Originally posted by twhitehead
I suppose you mean not 'True Christians©'.

Can you tell us what True Christian biblical scholars you get your information from? This is the first I have heard of such early dates.

I take your claim that most Christians "don't know any better" to be somewhat of an insult to most Christians - but I guess that is what you intended.

Since I know you are an atheist and an evolutionist, I understand
why you would accept the late dates without question and then
challenge God at every turn. The evolutionist needs long periods
of time to justify the theory of evolution, which they believe makes
belief in God as the creator unnecessary, so they use every trick
they can think of in order to push the beginning of the universe and
the creation of all living things as far back in the past as possible.
They have deceived themselves into believing that science has led
them to their conclusions. The same idea holds for the dating of the
Holy Bible. The stories about Jesus are more likely to be exaggerations
if they were written long after the events. This is what they want to
believe. My intention was not to insult most Christians; I was just
telling it like it is. Most Christian believers don't really care what the
dates are; they believe anyway. Since they are already believers, the
exact dates are of little importance to them, they have more important
things to do with their time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My intention was not to insult most Christians; I was just
telling it like it is. Most Christian believers don't really care what the
dates are; they believe anyway. Since they are already believers, the
exact dates are of little importance to them, they have more important
things to do with their time.

So are you going to tell us what your sources are?
Are you also going to tell us why you believe you are privy to better quality information than all the Christians I know who have studied the topic yet tell me different dates than you do?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So are you going to tell us what your sources are?
Are you also going to tell us why you believe you are privy to better quality information than all the Christians I know who have studied the topic yet tell me different dates than you do?

I doubt he has any authoritative sources. While there is some debate about the dating of the gospels, there is an approximate consensus which places Matthew, Luke and John after 70CE. These dates are not based on any atheist agenda; these are the fruits of source and redaction criticism. We know just from the stories and the way that the narratives are structured, that Matthew and Luke had read Mark. It is also widely agreed that Matthew and Luke also had a common source, named Q, possibly also an influence on the apocryphal gospel of Thomas. John is widely believed to be a later addition, mostly because of its more philosophical nature and of its argumentative, protreptic style as though responding to criticisms of Christian doctrine. Latent anti-Semitic thought would very likely make more sense with a date after 90CE when Jewish leaders had officially condemned Christianity.

No doubt RJhinds is uncomfortable with any later dates for Scripture. The early church to him was not a reliable witness to the Christian faith and quickly fell into all the heresies he associated with Catholicism. An early date for all the Scriptures is the only guarantee for him of their veracity. In contrast, Catholic and Orthodox Christians (perhaps even Anglicans) who believe the Church is an infallible voice of doctrine, the later date of Scripture is of no concern. Its veracity is assured by the Church.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So are you going to tell us what your sources are?
Are you also going to tell us why you believe you are privy to better quality information than all the Christians I know who have studied the topic yet tell me different dates than you do?

No, I am not going to make it easy for you. You need to do some
research of your own to appreciate the difficulty of discovering the
truth. If you were really interested in finding the truth, rather than
finding fault, you would be doing the study and research yourself.
You must also use your mind and think reasonably, while discarding
your prejudices toward Christianity and the Holy Bible. I suggest
you start right here on the internet. You should quickly find many
different ideas on the dates of the books of the Holy Bible. I doubt
if you will find any as early as I would give you; but you should find
enough to bring the dates Conrau gives as questionable. If you are
willing to give it a try, I wish you good luck.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not going to make it easy for you. You need to do some
research of your own to appreciate the difficulty of discovering the
truth. If you were really interested in finding the truth, rather than
finding fault, you would be doing the study and research yourself.
You must also use your mind and think reasonably, while discarding
your prejudices ...[text shortened]... dates Conrau gives as questionable. If you are
willing to give it a try, I wish you good luck.

I don't see why twighthead should be required to do research on your behalf. If you are going to claim that scholars agree with your position, then the burden is on you to show whom. If you think that there is compelling evidence for earlier dates, then again the duty falls firmly on your shoulders to cite such evidence. Making others responsible for your research is not just lazy; it's rude and counter-productive to the spirit of this forum.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't see why twighthead should be required to do research on your behalf. If you are going to claim that scholars agree with your position, then the burden is on you to show whom. If you think that there is compelling evidence for earlier dates, then again the duty falls firmly on your shoulders to cite such evidence. Making others responsible for your research is not just lazy; it's rude and counter-productive to the spirit of this forum.

Twhitehead is not required to do any research at all, and certainly not
for me, for I have already done my research. If he wants to believe
you, that is fine with me. My burden is light for I know the truth, which
has set me free from false teachings. I have led him in the right
direction; and if he diligently seeks, he will find the truth and appreciate
it. Since I disagree with you I will accept your characterization of me as
lazy, rude, and counterproductive. You may continue on your way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Twhitehead is not required to do any research at all, and certainly not
for me, for I have already done my research. If he wants to believe
you, that is fine with me. My burden is light for I know the truth, which
has set me free from false teachings. I have led him in the right
direction; and if he diligently seeks, he will find the truth and appreci ...[text shortened]... our characterization of me as
lazy, rude, and counterproductive. You may continue on your way.

I have led him in the right direction; and if he diligently seeks, he will find the truth and appreciate it.

Put it this way, Twitehead no doubt receives a number of petitions each day to do research. No doubt some loony on this forum spouts nonsense, wholly convinced of the truth of their claim, and therefore expects him to do all the intellectual heavy-lifting. Why should he believe your claim right now and, disregarding all the other loonies on this forum, diligently seek proof on your behalf? Perhaps if you gave him something to go with, just a brief precise of an argument, he might out of curiosity investigate further. But just spouting ridiculous claims unsupported by the scholarly establishment and without even the slightest favourable evidence is hardly going to motivate him.

It is completely counter-productive. All you are doing is saying 'I am right; I don't need to prove it; don't bother debating it with me; if you fail to agree with me, it is because of laziness on your part in not researching it further'. You do not start up a discussion in that way nor are you likely to win any converts to your cause. You just occlude any further possibility of discussion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I have led him in the right direction; and if he diligently seeks, he will find the truth and appreciate it.

Put it this way, Twitehead no doubt receives a number of petitions each day to do research. No doubt some loony on this forum spouts nonsense, wholly convinced of the truth of their claim, and therefore expects him to do all the intellectua ...[text shortened]... y to win any converts to your cause. You just occlude any further possibility of discussion.[/b]

There are many ideas about early and late dates of the books
in the Holy Bible. But as you suggest I will give just one
reference on the internet to get started on.

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many ideas about early and late dates of the books
in the Holy Bible. But as you suggest I will give just one
reference on the internet to get started on.

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

I'm not quite sure how objective an article from the 'Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry' can be. But not even this article alludes to the early dates you gave.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many ideas about early and late dates of the books
in the Holy Bible. But as you suggest I will give just one
reference on the internet to get started on.

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

Well, I am at least content that you have cited some kind of evidence in favor of your early-date hypothesis. I myself remain unconvinced. The prophecy in Mark, Matthew and Luke of the destruction of the temple is usually taken as evidence against an early date, rather than in favor of it. The reason that they do not explicitly mention that the prophecy was fulfilled could be that it was already well-known or they didn't want to make it look like a conveniently fabricated prophecy. Perhaps it wasn't prophecy at all since Jesus often spoke of his body as the temple (to be raised in three days).

The idea that the evangelist Luke was a companion of Paul is not particularly compelling. The only indication we have of this are minor references like Col. 4:14 to a physician Luke. How do we know these are the same Lukes? Why, for example, does the description of Paul in Acts 15 disagree with Paul's own description in Gal 1-2? One Paul is accommodating of Jewish practice; the other is not. Luke does not appear to have a ready grasp of Pauline soteriology. Surely a companion would be more knowledgeable.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not quite sure how objective an article from the 'Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry' can be. But not even this article alludes to the early dates you gave.

Of course not. I don't know of any one place to send you that
has everything right. This was just a starting point for twhitehead
or anyone else interested in doing reseach to find reasons for
earlier dating. But I would be surprised if you did anything other
than critcize.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I am at least content that you have cited some kind of evidence in favor of your early-date hypothesis. I myself remain unconvinced. The prophecy in Mark, Matthew and Luke of the destruction of the temple is usually taken as evidence against an early date, rather than in favor of it. The reason that they do not explicitly mention that the prophecy was ...[text shortened]... to have a ready grasp of Pauline soteriology. Surely a companion would be more knowledgeable.

Yes, I have seen the arguements that since the new testament books
were written in the 2nd or 3rd century that the books must have been
written by a different Matthew, a different Mark, a different Luke, a
different John, a differnt James, a different Peter, a different Paul, etc.
or maybe someone using those names. So I guess it is up to you as
to what is the most convincing evidence. Many are content to believe
the lie over the truth. Perhaps there is no prophecy at all in the Holy
Bible. Perhaps there was never a man, who claimed he would die and
be in the grave three days and three nights and then come back to life.
Perhaps all of it was just stories created in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
That's it. It is solved.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course not. I don't know of any one place to send you that
has everything right. This was just a starting point for twhitehead
or anyone else interested in doing reseach to find reasons for
earlier dating. But I would be surprised if you did anything other
than critcize.

It may have escaped your notice but in these forums we 'debate' topics. You can call it arguing if you will. We critically examine, or least attempt to, other peoples points of view. You could even call that criticizing. This is what we do here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not going to make it easy for you.

Well, I believe I have sufficient reason to doubt your claims based on what little knowledge I have of the Bible and what I know of you. So unless you can back up your claim with a reference or something other more credible than yourself, I will simply dismiss your claim as another one of your typical claims about something you really know nothing about.
So you have actually made it easy for me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I have seen the arguements that since the new testament books
were written in the 2nd or 3rd century that the books must have been
written by a different Matthew, a different Mark, a different Luke, a
different John, a differnt James, a different Peter, a different Paul, etc.
or maybe someone using those names. So I guess it is up to you as
to wha ...[text shortened]... aps all of it was just stories created in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
That's it. It is solved.

Hey, I certainly would not date any of the gospels into the second or third century. I am quite comfortable with a date between 70-100CE.