4] The root is cognate to Arabic ربّ rabb, meaning "lord" (generally used when talking about God, but also about temporal lords). As a sign of great respect, some great rabbis are simply called "The Rav". (source)

In Arabic and Aramaic then, there are no problems with understanding Rabbi means Lord! Aramaic being the most common language spoken by Jesus and those close to him!

Because of this (and other reasons), at times in the gospels, Lord and Rabbi and Teacher then are often interchangeable or closely related:

1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill." 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, "Let us go to Judea again." 8 The disciples said to him, "Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?" (John 11: 1-8 ESV)  

And:

 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" (John 1:38 ESV) 

Further:

16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. 19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened. 20 But he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid." 21 Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going. 22 On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus." 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" (John 6:16-25 ESV)

However let us assume the exact terms did not closely have the same meaning, therefore not quite being precisely reconcilable. Would this be problematic in terms of the genre of Ancient Biography? The answer is simply: no.

While it's certainly possible the gospel authors may have some historical facts wrong (to be assessed elsewhere), what is not possible, is they were even trying to give word for word transcriptions of Jesus teachings and sayings, this idea is completely foreign to the intention of the gospel authors, this is not how ancient biography worked. What are often taken for differences and contradictions are really bad examples of 21st century Westerners trying to impose unrealistic and modern standards of historical reporting on ancient easterners. Unlike modern folks, they were not concerned with the minutiae. They were concerned with the big picture: the substance. They even felt free to report the historical facts in such a way so as to fit their literary purpose. We need to guard against the temptation to impose our modern standards of historiography on ancient writers. They were not entirely concerned about quoting someone word-for-word, but rather sense-for-sense. They were not always concerned with reporting events in sequence, but felt free to mix them up to fit their literary purpose. They took liberties with the facts that we might not take today, but such liberties were not due to ignorance, or motivated by an intent to deceive. For them, telescoping, generalizing, extrapolating, and projecting were par for the historical and literary course. They should not be faulted for not being 21st century Westerners.

J.P Holding, Christian Author and Researcher shows us an excellent historical example showing how ancient biographers were not concerned with word for word transcriptions and reports, they were only interested in the substance of those teachings and sayings:

"Bioi: A Comparison and Contrast 

In ancient times there was once a Teacher. This Teacher was a lofty idealist who represented the highest consciousness and intelligence his society had to offer; he regarded himself as appointed by God for his task, and he operated a ministry with an eye towards revolutionizing conduct. His methods were simple and direct: He went straight to the public, offering his direction at no charge; at the same time, he shunned official institutions. 

In time, this Teacher gathered followers who absorbed his message, so that he would eventually be recognized as the founder of a movement. However, he angered the authorities of his day, was put on trial, and condemned to death. 

After his execution, the Teacher's followers were dismayed for a time; yet the inspiration their Teacher had given them lived on in their hearts. Wishing to restore the Teachers' reputation, which had been injured by his trial and execution, they published - as much as 20 to 30 years later; how long exactly we cannot be certain - the Teachers' sayings and deeds, and an accounting of his personal traits; for the Teacher himself had written nothing of his own volition to remember him by. 

In our modern times, the view of the Teacher has been, at times, skeptical. Many recognized his genius, and accepted what his followers reported as absolutely true; but still others maintained that his followers were so dedicated to him that his true sayings and personality could not be recovered from their texts. His life was said to be so dramatized, idealized, and pragmatized that there was no way to reach the original Teacher; some even went as far as to say that the Teacher never actually existed and was a construct of his followers. 

Thankfully, however, more moderate forms of criticism have prevailed, and it is recognized that while each of the Teacher's biographers were in their own way painting a portrait of the Teacher, they did report the Teachers' life and sayings with a good measure of fulness and accuracy. They did not, to be sure, report the Teachers' exact words - as of course would never be possible under the circumstances - but they did accurately report the Voice of the Teacher in their writings.

---

By now, of course, you realize that my diversion above describes Jesus - and yet, as you know from my previous diversion, that is not who I am talking about. In fact, these are the very descriptions applied to none other than Socrates [Vot.GCB, 30-34; Vlas.Soc; Xeno.Mem]; his followers were Plato and Xenophon, who each wrote a biography of their master. Were Socrates' students faithful to his memory? Overall, the answer is yes. In 1923, a critic wrote that these disciples of their master had in some places created a "literary Socrates" - a "figure that retained much, doubtless, of the historical man, but was not identical with him, and might be variously represented by the different authors, and even by the same author in different works." [Xeno.Mem, viii] 

Skepticism of this sort, with its attendant accusations of the creations of "imaginary conversations" [ibid, xiv] and the like, are highly reminiscent of that found in certain critical NT circles; but in the Socratic circles, such skepticism is on the wane. More current study suggests that Xenophon should be accounted as having been very faithful to the memory of Socrates, as was Aristotle, a student of Plato who questioned those who had listened to Socrates. [Vlas.Soc, 106] Extended speeches are not considered to be "authentic reproductions" but are recognized as "a distillation of the best of Socrates' thought." [Cox.BLAnt, 7-8] 

Plato, in contrast, is said to have created two Socrates - one based on the real Teacher, the other a mouthpiece for Plato's own ideas. Indeed, the two Platonian Socrates are said to be "so different that they could not have been depicted as cohabiting the same brain throughout unless it had been the brain of a schizophrenic". [Vlas.Soc, 46] One can see how this sort of reasoning is often used to unassign words of Jesus in the Gospels; but there critics must struggle, for example by turning Jesus into a "Cynic sage," in order to do the same thing. 

Our point in bringing this up is: There are standard ways to determine if the writer of a biography has "tampered" with the life of his subject and presented us with a "false" biography. The Socratic scholars observe that Plato has Socrates asserting different, even contradictory points of view - points of view in some cases that sound strangely like those of Plato.
Critics of the NT assert in the same vein that anything said by Jesus that sounds like the kerygma of the Church is probably invented. But there is a big problem: Eliminate the "kerygmatic" and you end up with: The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, a "Talking Head" (as Witherington puts it) who said less than 20% of what was attributed to Him; and worse: The question of how such a large body of material, created by who knows who, when, and why, was attributed to Jesus. 

The picture of Jesus, we assert, is consistent throughout the Four Gospels. There are no contradictory elements, as with Plato's Socrates. And yet, we have an obvious reason why critics are dividing the Gospels into phantom sources like Q, and then even sub-dividing THAT hypothetical document. They are seeking the smoking gun, our version of Plato: The "original" Jesus upon which our "Plato" layered so much material. 

Add to this the reliability of oral tradition, the memory-enhancing techniques apparent in much of what is attributed to Jesus, and the special Jewish respect for teachers, and we have a one-two combination that practically sinks the critical views. 

It is why, also, there was an attempt by the late Morton Smith to create a biographical sub-genre called the "aretalogy" which was supposedly something of a legendary/biographical category. Smith wanted the Gospels in that category, but there is no grounds for creating such a sub-genre. Much less is there any suggestion that "an aretalogy was ever written to divinize a human being." [Cox.BLAnt, 47] Classical scholars recognize Smith's mishandling of the bioi genre." (source)

Further more these differences do not merely occur as contradictions (conflicting views possessed by varying authors with different perspectives) rather often, they occur within the same Book, demonstrating the author(s) didn't view this as an internal incoherence or contradictory reports at all, but rather they utilized these features as literary devices like telescoping and summation in the ancient genre of biography, as one author says:

"This one appears in Acts. Luke’s account of Jesus’ words to Paul on the Damascus road reads as follows: 

“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? … I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (Acts 9:5b-6, ESV) 

Paul, recounting the same event in Acts 26:14b-18, records Jesus’ words as: 

“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. … I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.  But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles-to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” (ESV) 

Not only is Acts 22 much fuller in its account of what Jesus said to Paul, but there is little overlap between them as it pertains to Jesus’ instructions.  In Acts 9 Jesus instructs Paul to go to Damascus and wait to be told what to do.  In Acts 22 Jesus does not tell Paul to go to Damascus, but instead, instructs him in his mission on the spot!  If these two accounts appeared in two different books, critics would claim a contradiction.  But because they appear in the same literary work, no such charge "can be" made. (my insertion)

Of course, a reasonable harmony can be made for the two accounts.  Acts 9 appears to be a summary of the much longer conversation, rather than a transcript of the actual words Jesus said (at least for His instructions; not His introduction and self-revelation).  Acts 22 is probably closer to an actual transcript of what was said to Paul. 

The fact that Jesus discloses to Paul His purpose for his life there on the road does not contradict what Luke reports in chapter 9.  No specific instructions were given regarding what he should do next to fulfill that purpose.  Furthermore, in the context of Acts 9, it seems what Paul was “to do” in Damascus was receive salvation.  That is why the Lord spoke to Ananias in a vision to go pray for Paul to regain his sight and be filled with the Spirit (9:10-19). (More examples are avaliable here)

And another example of this:

“Matthew’s largest group of healing miracles occurs in chapters 8–9. Here Matthew presents Jesus as one mighty in deed, while sharply focusing on his sovereignty and authority. Matthew regularly abbreviates the healing stories, eliminating distracting detail and dialog in order to focus more exclusively on Christology (e.g., 8:28–34; 9:1–8). At times this compression or telescoping of narrative is so drastic as to border on contradiction with his sources (9:18–26; cf. Mk 5:21–43).” [Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (electronic ed.) (302). ]

Examples of telescoping also occur in the Old Testament:

And we should mention that it is present in Tanaach/OT narratives too (in keeping with ANE praxis, as well—as we noted above on the Assyrian monument text): 

“The terse description of the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:1–6) and subsequent happenings in the province of Samerina (2 Kgs 17:24–41) telescope a number of events. Although Shalmaneser V probably captured the capital city, Samaria, in 722, the city had to be retaken in 720 by Sargon II, who was responsible for the massive deportations of the kingdom’s inhabitants. “ [Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (4:81)] 

“The narrative of conquest that appears in the Book of Joshua is not a detailed battle account. It describes a thrust into the middle of Palestine around Jericho and Ai, a southerly drive to defeat the Amorite league, and a northern campaign against Hazor and other towns. The history of Joshua is extremely telescoped, for his major military action must have required about 6 years. Joshua’s friend Caleb was 79 when the conquest began and 85 after the last great battle with Jabin, king of Hazor (Jos 14:7, 10). [Baker encyclopedia of the Bible. Map on lining papers. (1057). ] 

“Another possibility is that the conquest of the Argob was accomplished in two phases: a national one, in which Og’s army was defeated by the entire Israelite army (vv. 3–5), and a local one in which Jair defeated the local defenders of the cities in its territory (v. 14). In that case, verse 3 has telescoped the two phases into a single summary that includes the phase mentioned in verse 14. [Tigay, J. H. (1996). Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah commentary (36). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.]

Of course this occurs outside the Old Testament And New Testament as-well:

"And this is fairly standard practice in the ancient world. We might look at the following examples, from ancient Mesopotamia to Greek and Roman historians: 

From a monument of ancient Assyria: 

TELL AL RIMAH STELA (2.114F) [TCS2:275, K. Lawson Younger, Jr.]
The stela was discovered at Tell al Rimah, near Jebel Sinjar, where it stood in “position inside the cella of a Late Assyrian shrine, set beside the podium, a placing that is unparalleled among the find spots of other royal stelae”. The monument is 130 cm in height and 69 cm in width. … it has a relief of the king with divine symbols on the top and the text below. It also contains… an inscription of Adad-nirari III with a text of Nergal-ēreš, although this portion has been deliberately erased. It is uncertain when Nergal-ēreš fell from power and when the erasure would have taken place. … 

‘To Adad, the greatest lord, powerful noble of the gods, first-born son of Anu, unique, awesome, lofty, the canal-inspector of heaven and earth, who rains abundance, who dwells in Z-, the great lord, his lord. 

‘Adad-nirari, mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria; son of Samši-Adad, the king of the universe, king of Assyria; son of Shalmaneser, the king of the four quarters. 

‘I mustered (my) chariots, troops and camps; I ordered (them) to march to the land of Hatti. In a single year [footnote here reads: “A literary convention in which several campaigns to Syria have been telescoped into one”.], I subdued the entire lands of Amurru (and) Hatti. I imposed upon them tax and tribute forever. 

From Josephus: 

“One may assume that either Nehemiah or Josephus or both are hopelessly confused, and adherents of each position have not been wanting... Evidence from the Samaria papyri, uncovered in 1962 (F. M. Cross, BA, 26 [1963], 110–121), has helped unravel at least a part of the mystery. From the data at hand F. M. Cross posited a succession of Sanballats: Sanballat I, who was governor of Samaria when Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem (ca 445/4); his grandson Sanballat II, the figure mentioned in the papyri (early 4th cent); and the latter’s grandson, Sanballat III, the governor mentioned by Josephus. Evidence for the reappearance of a name in alternate generations (papponymy) has strengthened the argument for more than one Jaddua as well, with the result that Nehemiah’s reference to that figure need no longer be seen as equally problematical. Josephus has obviously telescoped certain events and people; Nehemiah, on the other hand, carries the picture down to only the beginning of the 4th cent b.c. [The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia] 

From Thucydides and Dionysius of Halicarnassus: 

“We might certainly draw just such a negative conclusion from surveying Josephus' retelling of the Jewish Scriptures. We have seen from James Edwards that there are not in the Scriptures many intercalations of the sort analyzed above for Josephus to deal with; but, as I have myself illustrated elsewhere, Josephus is in fact noticeably concerned to 'improve' the flow of his narrative, either by removing all sorts of items that might seem to interrupt it, or else by reordering them. The people do not return to the Jordan for commemorative stones, they bring them with them; the booty taken from Jericho is described along with Achan's theft and what he took all in one sequence; and so forth. Where possible each event or sequence of events is narrated from start to finish and left there. The 'order' Josephus claims is thematic, one theme at a time, one narrative sequence at a time. And I certainly cannot recall any instance where Josephus himself interrupts a given sequence with a distinct but thematically related incident… Lucian, in the next century, would seem to indicate much the same attitude to avoidable interruptions, digressions, in a historical narrative, however vivid and interesting in themselves. In a battle the narrator will describe initial deployments and plans in turn and completely; only when battle is joined will he switch attention between the two sides, and then only when the turn of events demands it. Thematic order and clarity seem to be the overriding aim. 'Let the clarity of the writing be limpid, achieved, as I have said, both by the diction and by the interconnecting of events.' The historian 'will make everything distinct and complete, and when he has finished the first topic he will introduce the second, fastened to it and linked with it like a chain, to avoid breaks and a multiplicity of disjointed narratives'. .. I do not claim to have read widely among the historians for this study. However, a brief skim through Dionysius of Halicarnassus and through Thucydides afforded no obvious counter-examples. What we seem to find are strings of individually coherent events arranged in sequences; we may well switch from one sequence to another as we follow different protagonists in turn.” [NT:DTWW, 121-122] 

From Jason of Cyrene and the Roman Jurists: 

“We have an excellent example of the deliberate literary abbreviation of a historical work in the account of the Hellenistic reform in Jerusalem and the victorious struggle of Judas Maccabaeus. Jason of Cyrene, a Diaspora Jew, wrote a history in five volumes which in the first century BC was compressed into one volume, known to us as II Maccabees, by an unknown epitomator. The epitomator did this to provide the reader with better entertainment by making the work easier to read, for 'wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment. So also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the summary account' (II Macc. 15.39). The works of the Roman jurists suffered a similar fate of abbreviation and compression. At the time of Justinian they were concentrated in the Digests. The rigour of this procedure emerges from the fact that at that time two thousand books of three million lines are said to have been reduced to fifty 'books' of one hundred and fifty thousand lines.” [HI:AHEC, 11-12]"

And as Glen Miller shares:

So, how did the ancient literary world view omissions, telescoping, and thematic (versus chronological) ordering? 

It viewed the practice favorably, as a standard means of good historical writing.
The clearest statement of this is the often-cited passage from Lucian’s How to Write History, 56: 

Lucian, 56: "Rapidity is always useful, especially if there is a lot of material. It is secured not so much by words and phrases as by the treatment of the subject. That is, you should pass quickly over the trivial and unnecessary, and develop the significant points at adequate length. Much must be omitted. After all, if you are giving a dinner to your friends and everything is ready, you don't put salt fish and porridge on the table in the midst of the cakes, poultry, entrees, wild boar, hare, and choice cuts of fish, simply because they are ready too! You forget the cheaper articles altogether." 

Hengel notes that this influence was pervasive: 

“Lucian of Samosata, the Voltaire of the ancient world, drew up a set of rules for the budding historian in his book How to Write History. In it, he counseled the historian against having an eye for his own advantage and the favour of his reader, as this would destroy his freedom and veracity (9, 61, 63), but he did promise him success with his readers if he attracted their attention and curiosity as early as the foreword: 'If he shows that what he is going to say will be important, essential, personal, or useful' (53). On the other hand, all inessential and minor matters ought to be left on one side, since those who entertain their friends with an opulent meal do not produce salt fish and pea soup at the same time (56). So from this perspective, too, there was pressure towards a strict limitation and selection of material. Lucian was concerned to enjoin this narrow perspective on the historian.” [HI:AHEC, 13] 

And this is applied to NT writers vis-à-vis telescoping by Blomberg: 

"Perhaps the most perplexing differences between parallels occur when one gospel write as condensed the account of an event which took place in two or more stages into one concise paragraph which seems to describe the action taking place all at once. Yet this type of literary abridgment was quite common among ancient writers (cf. Lucian, How to Write History 56), and once again it is unfair to judge them by modern standards of precision which no one in antiquity required." [BLOM:135]

In conclusion then this classification of the Gospels does indicate that certain "word for word" objections reporting the same event must be relinquished as it was never the intention to provide word-for-word phrases in Jesus original language, but rather represent the substance of his sayings and message in the vernacular language.

Further Resources:

For some of the most exhaustive research on this subject, Glen Miller has exhaustively defended the "fact and accuracy" of ancient biography, along with showing how word-for-word reports were very rare, this is not how mainstream ancient biography worked at all. If you have quite a few hours to spare, check out his research:

http://christianthinktank.com/stil1720.html
http://christianthinktank.com/infancyoff.html
http://christianthinktank.com/mqx.html

And J.P. Holding also presents some great research:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospelbioi.php
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/kerygma.php
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/apollonius.php

And finally if you have inertia, I have a video for you. Check out:  New Testament Scholar Craig Evans in his debate with Bart Erhman, where he presents an excellent presentation accurately representing standards of Ancient Biography (especially see his introduction):



To supplement some of the points made by Dr. Evans about ancient historiography watch this series presented by J.P. Holding. (Start with Video 5A)

"Paul Williams: Baptized by Anthony Rogers"

PW is once again decimated by Rogers.

Rogers has presented the best explanation of all the data and all the historical evidence collectively. PW (as per usual for him), presents half-truths, incomplete research, and hyper-fundie literalist claptrap.

Imagine the type of conspiracy theory you would have to believe in order to deny all the evidence presented here. You would not only have to come up with an explanation for why Euesbius quotes the formula in four respective works and show why his copies of the Scripture possess the formula, you would then have to dismiss every extant MSS (from all multiple Manuscript families) and every quotation from the Ecclesiastical Authors (of which many pre-date Eusebius).

PW honestly always provides the worst reasoning for his so-called apostasy. In fact you would think a so-called apostate could define the Christian view of the Trinity. PW define the trinity as "300% god" and "3 gods". PW is unable to articulate in any accurate sense what Christians actually believe, unsurprising since he derives this misrepresentation from the Quran itself.

Since PW has blocked me and Royalson recently (but having difficult blocking Radical haha), I would like to post some links here that undermine his latest claptrap.

Would Jesus Command the beheading of rebellious children?

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/01/more-fundamentalist-hyper-literalist.html

And here are the links exposing his incomplete, inept and inadequate perception of Apostle Paul:

Does Paul have a 'low view' of the Law?

http://christianthinktank.com/musly2.html#badmouth

Is Paul's view of the Law radically different from that of Peter, James, John, and the Writer to the Hebrews?

http://christianthinktank.com/musly2.html#abnormal

Did Jesus come to perpetuate the Mosaic Law?

http://christianthinktank.com/musly2.html#perpetu8

But didn't Jesus strongly affirm the Law in Matthew 5.17-19?

http://christianthinktank.com/musly2.html#matt5

And here are a few bonuses where PW (historically speaking) is DECIMATED on the Apostle Paul:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2013/03/historicity-of-jesus-confirms-paul.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html

Not to mention here is 133 similarities between Paul and Jesus:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Wales/jesus_paul.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Wales/jesus_paul_more.htm

Hopefully one of these days PW will actually decide to write anything of substance. He has been refuted so badly, I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor man, I think he is to delirious to understand what has happened to him.