Why are you looking forward to heaven?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#237 Mar 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If "The Bible is not historically reliable because no one alive today has ever seen the original documents" then none of ancient history is historically reliable either because we don't have the orignals either for 99% of it.That means you would have to reject all of Plato's works, all Tacticus and all of Pliny. We do not have any of the originals for these writers.
If you don’t have the original you have no way of knowing if the copy is an accurate representation of it.

“Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.”- Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén, historians,“Core principles of [historical] source criticism”

History is not the exact science you seem to think it is.
Jeff wrote:
Clement is referring to the gospels and not to Hilel. What original works do we have of Hilel?
You completely missed the point.
Jeff wrote:
Keep in mind there is there is no way to There is no way to scientifically test 2,000 year-old occurrences. test 2,000 year-old occurrences for any ancient event. No way to test scientifically what the Caesars did or what Alexander did.
Correct there is no way to test the accuracy of any 2,000 year-old fantastic claims.
Jeff wrote:
Christianity does claim that the miracles of Christ that he did in public in front of eyewitnesses was done by the power of God. You have failed to show that the gospels are myths. If you want to prove miracles are impossible then all you need to do is to disprove the existence of God. When you do that, then you will have not only disproven miracles but Christianity. If you can't do that, then this shows Christianity to be true. If you refuse to believe it then you are showing your rejection of it is not based on the facts but on your bias. Which will it be?
If it looks like a myth, reads like a myth and sounds like a myth it’s probably a myth. Why do you not accept the supernatural claims of other “holy books”.

"Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based." ~Ambrose Bierce
OKAY

Houston, TX

#238 Mar 26, 2013
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
So you must think that if you repeat that lie enough times, it will make it "true"?
Well you do!
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#239 Mar 26, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don’t have the original you have no way of knowing if the copy is an accurate representation of it.
“Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.”- Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén, historians,“Core principles of [historical] source criticism”
History is not the exact science you seem to think it is.
<quoted text>
You completely missed the point.
<quoted text>
Correct there is no way to test the accuracy of any 2,000 year-old fantastic claims.
<quoted text>
If it looks like a myth, reads like a myth and sounds like a myth it’s probably a myth. Why do you not accept the supernatural claims of other “holy books”.
"Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based." ~Ambrose Bierce
There earliest copy we have from Plato is 1200 years after his death. Do you think historians accept it as an accurate representation of it? The answer is yes. For the gospels we have a fragment of the gospel of John to around 110. That's less than 100 years after Christ. Its quite remarkable and there is nothing like it from the ancient world. The more copies you have of an ancient work the better we can construct what the original looked liked. Again, the NT is far far to superior to any works from the ancient world.

History is based on probabilities and evidence. The more evidence we have for something and the closer to the event the greater the probability we can know the truth. Again, the NT is superior to any work of the ancient world. Again lets compare this to the works of Plato. Earliest manuscript is 1200 years after his death and we have only 7 copies of his work. The NT on the other hand has thousands of manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts within centuries of Christ. One of the earliest fragments is within 100 years of the event.

There are millions and millions of people (including scholars) who never claim Christianity is a myth. You are in minority on this. You also have no facts of it being a myth either.
Punisher

Brooklyn, NY

#240 Mar 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Clement does refer to sayings in the gospels. Consider this: "1 Clem. 13:2 for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you." This comes from Luke 6
Your right the fragment is from the 2nd century. Its not an original and that show that the original is even earlier.
The resurrection is well supported by the eyewitness accounts. If you want to disprove the resurrection then you must prove the gospels are historically unreliable. That has not been done since they were first written.
The resurrection is vitally important. It shows us that death is not the end and shows that life goes beyond the grave. Even today, people want that hope. Agreed?
The miracles of Christ are not magic or sorcery but the power of God. Science has never been able to refute these miracles. The only way it could would be to scientifically prove that God does not exist. That is something impossible for science to do.
Only an empty tomb is witnessed. Period. No act of resurrection.

No one has ever been able to Prove these miracles...so to claim that science cant disprove them is disingenuous. They are and will always remain FAITH based Religious beliefs. If we use your logic, then we have to apply it to the alchemists who claimed they made gold from base material - science cant disprove the individual claims. So I guess they did make gold. Notes are lost, processes not passed down...gotta be true, huh?
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#241 Mar 26, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
Only an empty tomb is witnessed. Period. No act of resurrection.
No one has ever been able to Prove these miracles...so to claim that science cant disprove them is disingenuous. They are and will always remain FAITH based Religious beliefs....gotta be true, huh?
You are remiss in your assumptions.
There were over 500 documented eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Acts 10:34a,37-43

Peter proceeded to speak and said:

“You know what has happened all over Judea,
beginning in Galilee after the baptism
that John preached,
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Spirit and power.
He went about doing good
and healing all those oppressed by the devil,
for God was with him.

We are witnesses of all that he did
both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.
They put him to death by hanging him on a tree.
This man God raised on the third day and granted that he be visible,
not to all the people, but to us,
the witnesses chosen by God in advance,
who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

He commissioned us to preach to the people
and testify that he is the one appointed by God
as judge of the living and the dead.
To him all the prophets bear witness,
that everyone who believes in him
will receive forgiveness of sins through his name.”

1Cor.15:3-7

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;a that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;

that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

Consider yourself punished by documented history, baby.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#242 Mar 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There earliest copy we have from Plato is 1200 years after his death. Do you think historians accept it as an accurate representation of it? The answer is yes.
Incorrect!

“Thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have traditionally been ascribed to Plato, though modern scholarship doubts the authenticity of at least some of these.”– Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato’s works are authentic, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of their preservation through time.”- Thomas Brickhouse, PhD Philosophy, Vanderbilt University

"…few documents are accepted as completely reliable.”-- Louis Gottschalk, Ph.D. in History from Cornell University
Jeff wrote:
For the gospels we have a fragment of the gospel of John to around 110. That's less than 100 years after Christ.
There is no evidence that the gospels existed prior to the middle of the second century your date of 110 for the Ryland fragment is merely the earliest possible date, and would still be almost 100 years removed from the events described. Other estimates of its date place it as late as the later part of the second century. Anceint history is by no means an exact science.
Jeff wrote:
Its quite remarkable and there is nothing like it from the ancient world. The more copies you have of an ancient work the better we can construct what the original looked liked. Again, the NT is far far to superior to any works from the ancient world.
The oldest known complete (not just fragments) copies of the New Testament date to the fourth century (300 years after the events described) and there are only two of that vintage, and they are not exactly alike. The fact that you think the originals can be reconstructed from that is laughable.
Jeff wrote:
History is based on probabilities and evidence. The more evidence we have for something and the closer to the event the greater the probability we can know the truth. Again, the NT is superior to any work of the ancient world. Again lets compare this to the works of Plato. Earliest manuscript is 1200 years after his death and we have only 7 copies of his work. The NT on the other hand has thousands of manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts within centuries of Christ. One of the earliest fragments is within 100 years of the event.
Quite correct ancient history is far from an exact science. Historians can only make their best estimates based on the evidence available. The gospels were unsigned, undated and no originals exist. That is only good evidence in the minds of those who already believe.
Jeff wrote:
There are millions and millions of people (including scholars) who never claim Christianity is a myth. You are in minority on this. You also have no facts of it being a myth either.
There are millions of people who claim that the stories of the Quran are not a myth. If you lived in Iran and claimed the stories of the Quran were a myth you would most certainly be in a minority.

The problem is that believers like yourself and those Muslims refuse to let go of the things you have been told and look at the evidence objectively. The believer in Iran and you think exactly alike; the only difference is the book you consider holy.

"It strikes me often while I am in Iran that were Christian evangelicals to take a tour of Iran today, they might find it the model for an ideal society they seek in America. Replace Allah with God, Mohammad with Jesus…and a Christian Republic is born." — Hooman Majd, Iranian-American journalist
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#243 Mar 26, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
Only an empty tomb is witnessed. Period. No act of resurrection.
No one has ever been able to Prove these miracles...so to claim that science cant disprove them is disingenuous. They are and will always remain FAITH based Religious beliefs. If we use your logic, then we have to apply it to the alchemists who claimed they made gold from base material - science cant disprove the individual claims. So I guess they did make gold. Notes are lost, processes not passed down...gotta be true, huh?
True there was an empty but there were multiple eyewitness accounts that were never refuted. We also know that authorities tried to bribe the guards who were guarding the tomb to lie.
The guards saw the resurrection happen and were in deep fear of it.

Science in principle cannot disprove a miracle.

In your case no amount of evidence would be sufficient because you are to biased against it. The problem is not the evidence but your bias. Sad.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#244 Mar 26, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect!
“Thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have traditionally been ascribed to Plato, though modern scholarship doubts the authenticity of at least some of these.”– Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato’s works are authentic, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of their preservation through time.”- Thomas Brickhouse, PhD Philosophy, Vanderbilt University
"…few documents are accepted as completely reliable.”-- Louis Gottschalk, Ph.D. in History from Cornell University
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that the gospels existed prior to the middle of the second century your date of 110 for the Ryland fragment is merely the earliest possible date, and would still be almost 100 years removed from the events described. Other estimates of its date place it as late as the later part of the second century. Anceint history is by no means an exact science.
<quoted text>
The oldest known complete (not just fragments) copies of the New Testament date to the fourth century (300 years after the events described) and there are only two of that vintage, and they are not exactly alike. The fact that you think the originals can be reconstructed from that is laughable.
<quoted text>
Quite correct ancient history is far from an exact science. Historians can only make their best estimates based on the evidence available. The gospels were unsigned, undated and no originals exist. That is only good evidence in the minds of those who already believe.
<quoted text>
There are millions of people who claim that the stories of the Quran are not a myth. If you lived in Iran and claimed the stories of the Quran were a myth you would most certainly be in a minority.
The problem is that believers like yourself and those Muslims refuse to let go of the things you have been told and look at the evidence objectively. The believer in Iran and you think exactly alike; the only difference is the book you consider holy.
"It strikes me often while I am in Iran that were Christian evangelicals to take a tour of Iran today, they might find it the model for an ideal society they seek in America. Replace Allah with God, Mohammad with Jesus…and a Christian Republic is born." — Hooman Majd, Iranian-American journalist
You did not refute the claim that the earliest copy of Plato is 1200 years after his death.
Here is what one of your heroes says about when the gospels were written:
"From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145 (number formatting is mine):

Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons ....
I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era ....
[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.
It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce ... That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.
There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.
If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.
John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.
These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them."
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/how-th...
Reality

San Diego, CA

#246 Mar 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
True there was an empty but there were multiple eyewitness accounts that were never refuted. We also know that authorities tried to bribe the guards who were guarding the tomb to lie.
The guards saw the resurrection happen and were in deep fear of it.
Here-say because none of the people that wrote about this supposed miracle didn't actually see it..Were there any laws in place back then to prevent people from spreading lies?
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>Science in principle cannot disprove a miracle.
Until it's verified a miracle actually happened, science can disprove it simply by saying it is not scientifically possible..

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#249 Mar 26, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Empty tomb, no not just that. There were skeptic pagan hating guards who wwere eyewitnesses and testified that they never left the tomb and they stood guard and this was done in preparation so that Jesus' disciple could nbot come and take the body and declare that he had risen. Yes, only an act of resurrection can explain the events, unless you are saying that the guards who stood on guard to denounce the prophesies suddenly decided to lie.
Hey Doc. You have no credibility.
Reality

San Diego, CA

#250 Mar 26, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Hear-say, because none of the people who wrote about evolution did not actually see it.
So you don't sound so ignorant study this about human evolution that we see from digging it out of the earth..Once you've learned this we can move on to the big bang theory..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#Stone...
________

Oldest human ancestors first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
>Snip<
Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).

hæb&#616;l&#618;s/, "Handy-man") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene period.[1] The discovery and description of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964.
__________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Homo_sapie...
>snip<
Homo sapiens sapiens), in the period beginning 500,000 years ago. The term is typically taken to include
__________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#Mesol...
.Snip<
Early homo sapiens originated some 200,000 years ago, ushering in the Middle Paleolithic. Anatomic changes indicating modern language capacity also arise during the Middle Paleolithic.[citation needed] The systematic burial of the dead, the music, early art, and the use of increasingly sophisticated multi-part tools are highlights of the Middle Paleolithic.

Throughout the Paleolithic, humans generally lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer societies tended to be very small and egalitarian[citation needed], though hunter-gatherer societies with abundant resources or advanced food-storage techniques sometimes developed sedentary lifestyles with complex social structures such as chiefdoms, and social stratification. Long-distance contacts may have been established, as in the case of Indigenous Australian "highways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sapiens_nea... skull likeness
__________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic
>Snip<
It ocurred at different dates in different parts of Eurasia: in the Levant about 20,000 to 9500 BC; in Europe about 9660 to 5000 BC; and for example in the J&#333;mon period in Japan about 14,000 to 400 BC. The term is not used equally to refer to all parts of the world, and another term "Epipaleolithic" is often used for areas outside northern Europe.
________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

Jeff

San Jose, CA

#251 Mar 26, 2013
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Here-say because none of the people that wrote about this supposed miracle didn't actually see it..Were there any laws in place back then to prevent people from spreading lies?
<quoted text>
Until it's verified a miracle actually happened, science can disprove it simply by saying it is not scientifically possible..
If the gospel accounts are here-say then all of ancient history is. Most of modern history would also be considered here-say. Are you willing to admit to this?

Not all truths are proven scientifically nor could they be.
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#252 Mar 26, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Empty tomb, no not just that. There were skeptic pagan hating guards who wwere eyewitnesses and testified that they never left the tomb and they stood guard and this was done in preparation so that Jesus' disciple could nbot come and take the body and declare that he had risen.

Yes, only an act of resurrection can explain the events, unless you are saying that the guards who stood on guard to denounce the prophesies suddenly decided to lie.
That's right. Good call.
Matt. 28:6-15 records how the guards were bribed with hush money from the Jews.

The ladies went to the tomb and the angel said in reply;

"He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said.
Come and see the place where he lay.
Then go quickly and tell his disciples,‘He has been raised from the dead, and he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.”
Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce this to his disciples.

And behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them.
They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage. Then Jesus said to them,“Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”


The Report of the Guard:

While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened.
They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them,“You are to say,‘His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.’
And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed.
And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present day."

Thus the word of history recorded for prosperity by the will of God.
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#253 Mar 26, 2013
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't sound so ignorant study this about human evolution that we see from digging it out of the earth..Once you've learned this we can move on to the big bang theory..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#Stone...
________
Oldest human ancestors first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
>Snip<
Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).
hæb&#616;l&#618;s/, "Handy-man") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene period.[1] The discovery and description of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964.
__________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Homo_sapie...
>snip<
Homo sapiens sapiens), in the period beginning 500,000 years ago. The term is typically taken to include
__________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#Mesol...
.Snip<
Early homo sapiens originated some 200,000 years ago, ushering in the Middle Paleolithic. Anatomic changes indicating modern language capacity also arise during the Middle Paleolithic.[citation needed] The systematic burial of the dead, the music, early art, and the use of increasingly sophisticated multi-part tools are highlights of the Middle Paleolithic.
Throughout the Paleolithic, humans generally lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer societies tended to be very small and egalitarian[citation needed], though hunter-gatherer societies with abundant resources or advanced food-storage techniques sometimes developed sedentary lifestyles with complex social structures such as chiefdoms, and social stratification. Long-distance contacts may have been established, as in the case of Indigenous Australian "highways."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sapiens_nea... skull likeness
__________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic
>Snip<
It ocurred at different dates in different parts of Eurasia: in the Levant about 20,000 to 9500 BC; in Europe about 9660 to 5000 BC; and for example in the J&#333;mon period in Japan about 14,000 to 400 BC. The term is not used equally to refer to all parts of the world, and another term "Epipaleolithic" is often used for areas outside northern Europe.
________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
How do you think aborigines of Australia got there from the continent about 40,000 years ago or so?

Cruising on the seas was not a mode of life yet.
Maybe volcanic activity raising temporary island chains to the islands?
Reality

San Diego, CA

#254 Mar 27, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you think aborigines of Australia got there from the continent about 40,000 years ago or so?
Cruising on the seas was not a mode of life yet.
Maybe volcanic activity raising temporary island chains to the islands?
They arrived there during the last glacial maximum when the sea level was more than 150m lower than today..
Reality

San Diego, CA

#255 Mar 27, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If the gospel accounts are here-say then all of ancient history is.
You're dead wrong saying that..
Archaeological digs have revealed much of the ancient history in that part of the world..
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>Most of modern history would also be considered here-say. Are you willing to admit to this?
Only extraordinary things that are written in books "unverified" (before cameras were invented around 1850) are hear-say..Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence..

There are many people who don't need extraordinary evidence to believe if the prize is big enough for believing by faith. Faith is not needed if something is certain which in itself makes the resurrection hear-say..
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#256 Mar 27, 2013
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
You're dead wrong saying that..
Archaeological digs have revealed much of the ancient history in that part of the world..
<quoted text>
Only extraordinary things that are written in books "unverified" (before cameras were invented around 1850) are hear-say..Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence..
There are many people who don't need extraordinary evidence to believe if the prize is big enough for believing by faith. Faith is not needed if something is certain which in itself makes the resurrection hear-say..
Archaeology has also supported the New Testament. Lots of things recorded in the gospels have archaeological support.

Exactly what is "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"? What are the characteristics of "extraordinary evidence"? Who decides what this is?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#257 Mar 27, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not refute the claim that the earliest copy of Plato is 1200 years after his death.
I didn’t intend to refute the claim of the date for the earliest copy of Plato but I did refute your claim that the copies of the works of Plato are somehow automatically accepted as accurate representations of the originals.
H
Jeff wrote:
ere is what one of your heroes says about when the gospels were written:
"From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145 (number formatting is mine):
Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons ....
I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era ....
[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.
It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce ... That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.
There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.
If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.
John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.
These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them."
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/how-th...
There is nothing in any of the quotes you provided that “proves” the existence of any of the gospels in the first century. I grant you that most Bible scholars do speculate that they were written between 70 and 110CE, but the fact remains there is no factual evidence of the existence of any of the gospels until the second century.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#258 Mar 27, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn’t intend to refute the claim of the date for the earliest copy of Plato but I did refute your claim that the copies of the works of Plato are somehow automatically accepted as accurate representations of the originals.
H<quoted text>
There is nothing in any of the quotes you provided that “proves” the existence of any of the gospels in the first century. I grant you that most Bible scholars do speculate that they were written between 70 and 110CE, but the fact remains there is no factual evidence of the existence of any of the gospels until the second century.
When all we have are copies of the original then scholars will try to reconstruct what the original most likely looked like from the copies. The NT is far far superior to any work of antiquity because it has more copies and is closer in time to the events purported. We don't have this kind of support other ancient documents.

The fact that even liberal scholars like Bart are willing to concede that the gospels were written within the 1st should make you give up the idea that the gospels were written in the 2nd century. The 3 gospels were written by eyewitnesses while Luke investigated the claims of the gospel while the eyewitnesses were alive.
OKAY

Houston, TX

#259 Mar 27, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not refute the claim that the earliest copy of Plato is 1200 years after his death.
Here is what one of your heroes says about when the gospels were written:
"From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145 (number formatting is mine):
Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons ....
I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era ....
[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.
It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce ... That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.
There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.
If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.
John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.
These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them."
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/how-th...
You know, if BIG AL (and others here) worked as hard at their respective employers as they do here 'trying' to discredit Christianity, none of us would ever have to work.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is there any evidence Apostles Peter and Paul b... 8 min fallen angel 330
Early Christianity 10 min fallen angel 2,110
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 20 min fallen angel 1,083
judgment coming to america 45 min fallen angel 46
News Police need more training on hate crime, says A... 47 min fallen angel 29
If The Pope Were American 4 hr fallen angel 42
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 4 hr fallen angel 1,163
More from around the web