[quote='FallentoReason' pid='274880' dateline='1334844049']
[quote]Thanks for your response Drich. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.
Firstly, to avoid confusion between my beliefs and what the members of the forum see as my beliefs, I just want to state that within this thread the framework that I am using to deal with the ideas at hand is one that is entirely within the pages of the NT. That is, by agreeing or disagreeing with arguments I am not implying that I believe that to reflect history (with all due respect Drich
). Now, on wards![/quote]
Sorry I did not respond earlier. I have been quite busy.
[quote]How does this fit in with the fact that the Apostles were all martyred? I'm not entirely familiar with the approximate dates of their deaths. So, did the canonical authors actually die after the 70 year gap, enabling them to make the Gospels?[/quote]Not all were. John was not, it's been said he live a very long life in Ephesus. His gospel was constructed in 3 phases over that time span. (completed around 90 AD just before his death)
With the death of Peter in or around 70AD the need to transfer the teachings of John Mark's Mentor (Peter) was sealed, as it was becoming more and more apparent that the second coming would take longer than previously thought. Luke was constructed during the life time of the Apostle Peter, but was not recognized as a synaptic gospel till much later. Luke was a slave/Historian/Doctor/scribe for His Master Theophilus the account of luke was ment for his Master. Matthew is said by the church to have been written by the Apostle of the same name around 50 AD. But the earliest quote of said book can only be traced back to 115 AD. So the age of the book has recently been contested when compared to it's earlier pedigree.
[quote]Even nowadays I highly doubt that a child has the ability to fast track their mental capabilities. Even less probable for this to happen within the span of 3 days.[/quote]No, Jesus was not left at the temple to be taught for three days. He Taught for three days at the temple. He was asked "why did you not follow us out of the city?" He said "Because I was going about my Father's business."
At that young Age Christ had already exceeded the teachers of His day.
[quote]OK, for this one let me step out of the framework I defined and talk about history as I currently know it. What do you think about the possibility that Revelations was the first book written, even before the Gospels? Does that change anything?[/quote]
If it has, it destroys the time line the church places on the conical books of the bible, but I do not see how the perceived order of what was written matters a great deal.
[quote]Thanks for your response Drich. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.
Firstly, to avoid confusion between my beliefs and what the members of the forum see as my beliefs, I just want to state that within this thread the framework that I am using to deal with the ideas at hand is one that is entirely within the pages of the NT. That is, by agreeing or disagreeing with arguments I am not implying that I believe that to reflect history (with all due respect Drich
). Now, on wards![/quote]Sorry I did not respond earlier. I have been quite busy.
[quote]How does this fit in with the fact that the Apostles were all martyred? I'm not entirely familiar with the approximate dates of their deaths. So, did the canonical authors actually die after the 70 year gap, enabling them to make the Gospels?[/quote]Not all were. John was not, it's been said he live a very long life in Ephesus. His gospel was constructed in 3 phases over that time span. (completed around 90 AD just before his death)
With the death of Peter in or around 70AD the need to transfer the teachings of John Mark's Mentor (Peter) was sealed, as it was becoming more and more apparent that the second coming would take longer than previously thought. Luke was constructed during the life time of the Apostle Peter, but was not recognized as a synaptic gospel till much later. Luke was a slave/Historian/Doctor/scribe for His Master Theophilus the account of luke was ment for his Master. Matthew is said by the church to have been written by the Apostle of the same name around 50 AD. But the earliest quote of said book can only be traced back to 115 AD. So the age of the book has recently been contested when compared to it's earlier pedigree.
[quote]Even nowadays I highly doubt that a child has the ability to fast track their mental capabilities. Even less probable for this to happen within the span of 3 days.[/quote]No, Jesus was not left at the temple to be taught for three days. He Taught for three days at the temple. He was asked "why did you not follow us out of the city?" He said "Because I was going about my Father's business."
At that young Age Christ had already exceeded the teachers of His day.
[quote]OK, for this one let me step out of the framework I defined and talk about history as I currently know it. What do you think about the possibility that Revelations was the first book written, even before the Gospels? Does that change anything?[/quote]
If it has, it destroys the time line the church places on the conical books of the bible, but I do not see how the perceived order of what was written matters a great deal.
