snookums Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 My point is that this type of 'questioning'...information has been done before...its recycled stuff. Why not move on an create new ways to debunk christianity...............I think people these days are just reinventing the wheel. For example David Freiderich Strauss (1808-1874) questioned Jesus facts and questioned whether the Bible provided any genuine historical evidendence about jesus. Strauss contended that the story of Jesus was a myth that had arisen from the particular social and intecellectual condiditons of first-entry Palestine. Jesus's character and life represented the aspirations of the people of that time and place rather than events that had occurred. Other skeptical lives of jesus were written and published as well. During the second half of the century scholars such as Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) in Germany, Ernest Renan (1823-1892) in France and William Robsertson Smith (1847-1894) in Great Britian contended taht the books of the bible had been written and revised with the problems of Jewish society and polititics in the minds of human authors. There were not inspired books but had, like the Homeric epics, been written by normal human beings in a primitive soicety. This questioning of the historical validity of the bible caused more literate men and women to lose fatih in christianity than any other single cause. The march of science also undermined christianity. This blow was particularly cruel because 1800's centrury deists had led christians to believe that the sicentific examination of nature provided a strong buttress for thier faith. Do fewer 'educated' people join the clergy/congregation ? I think that secularism of everyday life proves as harmful to the faith as the direct attacks. More and more people are finding that they can lead their lives with little or no reference to christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vargo Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I"m having a debate with a friend, Can anyone tell me how accuarte this quote below is? None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This dates the writings to BEFORE then. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years. OR is this Quote more Accurate.?? We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 vargo, the first quote is pretty accurate. I snipped the following quote from the Jesus Seminar website (a group of liberal/agnostic American New Testament professors), summarizing their position on the authorship of the Gospels. ChronologicalApart from completely ignoring Paul's epistles which were written between A.D. 45 and his martyrdom at the hands of Nero in A.D. 68, the Jesus Fellows have a critical problem in fitting their theory into first century chronology. In the last chapter of the Book of Acts (28), Luke leaves us with the impression that Paul is in Rome, and still alive. Tradition tells us he died in A.D. 68. In Acts, Luke shows keen awareness of people, places and contemporary events, both within and without the church. And he records the martyrdoms of both Stephen and James. It is highly unlikely, if the deaths of Paul and Peter and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) had already occurred when Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, that he would have failed to record these most important events. New Testament scholars are in strong agreement that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke two volumes by one author, both addressed to a man named "Theophilus." And since Luke is supposed to have incorporated Mark and the Q Source material into the writing of his own Gospel, and Acts was written after Luke, but before Paul's death (A.D. 68) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), then Mark and Quelle must have been written by the mid 60s. The same difficulty in Luke exists with Mark, who is said to have written his gospel with Peter as his source, Peter having been martyred in Rome about the same time as Paul. It is highly unlikely that these two obscure sources, Quelle and the Gospel of Thomas, could have been circulating throughout the Christian community and having such impact that they overshadowed what Paul was at the very same time saying about Jesus in all of his epistles. Real church history is not kind to the Jesus Fellows at this point. The church did not first flourish in the Nile Valley and spread elsewhere. The clear pattern of expansion from both biblical and the earliest patristic writings is from Jerusalem to Antioch, Asia Minor, Greece, and finally Rome. Ironically, the earliest of the Church Fathers, Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 30 to ca. A.D. 100) writes from Rome at the end of the first century an epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement) which is considered to be the oldest extant letter after the writings of the Apostles. It had such stature in the early church that it was initially considered by some to be a part of the Canon. All the other early church fathers (2nd century) are scattered around in cities within the areas mentioned above, with the exception of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150 to c. A.D. 215) who reflects some Gnostic ideas in his teachings. The more traditional and accepted chronology for the documents under consideration is as follows: Dating/chronology of First Century Authorship (All dates are A.D.) Uncontested: End of First Century: 100 Fall of Jerusalem: 70 Martyrdom of Paul and Peter: 68 Epistles of Paul: 45-68 Some Oral Tradition: 32-70 Crucifixion of Jesus: 32 Traditional:(3) Clement of Rome: 96 Revelation (John): 96 Epistles of John: 90-94 Gospel of John: 85-90 Acts of Apostles: 66-68 Matthew & Luke: 64-66 Gospel of Mark: 64-65 Jesus Seminar:(4) Gospel of John: 85-90 Acts of Apostles: 80-100 Gospel of Luke: 80-100 Gospel of Matthew: 80-90 Gospel of Mark: 70-80 Gospel of Thomas: 70-100 In comparing the two chronologies, it appears there simply is not enough time for the simple Jesus of history to evolve into the Christ of faith. Myths and legends need time to develop. There is none available in the first century to accommodate the Jesus Seminar's theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snookums Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 CB I'm not sure how 'objective' this kind of data is ! Its coming from.... Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity. In addition, Probe acts as a clearing house, communicating the results of its research to the church and society at large. Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by writing to: Probe Ministries 1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100 Richardson, TX 75081 (972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664 info@probe.org www.probe.org Copyright © 1996-2006 Probe Ministries This site is part of the Telling the Truth Project. Don't think I need to say any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 i had to get it from there because the westar website doesn't have the info. i admit that i flubbed the link in the prior post, cuz i was looking at both sites at the same time and misidentified the link I pasted. even though probe is critical of the Jesus seminar, the dates they report (they'd want to get the authorship dates right in order to criticize them) are correct and I can also vouch for the Jesus Seminar's dates from their book The Five Gospels. can you suggest a better source which summarizes the provenance of New Testament/non-canonical works? just because the site is Christian doesn't mean that they're lying about the Jesus Seminar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franciscan Monkey Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This dates the writings to BEFORE then. The gospels were supposed to be accounts of Jesus' life, so you would not expect them to mention something that happened nearly 40 years later. You might, however, expect them to fabricate a prophecy alluding to the destruction of the temple, which you do see in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. A good, if biased, analysis of the dating of the NT can be found on Paul Tobin's "Rejection of Pascal's Wager" website. The site has been down a bit over the last couple of days, but here's a link to a pertinent page anyway... Rejection of Pascal's Wager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts