Gospel Dating & Reliability

[SteveII]

Why do you date Matthew to the 50s or 60s?

If Luke/Acts was written in the early 60s (based on its content) but relied on Matthew, that seems the latest period it could have been written.

[Dancefortwo]

Why do you date Matthew to the 50s or 60s?

If Luke/Acts was written in the early 60s (based on its content) but relied on Matthew, that seems the latest period it could have been written.

There's  a domino situation here.  Mark, at the earliest, is dated to 69 CE and it is the first Jesus story written.  Nothing is earlier than that.  So everything after that is from 70 onward and the concensus among Biblical scholars is that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke was written in the 80's.  John was written the late 90's to 110.  

Each successive Jesus story writer adds  more magical and embellished events to the tale.  This is typical of how myths evolve.  I personally think Jesus existed but myth stories were attached to his life through rumor and storytelling after the collapse of Jerusalem.  

There are too many historical inaccuries in these stories.  

There is no possible way that the Sanhedrin Council met during the holy week of Passover.  It was forbidden by Jewish law to do this and the only place the Sanhedrin ever was allowed to met was in the Jewish Temple and the only place within the Temple the Sanhedrin met, by Jewish Law, was in the Hall of the Hewn Stone.  So the Christian Greek writers, writing several decades after Jesus died inserted events in the story that would not have actually taken place. After the Revolt of 69-72 the Sanhedrin scattered and tried to re-assemble in the Syrian area but by 90 CE their influence had very much waned.

One of the reason's John is dated so much later is that whoever wrote this story became aware that the Sanhedrin was no longer a viable council so he had Jesus come before a high priest instead of the entire council. This dates it after 90 CE.



There was no census as discribed in Luke.  There is no possible way that people were told to travel all over the vast Roman Empire, which stretched thousands of miles in all directions, to get to their ancestorial home of 1000 years previously.  The Romans were a lot of things but when it came to collecting goods, services and money for  tax purposes they were extremely well organized.   But whoever wrote Luke needed to get Jesus of Nazareth and his family out of Nazareth and over to Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy in the Old Testament and this was his solution to the problem. 

There is no possible way that Pontius Pilate, like the Grinch, suddenly had his heart sofened during the trial and allowed peasant Jesus a nice little Hebrew funeral in the traditional rock hewn tombs of this area.   The Romans crucified many thousands of people over the centuries and the bodies were left up on the croses to rot as a visual reminder by the Roman officials that they were in charge. The bodies were then thrown in a pit or burned to keep the smell away.

Archaeologists have unearthed over 1000 Jewish tombs around the Jerusalem area that date back to the 1st century and earlier and have only found the bones of one person who had been crucified and then buried and there's no telling how long the body was left up on the cross before the family got access to the remains in order to bury it.  Each Hebrew tomb woud contain several ossuary boxes with the contents of the bones of the deceased.  More often than not  the bones of several family members were in one box.   Each tomb could contain the body's of dozens of family members.


This    v v v    is supposedly the ossuary box of James, the brother of Jesus but it was found that the name was forged on the box. 





And this  v v v   is supposedly the ossuary box of Jesus but Jesus (Yeshua) was an incredibly common name then. 



Some Christians have tripped over themselves claiming this was real Jesus' ossuary box but didn't stop to consider that it doesn't jive with the gospels fairystory which claims Jesus rose bodily up to the heaven. 

  And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself! Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have'” (Luke 24:37–39).

  


Christians are so stupid sometimes.

[Bucky Ball]

Every major world religion has their sacred writings. None are unique or special.

The fastest growing religion is Islam.
The most predictive data element prediction the religion of the believers is birth culture.

The gospels came from Jews. The god the Jews believed in was Yahweh Sabaoth.
That god came directly from the Babylonian myth system.

The end.

[Minimalist]

Speaking of "discussion" Stevie-weavie.  ....
name two things you have "learned" here.

He's learned to use the Ignore feature and also that most of us think he is an idiot.

[SteveII]

Why do people want to date them later?

Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem . Of course we can't have any predictions like that...because, you know, God does not exist, so it must have been written after the temple was destroyed in 70AD. So if Mark was the first Gospel, all the others must be even after that. The late-date assumption is solely based on question-begging reasoning.

That's incorrect. I do not want to date them earlier because there is no trace of any written Gospels prior to the mid/late 2nd centuries (and there is only two known fragments dating back from that era). If the Gospels were already a century old by that time and widely distributed in Christendom we would have found far more than two tiny fragments from a century later than their point of origin. 

Then how do you account for my point that Acts stops in the early 60s? I think that little nugget of information is far more persuasive than we don't have documents because guess what does not survive very well...documents. Your very example goes to my point. It is not like we have nothing, nothing, nothing and then whole documents. They decay as the fragments prove.

Furthermore, there are numerous historical and cultural errors in the Gospels as well as a competing genealogy of Jesus that are so bad that neither of them can even agree as to who was Jesus paternal grand-father, a man that might have been very much alive when Jesus was born. This indicates that the Temple was already destroyed when those Gospels were penned down. Finally there is evidence that Gospels were modified and added over the years since the oldest codex containing the Gospels see passages missing from the modern versions.

You need to spell out the "numerous historical and cultural errors".

The grandfather's name seems innocuous and could just stem from the author's using two different lists. If anything, you want variations because it shows independent effort. The thing about ...so the temple must have been destroyed is not the simplest explanation--do historians use Occam's Razor? It seems like a post hoc rationalization.

I do not know any single historian who suggest that the Gospels must have been written after 70 AD because there is a prediction of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in a parable about the temporality of human culture and construction. I have only heard such arguments from apologist. It seems to be a strawman.

It's literally the only reason given in the Wikipedia Article concerning the dating of Mark:

Composition
...It is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction, or during the years immediately prior.[11][6][b]

[SteveII]

Mark: 50s AD
Matthew: late 50s to early 60s
Luke/Acts: late 50s to early 60s
John: 70s to early 90s

Hardly! 

Whoever wrote Mark is dated at the earliest between 69 - 72 CE for many reasons.  The numismatic evidence dates it to after the Revolt of 69 -72.    The author is geographically confused and isn't familiar with the directions needed to get from one area to another thus, the writer never set foot in Palestine.   The writer is explaining Hebrew customs to an already existing Christian audience which also dates it later.   Whoever wrote this (and the other gospels) writes in a style of Greek that would have been exclusive to the highly educated which none of the followers of Jesus were. 

Josephus was a hightly educated, wealthy Jew but even he had a difficult time  writing  or speaking  Greek so it's ludicrous and laughable to think that poor followers of Jesus could write in the elitist style Greek.  

Hmm. You do know that Mark was not a disciple and did not walk those paths with Jesus...right?

From the Wikipedia article on Gospel Origins

Papias provides the earliest extant account of who wrote the Gospels. Eusebius preserves two (possibly) verbatim excerpts from Papias on the origins of the Gospels, one concerning Mark[21] and then another concerning Matthew.[22]

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Papias wrote at the end for the first century.

Then you have this problem.

The end of Mark originally stopped at the empty tomb story.  There was no post- resurrected Jesus in the oldest complete copies of Mark so in the early 4th century church officials and scribes wrote and tacked on the ending  and that is what's in your New Testament.  

Even if you assume that it was not just lost in a very early copy (which is possible), you have 12 verses missing. Even the shorter chapter has the resurrection of Jesus and and the empty tomb and the angel's explanation. So what theological significance was contained in the other 12 verses that undermine the whole book?

Matthew copies word for word large passages from Mark. And it's not just the sayings of Jesus that were copied.  He copies almost 80% from Mark. Someone who is an eyewitness does not copy word for word from someone elses paper.   They will write in their own words. 

Sure Matthew copied (well, not really because translated it), then he added a whole bunch of things that his audience (other Jews) would find interesting from a Jewish context.

Luke has the same problem.  He copies exclusively from Mark.  Luke has historical inaccuracies in the text.  The census never happened the way he claims. There was no massacre of the innocence. It never happened.  It was a literary device contrived by whoever wrote Luke to draw a parallel  between Jesus and the massacre of Hebrew children in the Old Testament.   The storytellers of Jesus used a lot of artifice to connect Jesus to the OT.  They backwrote him to fit what they thought was the messiah.   It looks prophetic but anything written after the fact can be made to look like prophecy.  It's a writing technique called "ex eventu".  The book of Daniel is also written this way. 

Well, except the the census point where you could present some evidence, the rest are just assertions. I imagine if pressed you would have a bunch of arguments from silence. What is your reason for the late dating? Who is "they"?

The vast majority of NT scholard date Luke from 80 to 90 CE.

Luke and Matthew have conflicting geneaological lists of Jesus. Either one is correct or the other is lying. They cannot both be right.   And if Jesus is the biological son of Joseph then he couldn't have been the son of a god.  The only way this would possibly work is if Mary was a godess who gave birth to Jesus but that's not part of the Christian doctrine.    

John was written too long after Jesus died, between 90 and 110 CE  and could not have been an eyewitness.  

Remember, none of the gospels even claim they are eyewitness.

The grandfather's name seems innocuous and could just stem from the author's using two different lists. If anything, you want variations because it shows independent effort.

If John was in his early 20s during Jesus' ministry, he would be in his late early eighties by 90 AD. Why is that a problem?

John was an eyewitness. Matthew was an eyewitness. Mark was known exactly who he was--writing for Peter--who was an eyewitness. Luke was also known as well as stating his purpose and methods.

[Dancefortwo]

[quote="SteveII" pid='409271' dateline='1697141433']  

Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem . 

It's easy to predict an event when it's written retroactivly.    Everything in the gospels was written ex eventu, after the fact.  Hell, everything in the entire Bible was written ex eventu.

[epronovost]

Then how do you account for my point that Acts stops in the early 60s?

Because that's the subject of those documents. Acts of the Apostles talks about the Apostles and pretty much all the Apostles died or stopped actively preaching and doing missionary work in the early 60's of the first century. We can write about things in the past. Acts has been dated anywhere from 80 to 120 AD. It's very probable, considering Acts have many author that it was written and edited and re-written slightly differently before setting to some sort of definitive version during that entire time. 

I think that little nugget of information is far more persuasive than we don't have documents because guess what does not survive very well...documents. Your very example goes to my point. It is not like we have nothing, nothing, nothing and then whole documents. They decay as the fragments prove.

While we should expect the overwhelming majority of all documents ever produce to decay or be voluntarily destroyed when too damaged, the fact we can find a lot of full length manuscripts and hundreds of fragments of those document in the 4th century and absolutely nothing from 1st and only 2 from the second mid/late century shows that there is an explosion of production in the 4th century and basically practically nothing written in late 2nd century and very possibly nothing in the mid to late 1st century.

You need to spell out the "numerous historical and cultural errors".

errors in geography when it comes down to Jesus' journey, errors in the description of the customs of the Jews of the 1st century, errors about how a Roman census is conducted.

The grandfather's name seems innocuous and could just stem from the author's using two different lists. If anything, you want variations because it shows independent effort. The thing about ...so the temple must have been destroyed is not the simplest explanation--do historians use Occam's Razor? It seems like a post hoc rationalization.

Why would there be two lists of Joseph family tree and neither them agreeing on who his father is? Genealogical records were kept in the Temple and there were not many lists; that would defeat the purpose of genealogical records. It would also be very strange that a man very possibly still alive when Jesus was born would be unknown to anybody who knew Jesus well. All of his friends and cousins should easily be able to tell you the name of a man's grand father especially if that grand father was also theirs. It seems nobody even cared to ask Jesus' cousins, uncles or mother about it (and Mary is supposed to be alive until the mid first century and thus very much alive when you claim the Gospels were written). Plus, the two genealogies are so different in so many ways it can't just be a clerical error. Both seem ludicrously different in both length and scope.

They seem completely made up independantly from one another and without any semblance of genealogical research. That's what Occam's Razor would dictate. It's fare more simple for massive discreptencies on fact base inquiry to be based on deception and laziness than genuine error of well intended and ethical parties.

It's literally the only reason given in the Wikipedia Article concerning the dating of Mark:

Have you checked the sources of Wikipedia on this? None of the books quoted in this wikipedia article for this specific passage are from historians, but from a theology professor (definitely not an atheist since he is also a priest) and literature and theology professor. Neither of these are historians. This dating of post 70 AD due to references to the destruction of the Temple is commonly accepted by theologians not by atheists or even historians, but by Christian scholars themselves. Historians tend to prefer something a little bit more solid to date a book and largely consider the Gospels to be almost impossible to date with precision since the authors are unkown and the books edited and prefer the "late 1st century to mid 2nd century" time frame.

[SteveII]

Let me ask you this.
Do you have any evidence that these gospels are true?
You cannot include quotes from the bible or claim eyewitnesses who saw the miracles for your reply.
These are not valid evidence.

I listed a lot in my OP of another thread. You are welcome to respond to that either here or there, but I am not going to recreate it for you.

[SteveII]

@SteveII ,  why is it important for the gospels to be dated so early?  Most Christian scholars accept the dates given by Dancefortwo.  If anything, several scholars are pushing even later dates from the numismatic evidence in Mark which dates it post 71CE at the earliest.

Do you know the arguments for such an early date (besides wanting it to be so early) and could you explain why those minority views overcomes the consensus of biblical scholars?

I explained both why scholars (not Christian) think the late date is true and I also explained why I think the early date is true in my OP.

[SteveII]

[a lot of info...]

You posted a lot of information and it will take me some time. I have run out of time today. Perhaps this weekend or more likely Monday I will have time again. Sorry.

[Dancefortwo]

Hardly! 

Whoever wrote Mark is dated at the earliest between 69 - 72 CE for many reasons.  The numismatic evidence dates it to after the Revolt of 69 -72.    The author is geographically confused and isn't familiar with the directions needed to get from one area to another thus, the writer never set foot in Palestine.   The writer is explaining Hebrew customs to an already existing Christian audience which also dates it later.   Whoever wrote this (and the other gospels) writes in a style of Greek that would have been exclusive to the highly educated which none of the followers of Jesus were. 

Josephus was a hightly educated, wealthy Jew but even he had a difficult time  writing  or speaking  Greek so it's ludicrous and laughable to think that poor followers of Jesus could write in the elitist style Greek.  

Hmm. You do know that Mark was not a disciple and did not walk those paths with Jesus...right?

From the Wikipedia article on Gospel Origins

Papias provides the earliest extant account of who wrote the Gospels. Eusebius preserves two (possibly) verbatim excerpts from Papias on the origins of the Gospels, one concerning Mark[21] and then another concerning Matthew.[22]

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Papias wrote at the end for the first century.

Then you have this problem.

The end of Mark originally stopped at the empty tomb story.  There was no post- resurrected Jesus in the oldest complete copies of Mark so in the early 4th century church officials and scribes wrote and tacked on the ending  and that is what's in your New Testament.  

Even if you assume that it was not just lost in a very early copy (which is possible), you have 12 verses missing. Even the shorter chapter has the resurrection of Jesus and and the empty tomb and the angel's explanation. So what theological significance was contained in the other 12 verses that undermine the whole book?

Matthew copies word for word large passages from Mark. And it's not just the sayings of Jesus that were copied.  He copies almost 80% from Mark. Someone who is an eyewitness does not copy word for word from someone elses paper.   They will write in their own words. 

Sure Matthew copied (well, not really because translated it), then he added a whole bunch of things that his audience (other Jews) would find interesting from a Jewish context.

Luke has the same problem.  He copies exclusively from Mark.  Luke has historical inaccuracies in the text.  The census never happened the way he claims. There was no massacre of the innocence. It never happened.  It was a literary device contrived by whoever wrote Luke to draw a parallel  between Jesus and the massacre of Hebrew children in the Old Testament.   The storytellers of Jesus used a lot of artifice to connect Jesus to the OT.  They backwrote him to fit what they thought was the messiah.   It looks prophetic but anything written after the fact can be made to look like prophecy.  It's a writing technique called "ex eventu".  The book of Daniel is also written this way. 

Well, except the the census point where you could present some evidence, the rest are just assertions. I imagine if pressed you would have a bunch of arguments from silence. What is your reason for the late dating? Who is "they"?

The vast majority of NT scholard date Luke from 80 to 90 CE.

Luke and Matthew have conflicting geneaological lists of Jesus. Either one is correct or the other is lying. They cannot both be right.   And if Jesus is the biological son of Joseph then he couldn't have been the son of a god.  The only way this would possibly work is if Mary was a godess who gave birth to Jesus but that's not part of the Christian doctrine.    

John was written too long after Jesus died, between 90 and 110 CE  and could not have been an eyewitness.  

Remember, none of the gospels even claim they are eyewitness.

The grandfather's name seems innocuous and could just stem from the author's using two different lists. If anything, you want variations because it shows independent effort.

If John was in his early 20s during Jesus' ministry, he would be in his late early eighties by 90 AD. Why is that a problem?

John was an eyewitness. Matthew was an eyewitness. Mark was known exactly who he was--writing for Peter--who was an eyewitness. Luke was also known as well as stating his purpose and methods.

  Hmm. You do know that Mark was not a disciple and did not walk those paths with Jesus...right?

That's not even the point being made, Stevie.  You are claiming the gospels are eyewitness accounts.  They are not.  They are anecdotal accounts and not reliable.

 Even the shorter chapter has the resurrection of Jesus. 

The short and the long chapter were both added in the 4th century.  So some bibles have the long ending and some have the short ending. Both were added in the 4th century.  

This is the oldest COMPLETE copy of the gospels from 300 CE.   You can look through it. The ending of Mark that you are familar with is not there because it was written later and then tacked on so it would match the other three stories.


https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

 Papias wrote at the end for the first century.

Papias is a completely unreliable source.  His account of Judas' death is very different than the gospels so he either never read the gospels or the Judas story hadn't been established yet, like so many other stories in the gospels.

The story Papias heard through the grapevine was this:

 But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon—not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitals became more disgusting and larger than anyone's; simply by relieving himself, to his wanton shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body. And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding his nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.

Papias also wrote that Judas was crushed by a chariot so he embellished the story.  


Eusebius read through Papias' writings and wrote that Papias "appears to have been of very limited understanding"  He also felt that Irenaeus and others were misled by Papias.   I wouldn't use Papias as an early source if I were you. 

 If John was in his early 20s during Jesus' ministry, he would be in his late early eighties by 90 AD. Why is that a problem?

According to Christians John was born in 6 CE.  How was he an eyewitness to Jesus' birth, the annunciation?  He would have been 6 years old. 

According to Christians John was a a Galilean fisherman.  Galilee was a monolingual area speaking Aramaic and  fishermen were an illiterate bunch. There was no need to learn languages.  There is no possible way a poor fisherman could have composed complex aristocratic style of Greek text attributed to him. He couldn't have written it or dictated it without knowing the language. 

And before you reply with the idea that Jewish boys were taught from the Torah by a rabbi, that did not happen then.  That came centuries later, long after the fall of Jerusalem when it became more important to pass on a literary tradition of reading the Torah.   The illiteracy rate among the Jews in the 1st century was extremely high.  It was such a problem that the Talmud gives instructions on what to do when only one person in a city can read:

 In a city where only one person is able to read [from the Torah scroll] he reads all the prescribed sections, provided he sits down between the reading of one section and the next. 

None of Jesus followers could have written any of those text and Jesus himself was most likely illiterate.  An illiterate society is subject to embellished storytelling.  Peter was also illiterate and could not have written any of the works attributed to him.

[brewerb]

Would it matter when the first issue of superman was written?

[airportkid]

Would it matter when the first issue of superman was written?

Only if trying to establish that such a figure actually existed.

[Jarsa]

"I listed a lot in my OP of another thread. You are welcome to respond to that either here or there, but I am not going to recreate it for you."

Premise 1: Instances of Miraculous Effects Attributed to God
Numerous instances in the New Testament attribute miraculous occurrences to a supernatural entity, specifically God. Consider the example of the paralytic healed by Jesus as recounted in Mark 2:10-12, where Jesus not only forgives sins (to which the attendees objected that he had the power to do)but also heals the man's paralysis in full view of others--to specifically illustrate the point that he had power to forgive sins. This and many other accounts underscore the presence of supernatural causation within specific contexts, enhancing the significance of the miracles described.

Premise 2: Resurrected Jesus Witnessed by Many
The resurrection of Jesus is attested to by the eyewitness accounts of as many as 500 individuals. This occurrence, whereby a recently crucified individual claims to have conquered death and paved the way for human redemption, inherently embodies a significant and evident supernatural claim. This claim is reinforced by:
  a. External sources confirming Jesus' birth, baptism, and death within the claimed timeframe.
  b. Firsthand eyewitnesses Peter, James, and John, who were deeply involved in both public and private events during Jesus' three-year ministry.
  c. These three had subsequent leadership roles in the early church, as documented by Paul, Acts, and early-century records.
  d. The early church's influence on Paul's teachings (from Paul, Acts)
  e. Paul's letters reflecting beliefs outlined in the gospels prior to their actual written accounts. We can infer from this, the source of these beliefs contained a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
  f. Letters authored by Peter, James, and John (eyewitnesses) that catalog the gospel themes.
  g. Luke's meticulous recording of Christ's life and the early church's journey in Luke and Acts.
  h. Editors of Matthew, Mark, and John, though potentially not eyewitnesses themselves, were contemporaries of everyone mentioned here.
  i. Recipients of the gospels would have been familiar with the editors, with the naming of each book denoting the apostolic influence.
  j. Textual criticism indicating lost documents sharing similar themes.
  k. Acceptance of the gospels by the early church, devoid of any questioning in their writings.
  l. The alignment between the gospels and Paul's teachings, given his direct interactions with eyewitnesses.
  m. The inadequacy of alternative theories concerning the origins of the New Testament and early church, in light of comprehensive evidence.

Premise 3: Central Promise of the New Testament
Establishing the veracity and historicity of the message is one thing. The message is another thing entirely. At the core of the New Testament lies a promise of profound transformation, encompassing spiritual healing, renewal, and a specific relationship with God.

Premise 4: Multitudes Report the Stated Effects
Millions upon millions of individuals have reported experiencing specific supernatural effects of a changed life, renewal, spiritual healing, and feelings of the presence of God while attributing the changes to his promises of the process outlined in the New Testament (P3).

Premise 5: Reports of Minor Miracles
Countless diverse accounts are continually recorded, detailing 'minor miracles' with narrow, person-centered aims (distinct from the broad applications of NT miracles). These minor miracles encompass healing, orchestrated events, profound encounters, opened pathways, augmented strength, tranquility, perseverance, and evangelistic success. These 'minor miracles' are promised in the New Testament and are evidence of God keeping very specific promises.

All of these premises include quotes from the bible or eyewitnesses.

The rest of the evidence is just "We don't know what this is, it must be an invisible supernatural being that created us and will throw us in hell if we don't believe and worship him."

[Bucky Ball]

Would it matter when the first issue of superman was written?

Only if trying to establish that such a figure actually existed.

As well as the fact that *they* were getting paid to write about the first issue.

[Cavebear]

The point is that humans made all that stuff later up based on dreams and myths and thoughts of what "maybe was".  There is no reality of any of it involved.

No not at all, you've missed my point entirely.

Christianity started with Jesus of Nazareth and those who followed him (his disciples). We don't know much about the historical Jesus, but we do know about the historical Nazareth and the latest research on Nazareth come from Ken Dark which finds it was as politically and religious-socially as conservative as you could possible come in the ancient Levant.

We also know from Josephus and other sources that there were many different Jewish schools of thought or sects. He lists several in Ant.XVIII. Jerusalem was a place, a walled city, where all Jews could come together and worship peacefully and bring their offerings/sacrifices without argument with one another despite their different beliefs and interpretations of Torah/Law.

The so-called “oral tradition” that underpins the canonical gospels is religious practices by the followers/devotees of Jesus following his death. Sacraments, Ritual, Prayer, Song, and so-on. This is where we get the Passion tradition (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) from. Really there are five New Testament gospels and the first is the gospel according to Paul and yes we know that Paul was definitely the author. Unfortunately it's not a narrative and he didn't know the historical Jesus of Nazareth as he was converted to the following after Jesus had been crucified. Nevertheless there are clear differences between Paul and the canonical-narrative gospels. The narrative gospels begin the Jesus story with the baptism by John. Yet Paul didn't like Baptism (1 Cor 1:10-17) and he starts the Jesus story very differently, he starts with Son of David (Romans 1). In effect what we have with the Gospel of Mark is not just an expression of the gospel into prose, but he is writing at a later time than Paul and while Mark's theology is the closest to Paul's, I would argue that's because he is writing in the next generation or two whereas the other gospels come later still and diverge further and further from Paul as they go on (he wasn't the only Apostle after all!)

So what you've said is where the age of the Apostles comes in - in the first century in the first two or perhaps three generations after the death of Jesus where Apostles are using ritualised methods to come up with new teachings (most likely the ritual use of altered states of consciousness which can be brought about in a variety of ways including fasting, exhaustion, sleep depravation, and the use of psychedelic substances). Those who have convinced others of their new teachings are hailed as prophets and said to have the gift of prophecy.

When we come to the canonical gospels though we have something different. We have written phenomena. Specifically we have Greek literature that conforms to Greek literary norms, the earliest of them which appears to be Mark is a conversion of the Jesus story into prose but it's still fundamentally a theological document first and foremost. Imagine if you will early first century Christians asking “why are we remembering Jesus through the Eucharist?” The Eucharist is a sacrament most likely invented by Paul, but we can use an entirely different one as well: “Why are we remembering Jesus through Baptism?” Or speaking in tongues, or through having christophanies. This is what I would argue gMark is doing, he's taking those traditions and weaving them into a narrative so that his audience feels they have a close connection to their Messiah. He's not attempting to hoodwink them into thinking he's writing history, rather he's expressing his spiritual truth through storytelling. He's not making up any of the traditions he's putting in, they're all what people refer to as “oral tradition” - the stuff they were practicing - he's just putting it into prose using the Greek Classical Literature as his main source for narrative (plot, stories, characters etc). This is why he contrasts Jesus against the Greek heroes. His audience doesn't know who the Nazarites were, and he's not arguing for the hard-line conservative interpretation of Jesus that the Nazarites did, rather he is contrasting Jesus against the Greek heroes that he does know in an attempt to demonstrate how Jesus is better.

So in summary, the gospels are expressing the spiritual truth of their authors. That isn't being “made up”. But, it's not history.

Jesus was never a Christian (assuming for discussion that he ever quite existed in reality).  He was Jewish when he was born and Jewish when he died.  His followers created a new religion about him over generations and centuries.  Even those books written by his followers (and there is some doubt about that) can't even agree about what he said.

My personal view is that Ken Dark is an idiot much like those "alien experts" you see all the time on cable channels.  Lots of claims, no real facts.

I always have to laugh when believers claim their books and internal experiences as "proof" of their books and beliefs.

The Trojan/Greek war was around 1200 BC.  Homer wrote about it in around 800 BC (give or take a century on both).  What are the odds that a pre-records society would know much about what really happened a few centuries later accurately?  The Bible is a lot like that.  Oral tradition changes with each generation.

You are completely correct that the authors of the Bible were expressing the views of the authors.  But I could write a story of a deity myself with no actual reality.  Consider  'The Silmarillion world origin story, for example.


"So in summary, the gospels are expressing the spiritual truth of their authors. That isn't being “made up”. But, it's not history."  Indeed it isn't.  And that's the problem you can't overcome.  It is all made up by later people...

[brewerb]

Would it matter when the first issue of superman was written?

Only if trying to establish that such a figure actually existed.

Well, we know the date of the Theogony. Does that establish that the greek gods 'actually existed'?

In the end it does not matter. The 'dates', even if accurate, do not validate existence or accuracy.

[brewerb]

Only if trying to establish that such a figure actually existed.

As well as the fact that *they* were getting paid to write about the first issue.

You don't think the gospel/new testiment writers were rewarded in some fashion?

[Dancefortwo]

"I listed a lot in my OP of another thread. You are welcome to respond to that either here or there, but I am not going to recreate it for you."

Premise 1: Instances of Miraculous Effects Attributed to God
Numerous instances in the New Testament attribute miraculous occurrences to a supernatural entity, specifically God. Consider the example of the paralytic healed by Jesus as recounted in Mark 2:10-12, where Jesus not only forgives sins (to which the attendees objected that he had the power to do)but also heals the man's paralysis in full view of others--to specifically illustrate the point that he had power to forgive sins. This and many other accounts underscore the presence of supernatural causation within specific contexts, enhancing the significance of the miracles described.

Premise 2: Resurrected Jesus Witnessed by Many
The resurrection of Jesus is attested to by the eyewitness accounts of as many as 500 individuals. This occurrence, whereby a recently crucified individual claims to have conquered death and paved the way for human redemption, inherently embodies a significant and evident supernatural claim. This claim is reinforced by:
  a. External sources confirming Jesus' birth, baptism, and death within the claimed timeframe.
  b. Firsthand eyewitnesses Peter, James, and John, who were deeply involved in both public and private events during Jesus' three-year ministry.
  c. These three had subsequent leadership roles in the early church, as documented by Paul, Acts, and early-century records.
  d. The early church's influence on Paul's teachings (from Paul, Acts)
  e. Paul's letters reflecting beliefs outlined in the gospels prior to their actual written accounts. We can infer from this, the source of these beliefs contained a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
  f. Letters authored by Peter, James, and John (eyewitnesses) that catalog the gospel themes.
  g. Luke's meticulous recording of Christ's life and the early church's journey in Luke and Acts.
  h. Editors of Matthew, Mark, and John, though potentially not eyewitnesses themselves, were contemporaries of everyone mentioned here.
  i. Recipients of the gospels would have been familiar with the editors, with the naming of each book denoting the apostolic influence.
  j. Textual criticism indicating lost documents sharing similar themes.
  k. Acceptance of the gospels by the early church, devoid of any questioning in their writings.
  l. The alignment between the gospels and Paul's teachings, given his direct interactions with eyewitnesses.
  m. The inadequacy of alternative theories concerning the origins of the New Testament and early church, in light of comprehensive evidence.

Premise 3: Central Promise of the New Testament
Establishing the veracity and historicity of the message is one thing. The message is another thing entirely. At the core of the New Testament lies a promise of profound transformation, encompassing spiritual healing, renewal, and a specific relationship with God.

Premise 4: Multitudes Report the Stated Effects
Millions upon millions of individuals have reported experiencing specific supernatural effects of a changed life, renewal, spiritual healing, and feelings of the presence of God while attributing the changes to his promises of the process outlined in the New Testament (P3).

Premise 5: Reports of Minor Miracles
Countless diverse accounts are continually recorded, detailing 'minor miracles' with narrow, person-centered aims (distinct from the broad applications of NT miracles). These minor miracles encompass healing, orchestrated events, profound encounters, opened pathways, augmented strength, tranquility, perseverance, and evangelistic success. These 'minor miracles' are promised in the New Testament and are evidence of God keeping very specific promises.

All of these premises include quotes from the bible or eyewitnesses.

The rest of the evidence is just "We don't know what this is, it must be an invisible supernatural being that created us and will throw us in hell if we don't believe and worship him."

It's all a bunch of bunk.  

The resurrection of Jesus is attested to by the eyewitness accounts of as many as 500 individuals.

This was a rumor Paul heard about 20 years after it happened. 

" For what I received I passed on to you "

It's interesting that none of these 500 people ever wrote about seeing a god come back from the dead. It's always long afterwards that these claims are made and they are always written by someone else.

The gospels also claim dead people crawled out of their graves and walked around the streets of Jerusalem but this ridiculous story is only in one of the gospels.  One has to wonder if these zombies finally went back to their graves and were reburied or what happened to them.  The story is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

 

 Firsthand eyewitnesses Peter, James, and John, who were deeply involved in both public and private events during Jesus' three-year ministry. 

None of them are first hand eyewitnesses.  They don't even claim to be.  They are written in third person and in a distant voice. They don't name themselves in the text.   The names were attached to the gosepls in 179 CE by Irenaeus who didn't know who wrote the  Jesus stories either.   Prior to that those text were not refered to by those names. 

There is no way on this planet that Peter wrote the works attributed to him.  Even in Acts he and John are called "illiterate".

It's interesting that Paul sees the son of a god standing in the middle of the road but doesn't write about it for another 19 years.  This is typical of myth making text.

[airportkid]

But it's not history.

Indeed it isn't.  And that's the problem you can't overcome.

That brief exchange encapsulates the preceding 46 trillion words concisely.  Kinda sad, all those manhours of furious typing on keyboards and fierce writing spent for nothing.

[Thethingaboutitis]

To me, all this thread is about is to knock 20 years off the dating of the gospel of Mark.
Great.
Still doesn't make Jesus God.

[Bucky Ball]

As well as the fact that *they* were getting paid to write about the first issue.

You don't think the gospel/new testiment writers were rewarded in some fashion?

No, but due to the posting patterns, Stevie clearly works for a Fundy church.
M-F 8-4:30. He thinks we're stupid.

[Bucky Ball]

To me, all this thread is about is to knock 20 years off the dating of the gospel of Mark.
Great.
Still doesn't make Jesus God.

It's probably more than 20.
The content of the preaching is the concerns of the rabbis AFTER the temple destruction.

[Minimalist]

Ah, Papias.....   why is it that such an allegedly important character never had any of his works preserved by later xtian copyists?  All we have are a few alleged fragments of him included in the works of other church liars...including the noted Eusebius who thought that Papias was a moron.



"Eusebius damns this inconvenient witness to Christianity's inventiveness by calling him "a man of exceedingly small intelligence."     In Ecclesiastic History