Biochemist Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 ...Following are the likely dates of the Gospels: Mark 75, Luke 85, Matthew 90, John 100 Note: John ends after Chapter 20 in the earliest manuscripts. Our current "John" is probably the compound work of four different authors....Again, I posted a reasonably complete review of the veracity of biblical texts (specifically related to the resurrection, to keep the discussion focued) in post 83. The post is a review of four authors, 2 Christian an 2 non-Christian. The Christian critics in the review are well respected, and are probably (hard as it might be to believe) at least as schooled in textual criticism as you. The reviewer in the link is (I believe) not a Christian, although I am not sure. The Christian apologists even include Josh McDowell, one of your favorite targets, and not a particularly strong apologist. The critique delineates the holes in his core argurments quite well, I think. I selected this review because the Christian critics are well respected, and the summary reviewer does not appear biased, or if so, biased against Christian dogma. The net conclusion of that reviewer is that the resurrection could be believed on the evidence or not. Do us a favor and read that link and critique, rather than generating a string of incidental Biblical attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 How do we compare what they were SAYING 2000 years ago compared to what they were SAYING 1900 years ago for accuracy if the very test preculdes written documentation?....Although the notion of an oral tradition has some weight, I don't think it is the strongest argument. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in the mid 1900's, the earliest texts that we had for the old testament were the Masoretic texts from about 900 AD. The Dead Sea scrolls contained copies of some OT texts from 2-300 BC that were only a character or two off from the Masoretic texts (for Isaiah, for example). The evidence suggest that it is not only plausible but, in some cases, confirmable that texts could be carried forward manually through extensive time periods will little alteration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Ya we sure would not want you to have to have any actual REASON to believe this nonsense! You are welcome to swallow whatever antiquated myth that cocks your pistol! Hmmm. I am certainly glad there is no evidence of bias here. I have offered the reference text for discussion at least three times (Luke) and somehow, you don't choose to notice it. But rather than critiqueing Luke, please respond to the review of the four authors in the link on post 83. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 I agree. You have pretty much summed up what I and a few others in this forum have been saying for a while. This is not the place to discuss the existance of gods or any other supernatural entities, events, or even possibilities. Science does not permit such speculation and this is a science based forum. i guess we should not talk about the big bang, time travel, superstrings, aliens, ghosts, natural selection, freewill or the various reasons behind human behavior (as in suicide bombers and the actions of the church) or anything we have to use speculation on then, huh? science permits anything, ask any native japanese man or woman about this. this is a science PHILOSOPHY forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 I'll give you one. Pliny the Elder. wrote extensively about the time and was alive prior to the claime crucifiction. Never mentions anyone even close to the biblical Jesus or even a specific person it could be built around. NOTHING! Now your turn. ONE! . "that were close enough to Him to write stories". pliny the elder (23-79) was probably a child when jesus is believed to have died (29-30) and probably lived in rome during what would have been a routine capitol punishment by the roman troops stationed in judea. what is your point? alot of people who lived at the time of jesus did not write about him. alot of people will never write about you or i. personally, i find your lack of faith revealing freethinker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 There is no known mention of the *four* Gospels prior to that of Iranaeus in 185 A.D. -- and he stated that he found them to be preposterous. i guess you are referring to st. irenaeus the christian writer who based his views (at least in part) on the writings of papias who was an early leader of the christian church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 i find the thorncrown chapel in eureka springs, arkasas to be the most rewarding church i have ever been to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.