The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

Sure. Regarding decade, you take the word of modern people with limited records over the word of people much closer in time to the actual events.

Yeah, in a surprise move, I go with professional historians and verified records instead of the rabbinic siblings of people who believed that disease was cause by demonic possession.

I disagree. Further, the people reading the accounts would likely have rejected them if they began with a glaring timing error.

Dude, seriously? There was no NT for centuries after Jesus! How would the early Christians have even known about the error, let alone be educated and savvy enough to pick up on it?

[John V]

Yeah, in a surprise move, I go with professional historians and verified records instead of the rabbinic siblings of people who believed that disease was cause by demonic possession.

Dude, seriously? There was no NT for centuries after Jesus! How would the early Christians have even known about the error, let alone be educated and savvy enough to pick up on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date

The early camp thinks Luke was written ~60-65, and the late camp ~80-90. Plenty of people would have spotted a false claim of less than a century prior.

[DeistPaladin]

The early camp thinks Luke was written ~60-65, and the late camp ~80-90. Plenty of people would have spotted a false claim of less than a century prior.

The "early camp" is silly. Real scholars put the date of Mark around 70 CE, as determined by its references in chapter 13. But this is beside my point. I said NT, not individual Gospels.

You do understand the early Christians had no NT, right?

Do you imagine they got together in their churches and had Holy Bibles printed and readily accessed and read by the entire congregation? You think they had Bible study sessions? You wonder if their children went to Sunday school to read all four Gospels?

In reality, there were many different Christian factions and each had their own Gospel. The Ebionites used Matthew. The Marcionites used Luke. It wasn't until Nicaea that all these differences were finally resolved, Church cannon was established and the books were reviewed to see which would go into the final compilation and in what order.

There was no NT among early Christians.

[John V]

The early camp thinks Luke was written ~60-65, and the late camp ~80-90. Plenty of people would have spotted a false claim of less than a century prior.

The "early camp" is silly. Real scholars put the date of Mark around 70 CE, as determined by its references in chapter 13.

70's fine. People would have recognized erroneous references to rulers and censuses.

But this is beside my point. I said NT, not individual Gospels.

Yes, without reason - other than to falsely put the books under consideration centuries out.

[DeistPaladin]

70's fine. People would have recognized erroneous references to rulers and censuses.

How?

I'm going to say it again, really slow this time.

There

Was

No

New Testament

Yes, without reason

Other than history.

[John V]

Your desperation is apparent. The assembly of the NT has nothing to do with my argument.

[DeistPaladin]

The assembly of the NT has nothing to do with my argument.

OK, maybe I need to go even slower with you: How do you propose the early Christians would have known that Matthew contradicted Luke if they didn't have both a copy of Matthew and a copy of Luke? And even if they had both, they would just conclude, this other Gospel is wrong.

The timeline contradiction between Matt and Luke is only a problem for Christians today who (1) have both and (2) think both are true. This was not the case for early Christians.

Clear?

...he asked in a fit of optimism.

[John V]

OK, maybe I need to go even slower with you: How do you propose the early Christians would have known that Matthew contradicted Luke if they didn't have both a copy of Matthew and a copy of Luke? And even if they had both, they would just conclude, this other Gospel is wrong.

The timeline contradiction between Matt and Luke is only a problem for Christians today who (1) have both and (2) think both are true. This was not the case for early Christians.

Clear?

...he asked in a fit of optimism.

OK, I see the problem.

My point is that people would have known if either of them separately conflicted with historical reality and so reject them.

[DeistPaladin]

OK, I see the problem.

My point is that people would have known if either of them separately conflicted with historical reality and so reject them.

This is also a leap. Modern Republicans have fanciful memories of Reagan that bear almost no relation to the actual presidency. There are Tea Baggers who think Obama initiated the bank bailouts or who think gas prices were never this high until he came into office. And we live in a modern age were false notions of history are corrected by the simply click of a mouse.

According to the very Bible, there were Christians during the lifetime of John who thought Jesus wasn't a flesh-and-blood person (see 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7). So I place no faith in 70 CE Christians knowing that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE and not 6 CE.

[John V]

This is also a leap. Modern Republicans have fanciful memories of Reagan that bear almost no relation to the actual presidency. There are Tea Baggers who think Obama initiated the bank bailouts or who think gas prices were never this high until he came into office. And we live in a modern age were false notions of history are corrected by the simply click of a mouse.

It's telling that you don't speak of simple facts, such as date of death of a ruler or date of a census.

According to the very Bible, there were Christians during the lifetime of John who thought Jesus wasn't a flesh-and-blood person (see 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7). So I place no faith in 70 CE Christians knowing that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE and not 6 CE.

I disagree.