A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[Goat]

Now it's Kill the messenger and Legal Expert.....

Greenleaf "went home" quite some time ago. What's funny is that you think that a "Legal Expert" is qualified to judge the historicity (or not) of the gospel accounts, or that "applying the laws of evidence" as used in a court of law is the proper means to do so! What complete nonsense!

Let's take an example from Greenleaf...

(BTW, here is the corrected link for "Testimony of the Evangelists")

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

What lunacy! In a court of law a defendant may be presumed innocent, but such a bias has no place in scientific inquiry. By this standard, the Pyramid Texts of Unas should be presumed to be "genuine" and the burden of proof would fall on anyone skeptical of the existence of Osiris, Nephthys, Thoth, Horus, etc.

We also know so much more from a scholarly point of view than Greenleaf did. The standards of law when it comes to evidence has changed drastically too.

[Easyrider]

Let's take an example from Greenleaf...

(BTW, here is the corrected link for "Testimony of the Evangelists")

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."What lunacy!

I feel there is an implied caveat in that which you are glossing over - that unless there is some compelling evidence or reason that the documents aren't legitimate, then they should be viewed as being legitimate.

I'm quite sure Greenleaf would be in agreement with that.

[Goat]

Let's take an example from Greenleaf...

(BTW, here is the corrected link for "Testimony of the Evangelists")

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."What lunacy!

I feel there is an implied caveat in that which you are glossing over - that unless there is some compelling evidence or reason that the documents aren't legitimate, then they should be viewed as being legitimate.

I'm quite sure Greenleaf would be in agreement with that.

The problem is that Greenleaf did not have an original copy.
Oh wait,.. there ARE no original copies, the stories IN the copies we have are contradictory, and also mention supernatural events that can not be verified.

[Cathar1950]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events. The copies are of copies over a hundred years after that. There are more variants then copies and they have shown forgeries, additions and redactions. No he is not a historian. I would not want him to be my attorney.

[Easyrider]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events.

Scholars Date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

[Goat]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events.

Scholars Date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm

I am glad yo agree with Cathar.

From your link.. when discussing the Gospel of Matthew.

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70 (at least 37 years)
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100 (47 to 57 years)

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University

Yes, some, such as Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College have it earlier.. but there certainly is enough scholars that have it later.

I would say thank you very much for supporting Cathars claim.

[Easyrider]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events.

Scholars Date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm

I am glad yo agree with Cathar.

From your link.. when discussing the Gospel of Matthew.

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70 (at least 37 years)
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100 (47 to 57 years)

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University

Yes, some, such as Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College have it earlier.. but there certainly is enough scholars that have it later.

I would say thank you very much for supporting Cathars claim.

Not quite.

Cathar's dating suggests composition dates extend to 100 years after the events. The vast majority of the scholars do not buy into that.

[Goat]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events.

Scholars Date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm

I am glad yo agree with Cathar.

From your link.. when discussing the Gospel of Matthew.

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70 (at least 37 years)
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100 (47 to 57 years)

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University

Yes, some, such as Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College have it earlier.. but there certainly is enough scholars that have it later.

I would say thank you very much for supporting Cathars claim.

Not quite.

Cathar's dating suggests composition dates extend to 100 years after the events. The vast majority of the scholars do not buy into that.

The majority does not. I was just pointing out just two of the synoptic gospels though. I would personally say 35 to 80+ years would be a closer range. However, even if his numbers are a bit off, his point stands.

[Easyrider]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events.

Scholars Date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm

I am glad yo agree with Cathar.

From your link.. when discussing the Gospel of Matthew.

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70 (at least 37 years)
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100 (47 to 57 years)

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University

Yes, some, such as Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College have it earlier.. but there certainly is enough scholars that have it later.

I would say thank you very much for supporting Cathars claim.

Not quite.

Cathar's dating suggests composition dates extend to 100 years after the events. The vast majority of the scholars do not buy into that.

The majority does not. I was just pointing out just two of the synoptic gospels though. I would personally say 35 to 80+ years would be a closer range. However, even if his numbers are a bit off, his point stands.

I don't know what point that is but the majority opinion is that the New Testament writings are well within the probable lifetimes of the traditional authors.

[Goat]

The writing were written a good 40 to 100 years after the events.

Scholars Date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm

I am glad yo agree with Cathar.

From your link.. when discussing the Gospel of Matthew.

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70 (at least 37 years)
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100 (47 to 57 years)

James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University

Yes, some, such as Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College have it earlier.. but there certainly is enough scholars that have it later.

I would say thank you very much for supporting Cathars claim.

Not quite.

Cathar's dating suggests composition dates extend to 100 years after the events. The vast majority of the scholars do not buy into that.

The majority does not. I was just pointing out just two of the synoptic gospels though. I would personally say 35 to 80+ years would be a closer range. However, even if his numbers are a bit off, his point stands.

I don't know what point that is but the majority opinion is that the New Testament writings are well within the probable lifetimes of the traditional authors.

The evidence is that they are not. Mark made mistakes about the Geography around Jerusalum that the 'traditional author' would not make. Luke says he is not an eye witness. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew depended on the writer of the Gospel of Mark, and since he borrowed frm Mark, he also was not an eye witness. There is also some reason to think that Matthew was written after 85 CE, (but before 110ce).

There are also a number of reasons to think that the Gospel of john was written between 90 and 120