I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Eilonnwy]

No, a late date is accepted only on the grounds of the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem, which to some mean that it must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g. past 70 A.D.). That is a philosophical presupposition I don't share. The prediction is entirely possible, even in naturalistic terms as a coincidence or an anticipation on reasonable grounds, or for a Christian, simply a prophesy. It depends on ones philosophical presuppositions what date is possible to entertain. For me, the philosophical reasons to postpone the date beyond the fall of Jerusalem are simply not there, and the historical indications that it is much earlier are almost universally recognised (which is one of the reasons earlier documents like Q are proposed).

So I'm supposed to accept that the gospels were written earlier because some think the guy had predictive powers? Come on, I know you believe in it so that's not far fetched for you, but after what I've been saying, demanding strong evidence for supernatural/extraordinary claims you MUST know that you're essentially wasting your breath. No one with half a brain would accept your assertion. You were all about saying that the majority of scholars accept someone named Jesus existed but then veer from that majority when it suits you. Nice.

You believe in Jesus without any substantial evidence at all, so you're wasting your breath.

[Tiberius]

Don't you know Eilonnwy? Julius Caesar lived 200 years ago! The proof is all there! Every single historical document attributed to him is just a prediction of the great Victorian leader he was to be!

Seriously though, if we make the assumption (and it is a massive assumption) that prophecy is real, and people can predict the future, history is screwed. You could just as easily use that to place a ridiculous date on any person's existence.

[Jon Paul]

So I'm supposed to accept that the gospels were written earlier because some think the guy had predictive powers?

No. Wrong way around. You are not supposed to believe the earliest Gospels were written down after 70 A.D. for any other reason than presupposing that for them to be earlier, they have to really "predict" the fall of Jerusalem, rather than it being a coincidence or reasonable anticipation - and, after that presupposition, if you then further presuppose that to have to be either impossible or supernatural, of course you will say they were written after 70 A.D. on the grounds of the philosophical presupposition that no such thing can happen, though it isn't even neccesary -to begin with- to admit to such a supposedly real prediction being necessary for an earlier date. All other facts indicate a much earlier date, and for that reason earlier documents like Q have been proposed.

Seriously though, if we make the assumption (and it is a massive assumption) that prophecy is real, and people can predict the future, history is screwed. You could just as easily use that to place a ridiculous date on any person's existence.

That is, if you a) presuppose that it is necessarily a real prediction rather than a coincidence or just a reasonable anticipation, and on top of that unwarranted presupposition, b) discount the fact that all other facts indicate an earlier date. Neither are necessary, and you don't have to admit that it was a real "prophecy" just because you don't postpone the date.

---

Your not going to give his post serious treatment because it is a direct challenge to your belief about Jesus. He's skeptical, so what's your response? To attack his question as "extremely pessimistic and antipathic"

A challenge? Not at all. I already made long posts about it, actually arguing for my viewpoint.

until you arrive at "the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate"

No, that is not what I said. Obviously you are having reading problems. Try reading again.

[...] rather than taking it to mean that the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate.

I'm so dizzy I can barely clarify that you have presented no facts just arguments of possibilities that you have researched and tracked down to support your belief about Jesus being magic. Are you Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? You could be, you would blow those guys off the set!

I never said I proved Jesus is "magic". Nor was that my intention.

[Eilonnwy]

No. Wrong way around. You are not supposed to believe the earliest Gospels were written down after 70 A.D. for any other reason than presupposing that for them to be earlier, they have to really "predict" the fall of Jerusalem, rather than it being a coincidence or reasonable anticipation - and, after that presupposition, if you then further presuppose that to have to be either impossible or supernatural, of course you will say they were written after 70 A.D. on the grounds of the philosophical presupposition that no such thing can happen, though it isn't even neccesary -to begin with- to admit to such a supposedly real prediction being necessary for an earlier date. All other facts indicate a much earlier date, and for that reason earlier documents like Q have been proposed.

Your reasoning is completely idiotic. Of course we have to believe it was written after the fall, because we have no reason to believe prophecy, specifically with the earliest gospel writer, exists. Prophecy in and of itself, does not stand up to the Scientific Method.

You try to say we're making faulty presuppositions when we're dealing with provable fact and you're making the biggest assumptions of all and so your reasoning is utter crap.

[Jon Paul]

Your reasoning is completely idiotic. Of course we have to believe it was written after the fall, because we have no reason to believe prophecy,

What I stated was exactly that one does not need to believe in prophecy to posite an earlier date. Vague predictions happen all the time; it can be coincidence or reasonable anticipation. In this case, all other factors (contemporary knowledge of Jesus time and place, and consonantly so between the different perspectives of different Gospels that aren't shared in the others), point to an early knowledge origin in the contemporaries of Jesus, rather than a late one.

Even then, if we had to assume it was prophecy for it's dating to be earlier, which we emphatically don't have to assume from a neutral point of view for an early date, all you are saying amounts to: I presuppose that prophecy is impossible; therefore, this thing which might constitute evidence that prophecy is possible if the date is earlier, cannot be evidence that prophecy is possible, therefore the date is later rather than earlier. Obviously, that is not historical evidence: it proceeds from a philosophical presupposition that is not shared by all. A priori regardless of evidence, it renders even Christianity unprovable, thus begging the question. This is not evidence, and obviously, a Christian who does not share the philosophical presupposition is not going to accept it.

But even then, now don't ignore the first paragraph. One does not have to presuppose that an early date necessitates supernatural, or even any kind of prophecy, beyond coincidentiality and reasonable anticipation. If one does do that, however, you are going to exclude it on philosophical grounds, not on grounds of historical evidence.

You try to say we're making faulty presuppositions when we're dealing with provable fact and you're making the biggest assumptions of all and so your reasoning is utter crap.

You are just asserting it. You have neither pointed to unrevealed presuppositions (for I have made the issue obvious and clear) in my arguments, nor shown my reasoning to be "utter crap". I have, to the contrary, been able to analyse different viewpoints, pointed to your implicit presupposition, which you have enforced, and shown your reasoning to be - just that, utter cr.., something.

[Eilonnwy]

Jon, when you can prove that the gospels were written earlier before 70 C.E. (Approx) without saying "They could have predicted this" then we have something to talk about. Scholarly consensus is that they were written around 70 C.E. at the earliest and unless you have substantial and rather good evidence that would destroy this consensus, I will stick with the scholarly opinion.

You have the burden of proof, and you fail at every turn.

[Jon Paul]

Jon, when you can prove that the gospels were written earlier before 70 C.E. (Approx) without saying "They could have predicted this" then we have something to talk about. Scholarly consensus is that they were written around 70 C.E. at the earliest and unless you have substantial and rather good evidence that would destroy this consensus, I will stick with the scholarly opinion.

Sure, many scholars believe it, but there are also some who don't. Anyway, none of this is central, since scholarly consensus is also that there were much earlier written records (Q in some form) and a historical Jesus; the current orthodoxy is two-source hypothesis. Regardless, the discussion has gone off track; apparently you thought I were arguing that if Jesus existed, then his divinity is automatically verified. Not so. I was only arguing for a historical Jesus.

[Rokcet Scientist]

How do I go about getting ex-communicated from that bunch of [expletive deleted]'s they call Catholics?

Kyu

Yeah, that's a tough one!
How about mooning Benedict?
That oughta cost brownie points, dunnit?
But then again, he'd probably promote you to head altar boy...

[Minimalist]

I was only arguing for a historical Jesus.

Then how about some evidence that does not boil down to, effectively, one believer lying and another swearing to it?

[chatpilot]

JP as I stated in an earlier post you can't keep falling back on Q=Quell in German which is translated to mean source.Q is an hypothetical document and the scholars have come to that consensus basing themselves on the fact that in some passages in the synoptic gospels they are repeated verbatim in all three gospels.This according to scholars indicates that they were copying some of their material from this hypothetical Q document.You can't place a date for a document whose existence is only inferred and not proven.As with the entire N.T. we have not one single shred of original documents and are basing ourselves entirely on corrupted copies of those so called alleged books that compose the N.T.

Your biblical exegesis and hermeneutics claim is not as reliable as you believe it to be since they are trying to reconstruct ancient documents basing themselves on corrupted copies of those documents.Back then copies were hand written thus increasing the margin for error in transcription,translation etc.

---

This is the reason that most scholars believe in the later dates for the Gospel of Mark:
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelo...dating.htm there is the article if you want to read it in its entirety.But here is a short paragraph quotation from it.
"Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE. "