Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy


Neon Genesis

Recommended Posts

I still want to know which NT is right. There are many versions of them and the conflict in descriptions so why does one choose any particular version over another?

 

That you would even ask this question reveals your ignorance of the current state of NT textual criticism.

 

Hardly. There are more differences between manuscripts than there are words in the NT. I realize most of these differences are insignificant (misspellings and the word order being fumbled up) but there are significant differences that do alter one's theological interpretation/views.

 

 

Pretty much JA.

 

 

Hey, Ray, here's a link to a site that is easy to navigate and logically presented in alphabetical order:

My link

 

 

BTW, its mighty Christian of you to show ridicule towards someone asking a question.

I do however humbly approve and acknowledge your eagerness to use the dark side to defend your position.

You score a few "Satan" points for that.

Maybe you were drinking at the time. I know that happens to me. We have a "I'm drunk thread" on this site for blowing steam.

If you were drunk you score another. If you weren't, ooooh, you scored a whole lot of em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The servant is defined as Israel, which is personified throughout Isaiah.

The restored Israel in the messianic era would lead the nations to the knowledge of God.

 

So 'the nations' includes the tribes of Jacob and Israel??? Is that how God's OT people referred to themselves - as clumped together with 'the nations?" Hmmm.... Actually, that's how they referred to the Gentile nations, as 'the nations;' (plural), while Israel would refer to themselves as 'the nation' (singular).

The nations are the gentiles, who would come to know the one true God through the restored servant Israel.

Jesus is not involved in any of this nor did he ever usher in the messianic era.

 

And as Isaiah proclaims in Isa 51, God's law and justice, through a restored Israel, will be the light for the nations, not Jesus.

 

Really, where in Isa 51?

Isa 51:3-4(NLT)

The Lord will comfort Israel again and have pity on her ruins.

Her desert will blossom like Eden, her barren wilderness like the garden of the Lord.

Joy and gladness will be found there.

Songs of thanksgiving will fill the air.

Listen to me, my people.

Hear me, Israel, for my law will be proclaimed, and my justice will become a light to the nations.

 

Jesus is a complete no-show in this plan of God.

Nor did Jesus fulfill the role of a king that would lead Israel into the messianic era.

 

God even defined the servant in Isa 49:3 but you don’t believe him.

 

Is this a joke - I asked eight (8) questions which you completely skated on - Why?

This is rich.

The master evader accuses others of evading.

But you can resolve this very easily by showing where Isa 49:3 identifies Jesus as the servant.

 

I know why - 'cuz Isaiah the prophet doesn't fit in 52:13 - chap 53

Face it, you're bereft of any rational salient hermeneutic is establishing Isaiah as a personified Israel. Only Jesus as God Incarnate can fulfill Isa 52:13ff.

Your bellicose proclamations indicate that you can't deal with the verses in question.

There is no Jesus in Isa 49 and he has to be jammed into Isa 52-53 through wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking isn't rational, so you can drop the facade about my being without rational reasons.

I assume the Bible God meant what he said about Israel being his servant.

You proclaim God to be a liar and try to jam Jesus into the text, along with claiming that Jesus was God himself.

That in itself contradicts God's word to his people.

God is not a man, nor a son of man.

There are no others beside God, no other saviors.

You ignore all this of course because it interferes with your fantasies.

Unlike the servant in Isa 53, Jesus did violence, there was guile in his mouth, he was not silent, and he undermined parts of God's law.

 

The subject is the servant Israel, which is personified throughout Isaiah.

Personified means portrayed as a person.

 

Isaiah identified Israel as a servant many times prior to Chapter 53.

Some examples of this can be found in: (Isa 41:8-9)(Isa 43:1,10) and (Isa 44:1-2, 21).

The nation of Israel is personified throughout Isaiah and Israel would be a vehicle/servant that God would use to display himself and his power to the world. Part of this use would involve suffering(Isa 42) on the part of Israel through foreign conquests, occupation, and exile.

 

In Isa 49:3, which closely precedes Isa 53, the servant is identified as Israel.

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Israel, the servant, would be the light that shows the way to God and salvation.

Isa 49:6

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

 

Why you want to come out here and embarrass yourself is beyond me. Were you a JW???

Well, I've encountered many puffed up liars for Jesus, and you're just another example.

Once again, you can resolve this very easily by showing where Isa 49:3 identifies Jesus as the servant.

You can also address the following:

Where does God’s law authorize humans to be used as sin sacrifices?

Where does Jer 31 state that a human sin sacrifice would be the foundation for the new covenant?

Specifically, what verse establishes this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still want to know which NT is right. There are many versions of them and the conflict in descriptions so why does one choose any particular version over another?

 

That you would even ask this question reveals your ignorance of the current state of NT textual criticism.

 

Another unsupported assertion by our resident 'teacher', to whom we must kowtow.

If Ray says something is so - then it is so.

Sorry A2O, but if Ray says that you are ignorant about this, then that's what you are... ignorant.

It's not your place to disagree with him, question his authority or even meet his gaze.

 

Eyes down and know your place, pupil!

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're on an ex-christian site. People here know the bible.... I'm sure many know it better than you.

 

In all honesty - many on this site do claim to know the Bible. But in my conversations, I have come across sheer lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, lousy hermeneutics, shockingly superficial & wooden literalistic interpretations, failure to trace doctrines throughout the Bible, inability to understand context, failure to take into account genre, etc.

 

Many were total 100% behind it till they totally rejected it.

 

Here, you are correct. But their misunderstanding of Scripture means their decision was based on faulty information - and the basis for their decision is, therefore, extremely suspect.

 

Arguing with anyone here by using the bible as a source is not going to win anyone over and will serve nothing other than polarize the readers against you and Christianity. Basically you are only making it harder to get someone to convert. If its not the aim then you are making your God's work harder by scaring off his flock into the wind. IOW, where is the point of doing it?

 

Jesus and His Apostles often polarized people >> some believed and some scoffed. The same holds true today.

 

Yet another example of Ray's fallacious use of the 'Appeal to Authority' argument.

 

Yes, they polarized people, but does that therefore mean that we should automatically listen to anything Ray writes?

 

Before we can do that he has needs to establish that what Jesus and the Apostles said is...

 

A. Recorded accurately in the Bible.

B. That the Bible actually is what it claims to be - the word of God.

C. That he has a proper understanding of their words.

D. That he is fit and able to cite, interpret and expound upon these words properly.

 

When he has established these things to our satisfaction, we might be inclined to give his words credence. Not before.

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I still want to know which NT is right. There are many versions of them and the conflict in descriptions so why does one choose any particular version over another?

 

Rayskidude says: That you would even ask this question reveals your ignorance of the current state of NT textual criticism.

 

Hardly. There are more differences between manuscripts than there are words in the NT. I realize most of these differences are insignificant (misspellings and the word order being fumbled up) but there are significant differences that do alter one's theological interpretation/views.

 

Pretty much JA.

 

Plz present your best NT example.

 

BTW, its mighty Christian of you to show ridicule towards someone asking a question. I do however humbly approve and acknowledge your eagerness to use the dark side to defend your position. You score a few "Satan" points for that. Maybe you were drinking at the time. I know that happens to me. We have a "I'm drunk thread" on this site for blowing steam. If you were drunk you score another. If you weren't, ooooh, you scored a whole lot of em.

 

When you ask such an open-ended question about a topic that has been thoroughly researched, what kind of answer did you anticipate?

 

But I will answer sincerely. Get a copy of;

 

Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture; authored by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, published by Kregel, copyrigh 2006. Then let's talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plz present your best NT example.

 

please answer the question.

With so many different versions of scriptures which NT do you hold the inerrant word of God and why you do favour it over the others.

 

When you ask such an open-ended question about a topic that has been thoroughly researched' date=' what kind of answer did you anticipate?

 

But I will answer sincerely. Get a copy of;

 

[u']Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture[/u]; authored by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, published by Kregel, copyrigh 2006. Then let's talk.

 

 

Sure, I'll ask you to get this book: The Satanists Bible.

 

See how that works?

I don't want to pay to support Christianity and you don't want to pay to support Satanism.

 

 

You're right though. It has been very thoroughly researched and many contradictions are found.

 

So lets get to the chase shall we?

I've posted plenty of sites that have contradictions in the Bible.

Not only that, there are different versions of the Bible stories themselves.

 

Any google search on bible errors come up with plenty of sites.

Here's some:

 

My link

 

My link

 

My link

 

 

The last one is great. You can search for various things and it gives full references that you just click on and it shows the relevant passage.

If you don't believe it, then grab your own bible...assuming its the same version of course because as we know, different bibles are different also in text.

 

 

If the bible is the inerrant word of god, then why are there so many errors and contradictions?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

it doesn't. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The part the fascinate me most in the resurrection story--which also very few ever mention in a sermon--is that one of the stories (Matthew) claim that the streets were filled with zombies after the earthquake. Basically, the ground was shaken so hard that even the dead saints woke up, and started to walk around like zombies in the city and preached to people. Now, one might consider this to be extremely strange, but what I find even more strange is... how did these people die again? And if they were resurrected just like Jesus, does it mean all of them were saviors? Are we all cleansed in the blood of the unnamed and anonymous dead zombies who walked Jerusalem after the earthquake? Who can say if it really was Jesus' blood who clean us. Maybe it was the other dead guy in the tomb next to Jesus who really was the one, and Jesus was just one of the other dead dudes? And why didn't every scholar in the city write about this extraordinary event? Dead people walking downtown and preaching... it must have been a rare sight... someone non-Christian must have written about it. Why is there no accounts of this event outside of the Bible?

 

 

I always found this particular passage fun (mostly because I love zombies). What is even more entertaining is reading how deacons, friars, and the like actually try to rationalize this amongst each other! Check this link, it's very entertaining. You can almost smell their brains smoking from desperate rationale working. I especially like how at the end they get back to their reassuring safe zone of religious encouragement of each other about how it the word of God is humbling every time you try to understand it. LMAO!

 

http://westernthm.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/what-do-you-do-with-zombies-in-matthew-a-call-for-help/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Sure, I'll ask you to get this book: The Satanists Bible.

 

Have you read it AtoO? You mention the book written by LaVey right? It's quite an interesting read actually. What you should know on this subject:

"Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice.|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'll ask you to get this book: The Satanists Bible.

 

Have you read it AtoO? You mention the book written by LaVey right? It's quite an interesting read actually. What you should know on this subject:

"Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice.|

 

 

I like that a lot. It gives some valuable insights into the nature of evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found this particular passage fun (mostly because I love zombies). What is even more entertaining is reading how deacons, friars, and the like actually try to rationalize this amongst each other! Check this link, it's very entertaining. You can almost smell their brains smoking from desperate rationale working. I especially like how at the end they get back to their reassuring safe zone of religious encouragement of each other about how it the word of God is humbling every time you try to understand it. LMAO!

 

The point is that they did not look anything like zombies of Hollywood. They were resurrected saints. People who saw them were in holy awe not in horror and disgust. I say, stop watching those worthless horror movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that they did not look anything like zombies of Hollywood. They were resurrected saints. People who saw them were in holy awe not in horror and disgust.

 

But apparently not awed enough to actually record this event in any contemporaneous reports. With the exception of the Gospel writers, no one in Jerusalem seems to have noticed this amazing event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that they did not look anything like zombies of Hollywood. They were resurrected saints. People who saw them were in holy awe not in horror and disgust.

 

But apparently not awed enough to actually record this event in any contemporaneous reports. With the exception of the Gospel writers, no one in Jerusalem seems to have noticed this amazing event.

 

Even three of the Gospels don't mention it. Only Matthew does. One lone, short passage in one book written decades after the alleged event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even three of the Gospels don't mention it. Only Matthew does. One lone, short passage in one book written decades after the alleged event.

 

Now, that really makes Me wonder how awesome this alleged event was, if the authors of Mark, Luke and John couldn't be arsed to record it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that they did not look anything like zombies of Hollywood. They were resurrected saints. People who saw them were in holy awe not in horror and disgust.

 

But apparently not awed enough to actually record this event in any contemporaneous reports. With the exception of the Gospel writers, no one in Jerusalem seems to have noticed this amazing event.

 

Even three of the Gospels don't mention it. Only Matthew does. One lone, short passage in one book written decades after the alleged event.

 

The Obvious Troll is wrong again. The Jesus in the story is a resurrected corpse. He still has holes in his body but no blood flowing out. A divinely resurrected corpse (DRC) is in the same class of myth as zombies, Frankenstein's monster, vampires and undead creatures.

 

The story in Mathew is heavily influenced by Egyptian religion. Egyptians had the added custom of embalming and mummifying the dead. But the purpose is so that the soul could return to the body like we see in the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found this particular passage fun (mostly because I love zombies). What is even more entertaining is reading how deacons, friars, and the like actually try to rationalize this amongst each other! Check this link, it's very entertaining. You can almost smell their brains smoking from desperate rationale working. I especially like how at the end they get back to their reassuring safe zone of religious encouragement of each other about how it the word of God is humbling every time you try to understand it. LMAO!

 

The point is that they did not look anything like zombies of Hollywood. They were resurrected saints. People who saw them were in holy awe not in horror and disgust. I say, stop watching those worthless horror movies.

Zombies of Hollywood does not look like the original zombies either. The real zombies doesn't have rotten skin or try to eat your brain, they're just un-dead and mindless and in control of a master.

 

Besides, how do you know how they looked like or not? You're speaking like you're absolutely certain that these "resurrected saints" were raised with their end-time bodies and not just flesh? Then where did they go afterwards? Doesn't it mean that they were resurrected before Jesus? Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the first one to come back from death in a resurrected body? Were they risen because Jesus died or because they were holy? Why did they rise? I don't get it. If Jesus rose from the dead because he was without sins... then why did they rise? Explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

For our Christian friend here, to the topic of the various New Testament texts. The main debate is on whether the Byzantine or Alexandrian texts are the most accurate. The Byzantine is longer, and has more passages, while the Alexandrian is older, and seems to have more manuscripts than the Byzantine type. The Alexandrian, being older, would make one assume that it holds more sway than the Byzantine. Now, most Christian scholars are right. Out of the hundreds of differences between the two, most can be attributed to scribal errors, misspelled words, and other grammatical mistakes. But there are some changes/errors/additions/subtractions that are of a doctrinal nature. The biggest is that nearly the whole last chapter of Mark, detailing the resurrection, is notoriously absent from the Alexandrian text type. If, as most scholars think, Mark is the oldest gospel, and Luke and Matthew derived some information from Mark, one has to wonder, did somewhere down the road, between Mark and Luke/Matthew, did someone invent the resurrection account? This would seem to fit, as various mythologies were added to a probably historical person named Jesus over time. Let's remember, Mark was apparently a disciple under Peter, while Luke was a disciple under Paul, who, as I've pointed out on another thread here, is a deceptive liar, and was the one responsible for adding things to Jesus' message, not to mention he admits to deception and fraud. So Luke, under the guidance of Paul, added the resurrection story, which originally wasn't in Mark. The whole story become suspect. There's the biggest problem I see, and it's a doozy. Oh, by the way, ray or roy or whatever your name is, I really don't care, that nonsense you spouted about there being no debate to the NT might work on brainwashed believers, but don't come here expecting to just say it's so and for us to fall head over heals for it. WE'VE done our homework. We've been there. So you're going to have to do ALOT better than, "Christian scholars say it, so it's true". Bring evidence, or don't bring anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

 

Hi Dyanaprajna0, are you familiar with Richard Carrier's argument that Luke is even later because he relies on Josephus' Antiquities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

 

Hi Dyanaprajna0, are you familiar with Richard Carrier's argument that Luke is even later because he relies on Josephus' Antiquities?

 

No, I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me about his ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

 

Hi Dyanaprajna0, are you familiar with Richard Carrier's argument that Luke is even later because he relies on Josephus' Antiquities?

 

No, I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me about his ideas?

 

Carrier's paper on Luke and Josephus can be accessed through his website or here:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

 

He thinks Luke is later than 90.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

 

Hi Dyanaprajna0, are you familiar with Richard Carrier's argument that Luke is even later because he relies on Josephus' Antiquities?

 

No, I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me about his ideas?

 

Carrier's paper on Luke and Josephus can be accessed through his website or here:

 

http://www.infidels....ndjosephus.html

 

He thinks Luke is later than 90.

 

That's an interesting article. It's making me rethink my dating on Luke. It seems odd that it would be written later than 90 to me, but depending on how old Luke was, it is entirely possible. Tradition dates Luke's death to 84 AD, but there's no reason to accept this as true. I'll have to do some thinking on this. Thanks for that article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

 

Hi Dyanaprajna0, are you familiar with Richard Carrier's argument that Luke is even later because he relies on Josephus' Antiquities?

 

No, I'm not familiar with that. Can you tell me about his ideas?

 

Carrier's paper on Luke and Josephus can be accessed through his website or here:

 

http://www.infidels....ndjosephus.html

 

He thinks Luke is later than 90.

 

That's an interesting article. It's making me rethink my dating on Luke. It seems odd that it would be written later than 90 to me, but depending on how old Luke was, it is entirely possible. Tradition dates Luke's death to 84 AD, but there's no reason to accept this as true. I'll have to do some thinking on this. Thanks for that article.

 

You are welcome, glad to share. Like you I've spent decades on Greek and Latin and the study of the ancient world, including a good deal of theological and scriptural stuff, some of it in seminary.

 

As you intimate, of course there's the problem, who was the author of Luke and Acts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.