Christians are easily startled, but they'll soon be back. And in greater numbers 36:11

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Vdubs]

I've posted the same over and over again to the same questions / statements they've asked / made over and over again.

It's like school teaching.

You are taking the classical sceptical historical position which is not held uniformly by historians. From what I’ve been reading and listening to, even atheist historians will differ widely on your proposals. Biblical scholars and less biased historians land in a very different place. I read your stuff and I know you seek out reasons not to believe, indefinitely.

 

[Total Power]

You are taking the classical sceptical historical position which is not held uniformly by historians. From what I’ve been reading and listening to, even atheist historians will differ widely on your proposals. Biblical scholars and less biased historians land in a very different place. I read your stuff and I know you seek out reasons not to believe, indefinitely.

Here we go again. This is absolutely false. Vast majority of secular scholars believe this character is fake. VAST MAJORITY. I dont know any secular scholar who says for example the GOSPEL of John is authentic. Infact Christian scholars say yes some parts are authentic but some have been added later on.

There's consensus on that but since you have stated the above:

Care to name to few?

Last time when you tried to tell me Bart Ehrman doesn't state what i said here, you were shown up...so...either name or just stop.

 

[Total Power]

You are taking the classical sceptical historical position which is not held uniformly by historians. From what I’ve been reading and listening to, even atheist historians will differ widely on your proposals. Biblical scholars and less biased historians land in a very different place. I read your stuff and I know you seek out reasons not to believe, indefinitely.

I have posted the consensus. For example John

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You ignored all of that and ran with your assertions again. For example:Gospel of John is a complete fabrication, from the beginning to the end. It was not written by John at all, vast majority of the scholars agree.

I posted literally 10 sources here, both you and domus ignored all of them.

 

[domus]

That does not alter the fact that the Gospels were not written as historical accounts. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize.

The Jesus of the Gospels is little more than a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure (or minor historical figures), whose earthly remains lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

They are theological works written by man with an all too human agenda proselytizing a particular belief system. Full of embellishment and in some cases pure invention. Have you ever read historical fiction? Or watched a historical film? Does the portrayal of an actual historical figure such as George C Marshall and the mentions of D-Day, Hitler and so on make the events of 'Saving Private Ryan' true?

Oh my! Why didn't some attention seeking Jew simply dig up those remains and expose the liars or was it too well hidden by the sneaky apostles?

And if someone other than Jesus spoke all of those clever parables and a number of quite brilliant sermons and responses to questioning from the Pharisees, who was the real author or authors? Those poor bastards never got the credit they deserved. It all went to a man who was a literary construct.

And why Jesus? What was it about this man that made him a candidate for these fairy tales? Do you think the apostles were made up? Did Paul talk to nobody called Peter and James in Jerusalem where he claims he stayed for fifteen days? Why wouldn't people have called him a fraud or liar when he wrote his letters mentioning these people if they didn't exist? If they did exist what exactly do you think they were preaching if not Jesus' resurrection and divinity?

It is funny to note that at different stages in our history Nazareth was said to be a made up place, Pilate a made up Procurator and Caiaphas an invented High Priest and good old archeology has proven them all to be very real along with many other locations and people.

I keep asking what the payoff was for those who invented the divine Jesus? Nobody has been able to tell me. Islam was spread by the sword with violence its hallmark. That can quickly make one a believer! For the first couple of hundred years, Christianity was spread by word of mouth and then written accounts. Being a Christian was a dangerous thing to be. Why did some Jews want to break away from Judaism and endure all the risks that entailed to spread a story they themselves knew was made up?

 

[Total Power]

Oh my! Why didn't some attention seeking Jew simply dig up those remains and expose the liars or was it too well hidden by the sneaky apostles?

And if someone other than Jesus spoke all of those clever parables and a number of quite brilliant sermons and responses to questioning from the Pharisees, who was the real author or authors? Those poor bastards never got the credit they deserved. It all went to a man who was a literary construct.

And why Jesus? What was it about this man that made him a candidate for these fairy tales? Do you think the apostles were made up? Did Paul talk to nobody called Peter and James in Jerusalem where he claims he stayed for fifteen days? Why wouldn't people have called him a fraud or liar when he wrote his letters mentioning these people if they didn't exist? If they did exist what exactly do you think they were preaching if not Jesus' resurrection and divinity?

It is funny to note that at different stages in our history Nazareth was said to be a made up place, Pilate a made up Procurator and Caiaphas an invented High Priest and good old archeology has proven them all to be very real along with many other locations and people.

I keep asking what the payoff was for those who invented the divine Jesus? Nobody has been able to tell me. Islam was spread by the sword with violence its hallmark. That can quickly make one a believer! For the first couple of hundred years, Christianity was spread by word of mouth and then written accounts. Being a Christian was a dangerous thing to be. Why did some Jews want to break away from Judaism and endure all the risks that entailed to spread a story they themselves knew was made up?

How do you think Christianity spread? will be a very interesting answer.

 

[domus]

That this bloke in NT and his works was not a fiction and the Bible is not forged?

Care to name to few?

Who forged it and why? And who was the brilliant writer who penned all of Jesus memorable sayings, stories, parables and sermons? It must have been tough to hear everyone praising Jesus' genius when he was the one who placed those words in his mouth!

 

[Total Power]

Who forged it and why? And who was the brilliant writer who penned all of Jesus memorable sayings, stories, parables and sermons? It must have been tough to hear everyone praising Jesus' genius when he was the one who placed those words in his mouth!

I gave you the resources to read. You want me to type out 300 pages worth scholarly explanation?

 

[domus]

How do you think Christianity spread? will be a very interesting answer.

Oh dear! A gotcha question. As I explained to another poster, in the first two hundred or more years by oral tradition, the apostles preaching then Paul's letters and preaching and then the gospels. Eventually Christianity was spread by the sword as well as the word.

 

[domus]

I gave you the resources to read. You want me to type out 300 pages worth scholarly explanation?

One line would suffice. 300 pages to tell me who placed the words in Jesus' mouth? Boring.

 

[Total Power]

Oh dear! A gotcha question. As I explained to another poster, in the first two hundred or more years by oral tradition, the apostles preaching then Paul's letters and preaching and then the gospels. Eventually Christianity was spread by the sword as well as the word.

Uh wrong. Your lack of depth is showing. I posted a long story on who forged Paul's letters and why, all ignored. Atleast you can try reading and then disagree instead of ignoring my posts and asking me 'but why don't you sum it up in one line'?

Let me quote Bart Ehrman one more time

The forgers were likely second-century Christians who wanted to push their own agendas, slapping Paul's name on their writings to give them credibility. They basically wanted their ideas — whether about church rules, women's roles, or delaying the apocalypse — to stick, so they forged letters in Paul's name




If this is false however these letters were dated around 200 AD when Paul lived 150 years before that????

Anyway:


Christianity remained a tiny cult for almost 270 years prior to Constantine and there were infightings. There were Arians, Gnostics, heretics and many other sectc who disagreed with everything about the Gospel. Majority position was he was just a man.

In the 2nd century they had a significant debate between Marcion and other church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius over which version of Luke was the true version. Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (as they called it) is much like the standard Gospel of Luke, except that it is missing many sections, including the nativity and baptism of Jesus, the parables Prodigal Son and the Good Samariatan . We know of this document mostly because the anti-Marcion writers in the second century described all the missing or modified sections. The accusation was that Marcion had removed sections he didn't like in his gospel. (Marcion and his congregations seem to have only had the one gospel). While MARCONITES said, it was the church fathers who added those sections to rise to power.

hahaha!

Marcionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What you have today is what Ireneaus and Tertullian (who anti Marcionites) approved! The rest were discarded.

Was Marcion's version the altered version, or was it the original version of the gospel that someone else took, expanded and called the Gospel of Luke?

Back on topic:

Only 6% of the Roman empire was Christian prior to Constantine..fast forward a 100 years, it was 92%. How???????

Secondly, my question was not exact what you thought it was. Christianity was spread by Constantine and the Roman empire. I made a long post here

It's a minefield, you don't wanna get to the 'authenticity of Gospels', the more you dig the uglier it gets.

Rather pretend 'why would anyone make up shit'...yeah why would anyone make up a religion? I mean Krishna, Rama, Mohammed, Jesus....why would anyone make up shit? Extremely naiive statement.

 

[Total Power]

One line would suffice. 300 pages to tell me who placed the words in Jesus' mouth? Boring.

There's a saying in aboriginal language 'small knowledge is dangerous'.

Ok one line answer : 'It's more a work of theology, than history'. You may not approve this answer but there's scholarly consensus on this.

Start from the Genesis and Exodus. There was no Adam and Eve and no global flood. Jesus traced his own genealogy to Adam and Eve, didn't he? So he didn't know those were myths for a God did he?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/meyers.html

There is no record of Moses or Jewish slaves in Egypt or the exodus across the dessert. Read the link above, she's both an archeologist and biblical scholars, she stopped short of calling it a myth. Then, she uses 1984 style "double think" to support the myth.

I want churches to stop hurting humanity and people to stop profiting from the oppression of others.

Another example: (the verse my Christian friend loves to quote the most)

Does John 7:53-8:11 belong in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Does John 7:53-8:11 belong in the Bible? What is the pericope adulterae? Was the story of the woman caught in adultery originally part of the Gospel of John?

www.gotquestions.org

The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53—8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53).

The fact, however, remains that John 7:53—8:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. Thus, there is serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible. Many call for Bible publishers to remove these verses (along with Mark 16:9–20) from the main text and put them in footnotes.

There are literally tens of other Gospels competing with John in the council of Nicea. All been burned cause it didn't present Jesus in the light John did. Furthermore i made a post 2 pages ago on what parts of John was a forgery with evidence.

Mark was manipulated and rewritten too. Parts been added and parts been deleted. Same with Luke.

You cannot read more than 2 lines, so i am sorry..i did make an effort to answer you like i do to my 7 year old.

 

[Total Power]

One line would suffice. 300 pages to tell me who placed the words in Jesus' mouth? Boring.

Here's a question for you. When do you think the doctrine of Trinity was made up and why? and by whom?

Answer this without googling.

 

[Roylion]

Correct me if i am wrong, but the earliest significant gospel manuscripts are P^66 and P^75, with P75 being likely written sometime around 200AD +/- 25 years. Any other really early manuscripts he's referring to are likely nothing more than small scraps of Papyrus, like P^52.

So why do these apologists claim that these gospels were written a lot earlier?

The total number of possible second-century New Testament manuscripts that we have is small. There are 140 overall but none are dated earlier than the 2nd century. Some of the main 2nd century manuscripts are

P90. John (18:36-19:7). Greek. 2nd century
P104 Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back. Greek. 2nd century
P98 verses from the first chapter of the book of Revelation. Greek. 2nd century
P52. seven lines from the John 18:31–33 on the front, and parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 on the back. Greek. 2nd century.
P137 Mark. Greek. A.D. 150-250
P32. Titus. Greek. 2nd-3rd Century
P46. Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews. Greek. 2nd century. Greek. early 3rd century
P66. John. Greek, 2nd-3rd century
P77. Matthew. Greek. 2nd-3rd century
P103. Matthew. Greek. 2nd-3rd century
GA0189. Acts of the Apostles. Greek. 2nd-3rd century

The article claims that P52, considered to be possibly the earliest fragment is dated to AD 125. Most scholars today would use a wider date range of the second century in general. Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse proposed somewhere between AD 125 and 175. Andreas Schmidt dated P52 around AD 170, plus or minus twenty-five years.

The article also lists P67 (PBarcelona1) which together with P64 was probably written by the same scribe is known as the "Magdalen" papyrus as being dated between 125-150. Most papyrologists date it to around AD 200, or at the very earliest in the late 2nd century. (after AD 150)

 

[Total Power]

The total number of possible second-century New Testament manuscripts that we have is small. There are 140 overall but none are dated earlier than the 2nd century. Some of the main 2nd century manuscripts are

P90. John (18:36-19:7). Greek. 2nd century
P104 Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back. Greek. 2nd century
P98 verses from the first chapter of the book of Revelation. Greek. 2nd century
P52. seven lines from the John 18:31–33 on the front, and parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 on the back. Greek. 2nd century.
P137 Mark. Greek. A.D. 150-250
P32. Titus. Greek. 2nd-3rd Century
P46. Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews. Greek. 2nd century. Greek. early 3rd century
P66. John. Greek, 2nd-3rd century
P77. Matthew. Greek. 2nd-3rd century
P103. Matthew. Greek. 2nd-3rd century
GA0189. Acts of the Apostles. Greek. 2nd-3rd century

The article claims that P52, considered to be possibly the earliest fragment is dated to AD 125. Most scholars today would use a wider date range of the second century in general. Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse proposed somewhere between AD 125 and 175. Andreas Schmidt dated P52 around AD 170, plus or minus twenty-five years.

The article also lists P67 (PBarcelona1) which together with P64 was probably written by the same scribe is known as the "Magdalen" papyrus as being dated between 125-150. Most papyrologists date it to around AD 200, or at the very earliest in the late 2nd century. (after AD 150)

So where's the claim that John was written in 75 AD and Mark around 60 AD come from?

 

[Roylion]

Oh my! Why didn't some attention seeking Jew simply dig up those remains and expose the liars or was it too well hidden by the sneaky apostles?

Probably the remains would have been disposed of.

Professor Jodi Magness has suggested that whoever took the body of Jesus would have buried him in a simple trench grave with no marker since the family was too poor to have afforded a rock-hewn tomb.

"Jesus likely would have been disposed of in the manner of the poorer classes: in an individual trench grave dug into the ground. In ancient trench graves, the body of the deceased was wrapped in a shroud and sometimes placed in a wooden coffin. The body was then laid in a hollowed-out space at the base of the trench."

According to biblical historical scholar Bart Ehrman, the historical understanding of Roman crucifixion practices was that crucifixion was intended to humiliate, and bodies were often left up on crosses to be eaten by animals. They were denied a dignified burial and were instead thrown into mass graves. Pilate is known to have been brutal towards the Jews so there is no strong reason to believe that he would have extended this type of mercy.

The ancient writer Josephus, (himself a Jew) does indicate that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law, which is essentially what Magness is arguing.

Josephus: "Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun"

That those who died by crucifixion were buried before sunset in accordance with Jewish law, does not necessarily mean that they were buried in rock hewn tombs.

L. Y. Rahmani, an Israeli archaeologist, observed that "In Jerusalem’s tombs, the deceased’s place of origin was noted when someone from outside Jerusalem was interred in a local tomb. On ossuaries in rock-cut tombs that belonged to Judean families, it was customary to indicate the ancestry or lineage of the deceased by naming the father, as, for example, Judah son of John (Yohanan); Honya son of Alexa; and Martha daughter of Hananya. But in rock-cut tombs owned by non-Judean families (or which contained the remains of relatives from outside Judea), it was customary to indicate the deceased’s place of origin, as, for example, Simon of Ptolemais; Papias the Bethshanite (of Beth Shean); and Gaios son of Artemon from Berenike."

And if someone other than Jesus spoke all of those clever parables and a number of quite brilliant sermons and responses to questioning from the Pharisees, who was the real author or authors?

Well we don't know exactly. However most Biblical scholars know that the Gospel writers, whoever they were, were not the Apostles of Jesus.

Those poor bastards never got the credit they deserved. It all went to a man who was a literary construct.

The deeds and actions of Jesus were largely literary constructs.

And why Jesus? What was it about this man that made him a candidate for these fairy tales?

His followers and believers wrote the Gospels.

Once again.

Historical Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman offers an explanation for what happened.

"The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed [when he was alive] Jesus was the Messiah, but then he was crucified, and so he couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who’s squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him. And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven?

Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; he’s a spiritual Messiah. That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection. It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed.

Believers who believed he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul who even claimed to have experienced one himself to add weight to his story. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them might have actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him.

On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually the Gospels of the New Testament appeared, written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later."

Do you think the apostles were made up? Did Paul talk to nobody called Peter and James in Jerusalem where he claims he stayed for fifteen days? Why wouldn't people have called him a fraud or liar when he wrote his letters mentioning these people if they didn't exist? If they did exist what exactly do you think they were preaching if not Jesus' resurrection and divinity?

I've explained this earlier.

It is funny to note that at different stages in our history Nazareth was said to be a made up place, Pilate a made up Procurator and Caiaphas an invented High Priest and good old archeology has proven them all to be very real along with many other locations and people.

Yes? And so? As archaeological excavations proceed, more evidence is uncovered and a more accurate picture is arrived at.

For the first couple of hundred years, Christianity was spread by word of mouth and then written accounts. Being a Christian was a dangerous thing to be.

Not always. For example in regard to the famous Neronian persecution of Christians, this may have been overblown. (And I'm not claiming that Christians weren't persecuted at all)

According to Tacitus which the only independent attestation written around AD 115, some 50 years after the event as well as later Christian tradition, Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. The debate as to what role Nero did play in the persecution of early Christians is ongoing. Given a lack of contemporary sources from the period of Nero's reign, and a tendency for Christians to claim persecution at all possible occasions, it's... problematic, to say the least. Most accounts of Nero's persecutions date from the 4th-century histories of two Christian writers, Lactantius and Eusebius, so they are neither neutral nor eyewitnesses.

Brent D. Shaw, a professor of ancient history at Princeton in the "Journal of Roman Studies", “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution,” argues that we should doubt that that actually happened.

The evidence is thin, to summarize Shaw, both for Nero’s persecution, and even for the possibility that Romans could so early have recognized Christians judicially or religiously as such. Shaw demonstrates the scantiness of evidence that in AD 64, Christians in Rome were recognizable and despicable enough as a group that Nero could have targeted them. Jews could also be targeted, as they were by emperor Claudius for expulsion from Rome about 49 AD, perhaps for riots associated with disagreements with followers of Jesus.

The persecution stands or falls on a single passage in the Annals of Tacitus, the Roman historian and imperial administrator, writing around 115 AD, some 50 years after the event. The word “Christian” first occurs in what we have of Latin writing shortly after the year 110 AD.

There is no evidence for where Tacitus got this, and no other ancient writer corroborates him. Suetonius, the Roman administrator and biographer, in a life of Nero roughly contemporary with the Annals, holds Nero alone responsible for the fire, narrates the fire without connection to Christians, and says Nero punished Christians only routinely, without mentioning the fire.

Cassius Dio after about 210 AD writes about the fire but says nothing about Christians. The Chronicle of Christian Sulpicius Severus (after 400 AD) depends entirely on Tacitus.

The first letter of Clement (often taken to have been written in the 90s AD) mentions a persecution of Christian “pillars” and of Christian wives and the names of Peter and Paul, but only obscurely. The obscurity has been resolved by conflating the passage with Tacitus’s scenario to produce a more detailed story, but in truth 1 Clement makes no mention of a date for the persecution, Nero, or the fire. The context is not the history of the Roman church, but a condemnation of “jealousy and envy,” on account of which, it says, the victims were persecuted.

Why did some Jews want to break away from Judaism and endure all the risks that entailed to spread a story they themselves knew was made up?

There were other sects derived from Judaism apart from Christianity, such as the Samaritans, Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots.

 

[Roylion]

So where's the claim that John was written in 75 AD and Mark around 60 AD come from?

Conservative evangelicals who often date them earlier.

They typically maintain that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus and it seems implausible that they would still be alive toward the end of the first century (especially given life expectancies in antiquity). Mark is of course the earliest Gospel so has to be even earlier than Matthew / Luke.

 

[Boston tiger]

Conservative evangelicals who often date them earlier.

They typically maintain that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus and it seems implausible that they would still be alive toward the end of the first century (especially given life expectancies in antiquity). Mark is of course the earliest Gospel so has to be even earlier than Matthew / Luke.

Conservative evangelicals?

 

[Roylion]

Conservative evangelicals?

Yep. Most Biblical scholars date them with the dates I've already presented.

 

[Boston tiger]

[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]" data-quote="Roylion" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Yep. Most Biblical scholars date them with the dates I've already presented.

Did you read the rest of his blog? I’m not the only one surprised with Evangelical Conservative statement

 

[Roylion]

I’m not the only one surprised with Evangelical Conservative statement

Bart Ehrman's words.

Here's his exact quote

"New Testament scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the Gospels of the New Testament began to appear after 70 CE. The major exceptions are conservative evangelicals who often date them earlier."

 

[Total Power]

According to our mate Vdubs many secular scholars disagree with you Roylion , i am still waiting for his evidence.

This will be fun.

Over to you VD.

 

[Roylion]

You are taking the classical sceptical historical position which is not held uniformly by historians.

The majority view is that Mark was written c. AD 60-75, Matthew c. AD 65-85, Luke c. AD 65-95 and John c. AD 75-100.

One of the major arguments in favour of this for this is Paul doesn't make any reference to the Gospels themselves. There are several areas where he quotes Jesus' teachings (esp. from Matthew), but it seems strange that Paul would not refer somewhat directly to the Gospels when exhorting early Christians to follow Jesus' teachings.

When it comes to evidence establishing the earliest date for the Gospels, the most glaring evidence would be that the Gospels make explicit reference to the Roman-Jewish War (AD 66 – 73). Specifically, the Gospels refer to when Roman soldiers surrounded Jerusalem in AD 67 CE, and most notably the Gospels (Luke 21 and Mark 13) mention the complete destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which happened in AD 70. According to this scholarship, the Gospels were in all likelihood written after these events since they make direct mention of them.

Nevertheless, those (usually Conservative evangelists in Bart Ehrman's words) who espouse early composition dates for the Gospels (most often, but not always) assert that the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as mentioned in the Gospels constitutes prophecy, and thus, the Gospels must have been written prior to these events – lest these prophecies attributed to Jesus be rendered as "prophecies after the fact"

So given that is almost universally accepted that the authors of Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends the dating Mark in the 40s-50s or after AD 67 is the key.

The main exceptions to the mainstream view that the Gospels were composed c. AD 70 and later are:

• James G.Crossley dates Mark between mind 30's to mid 40's- few years after Jesus death;
• Maurice Casey dates Mark to AD 40;
• John Arthur Thomas Robinson, an Anglican bishop also argues for an early dating of Mark. He argues on the basis that “the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of Judaism based on the temple is never once mentioned as a past fact. (In other words any mentions of it in the Gospels are prophecy). He proposed the following dates: Matthew 40-60; Mark 45-60; Luke 57-60; John 40-65.

Other prominent scholars who have argued for an early dating of Mark between the 40s and 70s are

• John W. Wenham a conservative Anglican biblical scholar who was a beloever in biblical inerrancy and argues that Matthee was written first
• Birger Gerhardsson, a Swedish professor in the Faculty of Theology at Lund University
• Marcel Jousse, a French Jesuit
• Philippe Rolland, argues for the early dating of Acts

Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, John Meier, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen and Bart Ehrman as well as many others, all argue for the later dating of Mark after AD 70.

From what I’ve been reading and listening to, even atheist historians will differ widely on your proposals.

Please provide some further details on how they "differ widely".

I read your stuff and I know you seek out reasons not to believe, indefinitely.

You mean I call for the provision of evidence for any claims that are made?

 

[Total Power]

The majority view is that Mark was written c. AD 60-75, Matthew c. AD 65-85, Luke c. AD 65-95 and John c. AD 75-100.

One of the major arguments in favour of this for this is Paul doesn't make any reference to the Gospels themselves. There are several areas where he quotes Jesus' teachings (esp. from Matthew), but it seems strange that Paul would not refer somewhat directly to the Gospels when exhorting early Christians to follow Jesus' teachings.

When it comes to evidence establishing the earliest date for the Gospels, the most glaring evidence would be that the Gospels make explicit reference to the Roman-Jewish War (AD 66 – 73). Specifically, the Gospels refer to when Roman soldiers surrounded Jerusalem in AD 67 CE, and most notably the Gospels (Luke 21 and Mark 13) mention the complete destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which happened in AD 70. According to this scholarship, the Gospels were in all likelihood written after these events since they make direct mention of them.

Nevertheless, those (usually Conservative evangelists in Bart Ehrman's words) who espouse early composition dates for the Gospels (most often, but not always) assert that the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as mentioned in the Gospels constitutes prophecy, and thus, the Gospels must have been written prior to these events – lest these prophecies attributed to Jesus be rendered as "prophecies after the fact"

So given that is almost universally accepted that the authors of Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends the dating Mark in the 40s-50s or after AD 67 is the key.

The main exceptions to the mainstream view that the Gospels were composed c. AD 70 and later are:

• James G.Crossley dates Mark between mind 30's to mid 40's- few years after Jesus death;
• Maurice Casey dates Mark to AD 40;
• John Arthur Thomas Robinson, an Anglican bishop also argues for an early dating of Mark. He argues on the basis that “the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of Judaism based on the temple is never once mentioned as a past fact. (In other words any mentions of it in the Gospels are prophecy). He proposed the following dates: Matthew 40-60; Mark 45-60; Luke 57-60; John 40-65.

Other prominent scholars who have argued for an early dating of Mark between the 40s and 70s are

• John W. Wenham a conservative Anglican biblical scholar who was a beloever in biblical inerrancy and argues that Matthee was written first
• Birger Gerhardsson, a Swedish professor in the Faculty of Theology at Lund University
• Marcel Jousse, a French Jesuit
• Philippe Rolland, argues for the early dating of Acts

Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, John Meier, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen and Bart Ehrman as well as many others, all argue for the later dating of Mark after AD 70.




Please provide some further details on how they "differ widely".


You mean I call for the provision of evidence for any claims that are made?

You always name your sources, yet asking for a name from VD is apparently asking a lot.

I wish to know which secular disagrees with what we have posted so far?

 

[Roylion]

You always name your sources, yet asking for a name from VD is apparently asking a lot.

I wish to know which secular disagrees with what we have posted so far?

Crossley and Casey are secular scholars but they are very much in the minority with their early dating of the Gospels.

 

[Total Power]

Crossley and Casey are secular scholars but they are very much in the minority with their early dating of the Gospels.

Even he doesn't think that Gospel of John was authentic.

In the case of John’s Gospel, these passages could be read in a way that works with the supernaturalist focus of transformation. I’m sceptical about using John’s Gospel in historical Jesus debates anyway and if pushed I’d say that these passages tell us more about the interpretation of kingship and kingdom as hope for the imminent kingdom have not come to fruition. John may have been trying to give clarity about the movement not being a political threat in the present (as you probably rightly imply).