If theists understood "evidence"

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, there are dolts who believe that, yes...but those scholars we're discussing have..largely, for the past two centuries at least, been protestants. 

It's not a requirement of protestantism that a person open their mouth..close their eyes, and let witchdoctors stuff bullshit down their throats by the shovel full.  It's not integral to christian faith, even protestant faith, that the character of paul is accurately conveyed in the new testament.  He doesn't have to be the man he made himself out to be, or the man that other authors later turned him into.

Or, if he does, maybe we should go back to calling it paulism, instead of christianity?

[Angrboda]

3.)  You literally used the conclusion in the premise here.  Directly and unmistakably.  Would you care to revise, because this is a text book (over-emphasized) case of begging the question.  Usually it's at least somewhat hidden.  And if an eye witness has heard other's testimony, they will often repeat what they have heard.   In addition, there are many early and recognized Christian creeds within the new testament.   In any case, I hardly see where this is cause for a late dating.   You may note, that this is why detectives separate witnesses as soon as possible before questioning them. 

I likely won't get to your post tonight, but in the meantime I'd appreciate your explaining how you think that I've begged the question here, because I don't see what you're referring to here.

[RoadRunner79]

3.)  You literally used the conclusion in the premise here.  Directly and unmistakably.  Would you care to revise, because this is a text book (over-emphasized) case of begging the question.  Usually it's at least somewhat hidden.  And if an eye witness has heard other's testimony, they will often repeat what they have heard.   In addition, there are many early and recognized Christian creeds within the new testament.   In any case, I hardly see where this is cause for a late dating.   You may note, that this is why detectives separate witnesses as soon as possible before questioning them. 

I likely won't get to your post tonight, but in the meantime I'd appreciate your explaining how you think that I've begged the question here, because I don't see what you're referring to here.

Thanks for asking for clarification.  That's very civil.   And looking back, I think that I made a mistake here.   I thought you where that the lateness made it a late work, now I realize you where referring to Matthew being the author.  Sorry.   However I still think that the lateness needs to be supported.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the Gospel of Matthew was written after 70 C.E., why does Matthew minimize the destruction of Jerusalem? For example, in Matt 22:7: "The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city." That seems like an understatement to describe such a huge and terrible event. Is there any evidence this parable was added to a pre-70 C.E. Matthew’s Gospel?
A. The date of Matthew’s Gospel is far from certain. Three pieces of evidence have usually been advanced to demonstrate that Matthew wrote after 70 C.E. First, Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark and Mark is normally dated to the late 60s or early 70s. Secondly, the Gospel of Matthew has a developed Christology, which suggests a late date towards the end of the first century. Thirdly, the reference to the destruction of a city in Matt 22:7 can and should be taken as a direct reference to the Jewish War and to the destruction of Jerusalem in particular. None of these arguments is entirely persuasive.
With respect to Matthew’s use of Mark, the date of Mark is itself not certain. Some scholars date it earlier than the 60s. As for Matthew’s developed Christology, it is no more developed than Paul’s and the Pauline letters were written in the 50s. This leaves the reference to the destruction of the city in the parable of the wedding feast as the final piece of evidence for dating Matthew after the Jewish War. As the question correctly maintains, this is hardly decisive, especially when we take into account the metaphorical nature of the Gospel parables.
Many scholars think Matthew took this passage from a hypothetical sayings source called “Q” and made major revisions; if so, Jesus did not speak the parable in precisely this form. But even if we assume that this is a direct allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem, the question remains as to why the evangelist referred to this calamitous event in such an indirect way and why there are no further mentions of it in the Gospel.
One answer is perhaps tied up with the Gospel’s location. If Matthew was written in Antioch or another location that was well away from the war zone, then we can understand the evangelist’s lack of specific focus on the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem. This is one reason why we should be cautious about locating this Gospel in Galilee. We would expect a Galilean Matthew who lived through the horrors of the conflict to have referenced it in more detail in his Gospel. The apocalyptic discourse in chapters 24-25 afforded such an opportunity, but Matthew chose not to take advantage of this. However, if Matthew wrote well away from the war zone and was not directly involved in it, then a post-70 C.E. dating is consistent with his lack of interest in the Jewish war.
A further factor is how late we date the Gospel. Most scholars date Matthew to the 80s or 90s, within 25 years of the destruction of Jerusalem, but it might well be the case that the evangelist wrote his work some decades later than this. Such a later dating is more consistent with the common scholarly view that the community represented by Matthew was in conflict with formative Judaism (or prerabbinic Judaism), which developed into an identifiable entity many decades after the Jewish revolt. Based on this dating the war would not have been an event of the recent past, and it would be understandable that Matthew did not focus on it in his Gospel.
Thus the more distance that can be put between the destruction of Jerusalem and the writing of Matthew, either geographical distance or temporal distance (or both), the more easily we can explain why this Christian Jewish author did not refer more concretely to the calamity of the Jewish War.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/as...ew-written

David Sim
Professor, Australian Catholic University

David C. Sim is Professor of Biblical Studies at Australian Catholic University. He is the author or editor of many books on the Gospel of Matthew, including Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge University Press, 1996) and The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (T & T Clark, 1998).

[RoadRunner79]

That’s why I only learn about evolution, from unbiased people who don’t believe in evolution.

Whataboutism

I think that there is some confusion in application here, and the tu quoque fallacy.   It's not fallacious or whataboutism, to point out hypocrisy.   The error is when you try to justify your position by using the others hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy, only shows that they cannot be correct in both instances.  It doesn't speak to which position is right or just.   Besides this was more of a me too moment!  

[The Grand Nudger]

Notice, above, how the author references a problem in the text that can only be resolved to satisfaction by positing things that are otherwise inconvenient to some peoples beliefs about the new testament.  If we want to take the text credibly, those beliefs people have may -need- to be false.  

That, is what a strong commitment to scholarship (and, frankly, to faith) looks like.

[Deesse23]

Whataboutism

I think that there is some confusion in application here, and the tu quoque fallacy.   It's not fallacious or whataboutism, to point out hypocrisy.   The error is when you try to justify your position by using the others hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy, only shows that they cannot be correct in both instances.  It doesn't speak to which position is right or just.   Besides this was more of a me too moment!  

You lost your argument about Paul, and then tried to change topic. Do you think people didnt notice?

[Jehanne]

You reject modern scholarly consensus only to appeal to it?

I didn't know that I was here.    I have pointed out scholarly consensus before, but it is mostly about their reasons for doing so.   I'm not against scholarly opinion at all, they spend a lot more time on things giving them the knowledge, and ability to organize information better then I can.   However, if they don't give any reason for their claims, I'm a little skeptical.   I don't think that they have a magical ability to peer into the past, sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes bias can cloud their judgement.   So I ask why?

I don't believe Paul, as can be gleaned from those letters that have been deemed to be authentic. If you want to believe him, go right ahead. I think that he was a dishonest man with mental health issues.

And, so, I am done with this thread. Until next time...

[no one]

Understood, is the key word here. 

[The Grand Nudger]

The jewish community didn't believe paul either.  In person or as a literary effigy.  A man supposedly writing in the 50's proclaiming that the messiah has come..but by august 29, 70ad...the rebellion had been silenced, the temple burnt...and the jewish state collapsed.  

Clearly, the messiah had not come, lol.