Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[The Grand Nudger]

Small potatoes compared to the notion that all of magic book has been mis-dated.  So much for the fiction of scholarship, lol.

[Fake Messiah]

You say that you accept the opinions of "professional scholars"; what NT texts do you feel are misdated?

 Probably all of them, again i'm going to ask you to answer my first post to you in this thread, you seem to be afraid to. If you can't this ends our conversation, you did this to me the last time we had a discussion and I stopped even coming to the forum for few weeks, I get tired of your games.

GC

What you mean this?

The Gospel of Matthew was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Matthew's Gospel was heavy on prophecy it is an important part of the Gospel, so if the Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem and the foretelling of the temples destruction it would have been mentioned in Matthew's Gospel.

Oh no Jehanne! Why didn't you look at wikipedia when GC is obviously not capable himself?

Indeed, scholars agree that Matthew has the Jewish war with Rome and the destruction of the Temple in sight in verses like Matthew 22:7. But unlike Mark, Matthew doesn’t seem to be overwhelmed by the catastrophe; it seems to be further away in time and space. Instead, Matthew appears to be intensely concerned with troubling new developments in Judaism in the generation after the war, possibly including Christians being targeted by the Birkath ha-Minim (“Curse against Heretics”) that began with the post-war rabbinic court at Jamnia in the 80s.

[Jehanne]

You say that you accept the opinions of "professional scholars"; what NT texts do you feel are misdated?

 Probably all of them, again i'm going to ask you to answer my first post to you in this thread, you seem to be afraid to. If you can't this ends our conversation, you did this to me the last time we had a discussion and I stopped even coming to the forum for few weeks, I get tired of your games.

GC

---

They're only proving through the bias of faith that they believe in it first and foremost. You know, putting the wagon before the horse.

 Actually some were atheist that couldn't make sense of the evolutionary science and began to search for another answer and in doing so the found God at the center of the answers they sought. The horse was always before the cart.

GC

I want to focus on your following statement:

We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

Who are the "we"?  Name a single scholar who dates Matthew as having been written in the 60s AD.

[Amarok]

 Probably all of them, again i'm going to ask you to answer my first post to you in this thread, you seem to be afraid to. If you can't this ends our conversation, you did this to me the last time we had a discussion and I stopped even coming to the forum for few weeks, I get tired of your games.

GC

---

 Actually some were atheist that couldn't make sense of the evolutionary science and began to search for another answer and in doing so the found God at the center of the answers they sought. The horse was always before the cart.

GC

I want to focus on your following statement:

We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

Who are the "we"?  Name a single scholar who dates Matthew as having been written in the 60s AD.

He means the voices in his head

[Fake Messiah]

And also the expression that historicists use "embellishments in the New Testament" -- why not use proper word which is lies? Indeed, one is reading a book of lies written by a liar trying to find the truth. I mean if someone is a liar why listen to him in a first place? Because every lie supposedly contains 30% of truth?

[Angrboda]

And also the expression that historicists use "embellishments in the New Testament" -- why not use proper word which is lies? Indeed, one is reading a book of lies written by a liar trying to find the truth. I mean if someone is a liar why listen to him in a first place? Because every lie supposedly contains 30% of truth?

[Silver]

Just don't report it. They'll give you a warning for false reporting.

Silly mods.

[Godscreated]

 Probably all of them, again i'm going to ask you to answer my first post to you in this thread, you seem to be afraid to. If you can't this ends our conversation, you did this to me the last time we had a discussion and I stopped even coming to the forum for few weeks, I get tired of your games.

GC

---

 Actually some were atheist that couldn't make sense of the evolutionary science and began to search for another answer and in doing so the found God at the center of the answers they sought. The horse was always before the cart.

GC

I want to focus on your following statement:

We know he wrote his gospel before the late 60's.

Who are the "we"?  Name a single scholar who dates Matthew as having been written in the 60s AD.

 You can focus on anything you want, you've ignored my question because you have no answer and that's just fine, shows me you can't come up with a reasonable answer against it, there isn't one.
Yes I could name more than one.
Also the answers others have given are about copies or are just plain nonsense.

GC

[Jehanne]

I want to focus on your following statement:



Who are the "we"?  Name a single scholar who dates Matthew as having been written in the 60s AD.

 You can focus on anything you want, you've ignored my question because you have no answer and that's just fine, shows me you can't come up with a reasonable answer against it, there isn't one.
Yes I could name more than one.
Also the answers others have given are about copies or are just plain nonsense.

GC

Humor me, please; name just one.

[Vicki Q]

Darrell Bock “All of this evidence appears to point to a date in the 60s”.

J.A.T.Robinson

John Wenham (well, AD 40 isn't the 60s, but in the spirit of the challenge...!)


To be clear, I'm not going to argue for a pre-70 dating.


Two points from the OP:

Far too much is attempted with Q. To use a document whose existence is hypothetical is building on very weak foundations. Q could have been a person, a fluid oral collection document, simply a set of things regularly repeated, or nothing at all.

More importantly, whilst attempts to reconstruct the historical Jesus rule out use of special status for Mark and others, standard historical techniques plus some specific to NT historicity can be used in the normal ways to draw conclusions. We can learn a lot by treating the NT as a collection of historical documents with their own generally obvious biases.