(November 7, 2013 at 8:12 am)Aractus Wrote: You also haven't provided any references at all, or reasoning behind dating the gospels.And again, what was wrong with the NRSV 3rd Ed published by Oxford University Press? This is not to say they're the only ones who suggest a date around 70 CE. You can do a simple wikipedia search and find it (though I tend to go with Oxford more than Wikipedia). Christian scholars and apologists do try to push it back to 65 or even 60 CE. More skeptical scholars who don't believe in woo and divine prophecy place the earliest possible date at 70 CE for reasons already given.
Quote: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.

Can we please keep woo out of our discussion on history?
In any event, the temple was razed during the 70 CE siege of Jerusalem.
Quote:Well, if you accept everything the early church father's wrote was more Gospel than the Gospel?...and I don't.
Quote: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.I simply don't know and am not willing to take church propaganda and folklore about its history at face value.
Quote:Luke wrote Luke...according to tradition.
Quote:-Acts,Nope.
Quote:Paul wrote all his epistlesActually, scholars think that roughly half the epistles are "probably authentic" and the rest are of dubious authorship. Pseudo-epigraphy was a common problem with religious texts. Anyone who wanted to push a certain theological agenda could "discover" a letter by a more notable church figure from history that happened to agree.
Quote:Peter, James, Jude and John wrote their respective pieces....maybe. I haven't researched these but the track record for the sacred scriptures is so spotty that I'm doubtful of any claims of these epistles.
Quote:John the elder wrote Revelations....while taking a bad trip on mushrooms, one must assume.
Quote:The remainder - Hebrews (could be Paul or James or some other apostle),...or completely unknown since even the Bible doesn't bother to attempt to attribute authorship.
Quote:the scenario where Mark used Matthew is possible.Unlikely. Matthew corrects Mark in too many places where the theology is embarrassingly wrong. For example, Mark has Jesus saying "no divorce ever". Matthew, knowledgeable of Jewish customs and laws, puts in the caveat of the absence of female chastity.
Quote:I'm 100% certain that Luke is written c. 60-61 ADGood for you. Prove it.
Quote: and that Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew.One would think they'd have gotten the nativity story straight then, to say nothing of the contradictory itinerary of Jesus' ministry.
Quote: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?Let's stick to canonical works. Christians maintain that the heterodox Christian texts came much later, which is why they can be discounted.
Quote:I have already done so. Acts ends with Paul under house arrest, before Peter has died, and before Jerusalem has fallen.Your point?
Quote: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.Be convinced of whatever you like. I care about what you can prove.
Quote:I've addressed this multiple times already, either read what I've already written or just don’t bring it up again.Do me the kindness of a link, then. They're easy to create. It's the globe-with-the-chain-under-it icon above the text box.
To be blunt, I'm skeptical of your claim to have debunked my observations given the quality of the logic you've presented so far.
Quote:Pull the other one.Pull what? And what other one? You're making no sense.
Quote:I didn't think you'd understand the point, even though I did make it explicit. Thanks anyway.Oh, I understood quite well. You're using a red herring to distract from the problems of the two books contradicting each other on a point where there would be no room for self-contradiction if such an event actually happened.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist