Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

Wow. I've never heard any apologist, even of the most fringy variety, ever try to push the dates of any of the Gospels back sooner than 50 CE. I guess your research is more extensive than any scholar.

DP, I had the locksmiths around today. They were doing me a mutual favour that would eventually result in me repaying said favour. While they were there I showed them a Chubb safe I had pulled out, which had no lock, and asked if I could fit a completely different lock into it. The next thing I knew, he drove back to his shop, got the parts he needed, came back and fitted it for me, and I insisted that I had to pay him for the service. He proceeded to write me an invoice for ... $50. Much less than I wanted to pay! Now I know what you're thinking - that's just Aussie Mateship - no it isn't, the guy's not my mate and I barely know him.

Let me put this in perspective - the going rate if you call a locksmith to break into your car or house for you would be about $250 (10-20 minutes work at the site).

Which fact is more important?

You guessed it, my "favour" is obviously not the norm, he was way too generous.

You cite as fact "fringy" Christian apologists, and label me as one of them. Would I label the locksmith a "fringe", or is he a regular lockie?

You also haven't provided any references at all, or reasoning behind dating the gospels. I can tell you the reasons, but that's not really my job. The most important fact (and one which I do not dispute) is that Mark has to have been written after the church spread to Rome.

Yes. It's because of the "little apocalypse" in Mark chapter 13.

No, as I've already said it's because supposedly the supposed author (which you dispute) John Mark wrote after Peter's supposed death in c. 65 AD.

The temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so the reference to the temple destruction indicates the passage was written after this point.

You don't know your history. Jerusalem (whole) was taken by siege, and you should have mentioned this. The temple already was "symbolically" destroyed at the cross.

The authorship of the Gospels is dubious at best. You agree. And that proves to your mind that they must have been written very early on.

Did I black out for a few minutes while you offered all the other evidence that allows you to draw this conclusion?

Well, if you accept everything the early church father's wrote was more Gospel than the Gospel?

If not, then you have to admit maybe Peter didn't die c. 65 AD! Or maybe John Mark wrote earlier than c. 65 AD. Or that John Mark was not the author allowing someone before him to write Mark.

No, that seems to be your reasoning. You assert that the attributed authors wrote the Gospels, present the folklore about when they died and work backward from there. If I'm wrong, feel free to elaborate.

Certainly.

Luke wrote Luke-Acts, Paul wrote all his epistles, Peter, James, Jude and John wrote their respective pieces. John the elder wrote Revelations. The remainder - Hebrews (could be Paul or James or some other apostle), Matthew and Mark are anonymous. Matthew and Mark are written by two different apostles, and one used the other. I'm 95% certain that Matthew used Mark, however, the scenario where Mark used Matthew is possible. I'm 100% certain that Luke is written c. 60-61 AD and that Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew. I can't stress this part enough - I really don't care if John Mark wrote Mark or if Matthew wrote Matthew, it's trivial, what I do care about is the remainder of said works.

Oh and I'm about 60% certain that the Gospel of the Hebrews predates Matthew. So it should be easy to convince me I'm wrong on this, if I am?

Do tell.

I have already done so. Acts ends with Paul under house arrest, before Peter has died, and before Jerusalem has fallen.

The "Q" document is purely hypothetical.

Great, I agree. So much so I do not believe there was a Q.

Or Josephus wrote his own works. Why would Josephus copy Luke, a historian so clearly inept that he confused the dates of Herod the Great and the administration of Quirinius so badly that Mary wound up with a 10 year pregnancy.

I said they used a common source. This is a fundamental fact as far as I'm concerned, and until I see it disproven, I am convinced that they both went to the library and read the same book. I am not the only one who thinks this, and again, this only accounts for the "double tradition" - that is, a fraction of the respective works.

According to Luke, Mary conceived during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE (Luke chapter 1). Luke then says Mary gave birth during the census taken while Quirinus was governor of Syria (see Luke chapter 2). Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 CE. So either Luke screwed his dates up or those Sons of God take longer to bake in the oven.

I've addressed this multiple times already, either read what I've already written or just don’t bring it up again.

Perhaps because "Luke" (or whoever) was writing a Gospel about the life of Jesus, not a siege of Jerusalem that would happen four decades later. The "martyrdom" of Peter and Paul are also separate topics and might not yet have been fabricated (this is part of what I regard as Christian folklore). And my contention is that a different author wrote the ridiculously fanciful and woo-drenched (even by the Bible's standards) tale of Acts.

Pull the other one.

No, you committed the logical fallacy of Red Herring (changing the subject). Try answering my question.

I didn't think you'd understand the point, even though I did make it explicit. Thanks anyway.

***DeistPaladin edited to fix quote boxes***