What grade would a history teacher give the book of Matthew?

[TruthSeeker1]

If a history teacher were to read the book of "Matthew" and give it a grade based on how accurate a description the author gives of historical events, what kind of grade would the author get?

The author of "Matthew" didn't put his name on the book, or identify himself to his readers. In many cases a book will get a failing grade if it is turned in without a name on it as it is hard to challenge an author's claims when he doesn't identify himself.
Just about 90% of the words in "Matthew" come straight from a book written earlier, the book of "Mark". The author of "Matthew", whomever that might be, doesn't tell his readers that most of the material which he has written came from another's work. In most cases this will be enough to give a failing grade because of the problem with plagiarizing another person's work.

Much of what the author of "Matthew" writes about can't be collaborated with any other materials that were written during this time period. From Herod's supposed killing of the infants, to dead saints rising from graves and walking into Jerusalem, we just cannot corroborate significant events that the author of "Matthew" speaks about.

The author of "Matthew" doesn't name any of his sources. Just where did this author get his information? Other writers in this time period identified sources, so why not the author of "Matthew"? How would someone back then been able to evaluate the information that the author provides if there are not any sources for the information contained in "Matthew"?

Lastly, the author of "Matthew" doesn't tell his readers that the events written about are literal historic events. How do any readers of "Matthew" know that they are supposed to be taking the events described as being literal history if the author doesn't identify the events as such?

Just what kind of grade would a history teacher give the book of Matthew? Should not a book that is purported to be divinely inspired be expected to receive at least a passing grade. Would the book of "Matthew" receive one?

[Goat]

Cathar,
Since most New Testament scholars now presently believe that Luke wrote his Gospel in either 59 or 60 A.D. And it is universally agreed by scholars that Josephus did not start writing his works until well after 70 A.D. Doesn't it stand to reason and just plain common sense that "if" any copying went on, and (not many concur with your sources) that Josephus would have copied Luke's fine historical account?Wouldn't that be more plausible "if"?

Biker

That is a problem because most don't think it was written in either 59 or 60 but well after Mark which is later then you date for Luke. Josephus is well within the time range for the gospel of Luke and Acts. Some even give it 150 CE. I give it maybe 10 to 50 years before that. But most look at 80-100 with reservation.
Early Christian writings give a date between 80-130 while Josephus 93.

Nope.

Dating the Gospels, etc.

From: http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65), and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9

Scholars Date the Gospel of Luke:

Mark C. Black, Ph.D. AD 65 to 85
Believer's Study Bible, A date of A.D. 59–61 is most probable.
Hans Conzelmann, Th.D. AD 80 - 100 for Luke-Acts, with a likely range of AD 80 - 90 Professor of New Testament at Gottingem, ThD from Tubingen (Yet again, the recognized HEIGHT of European liberal Bibliccal-Critical Scholarship)
Author of one of THE BEST Critical, Academic Commentaries on Acts.
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D., AD 60 or 63, when Luke was in Caesarea
James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Before AD 62, perhaps between 58 and 60
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Norval Geldenhuys, Th.M. AD 64-65
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. AD 62 to 64
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 61-63
John Holland, Ph.D. AD 68-78
Professor of New Testament at Trinity College, Bristol England
Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. AD 80 - 85 for Luke (perhaps a bit earlier ...
he hedges toward 75 CE at times) - Professor of New Testament at Emory
University, Candler School of Theology
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 85
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 70 to 90
Richard C.H. Lenski, D.D. After AD 66, but before 70
I. Howard Marsall, Not far off A.D. 70
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
M.S. Mills, Ph.D. AD 53
John Nolland, Ph.D. late AD 60's to late 70's
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Professor of New Testament at the University of Zurich (Again, about as
Critical and liberal as they come)
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to AD 62 Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90
G. A. Wells (Hyper-skeptic), after AD 90 in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11

EZ,
Well done post.

Biker

It seems that Carm, being ultra conservative, does load their people with ultraconservative opinions. Even so, most of those DO have luke being written past 75.

And then they had to call someone a 'hyper-skeptic'.

Then, of course, they don't mention that some of those 'hyper-liberals' were early 19th century, and weren't exposed to modern evidence.

And STILL, even with all that bias, and misrepresentation, half the people have luke later that 80 c.e.

[Easyrider]

Cathar,
Since most New Testament scholars now presently believe that Luke wrote his Gospel in either 59 or 60 A.D. And it is universally agreed by scholars that Josephus did not start writing his works until well after 70 A.D. Doesn't it stand to reason and just plain common sense that "if" any copying went on, and (not many concur with your sources) that Josephus would have copied Luke's fine historical account?Wouldn't that be more plausible "if"?

Biker

That is a problem because most don't think it was written in either 59 or 60 but well after Mark which is later then you date for Luke. Josephus is well within the time range for the gospel of Luke and Acts. Some even give it 150 CE. I give it maybe 10 to 50 years before that. But most look at 80-100 with reservation.
Early Christian writings give a date between 80-130 while Josephus 93.

Nope.

Dating the Gospels, etc.

From: http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65), and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9

Scholars Date the Gospel of Luke:

Mark C. Black, Ph.D. AD 65 to 85
Believer's Study Bible, A date of A.D. 59–61 is most probable.
Hans Conzelmann, Th.D. AD 80 - 100 for Luke-Acts, with a likely range of AD 80 - 90 Professor of New Testament at Gottingem, ThD from Tubingen (Yet again, the recognized HEIGHT of European liberal Bibliccal-Critical Scholarship)
Author of one of THE BEST Critical, Academic Commentaries on Acts.
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D., AD 60 or 63, when Luke was in Caesarea
James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Before AD 62, perhaps between 58 and 60
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Norval Geldenhuys, Th.M. AD 64-65
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. AD 62 to 64
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 61-63
John Holland, Ph.D. AD 68-78
Professor of New Testament at Trinity College, Bristol England
Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. AD 80 - 85 for Luke (perhaps a bit earlier ...
he hedges toward 75 CE at times) - Professor of New Testament at Emory
University, Candler School of Theology
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 85
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 70 to 90
Richard C.H. Lenski, D.D. After AD 66, but before 70
I. Howard Marsall, Not far off A.D. 70
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
M.S. Mills, Ph.D. AD 53
John Nolland, Ph.D. late AD 60's to late 70's
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Professor of New Testament at the University of Zurich (Again, about as
Critical and liberal as they come)
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to AD 62 Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90
G. A. Wells (Hyper-skeptic), after AD 90 in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11

EZ,
Well done post.

Biker

It seems that Carm, being ultra conservative, does load their people with ultraconservative opinions. Even so, most of those DO have luke being written past 75.

And then they had to call someone a 'hyper-skeptic'.

Then, of course, they don't mention that some of those 'hyper-liberals' were early 19th century, and weren't exposed to modern evidence.

And STILL, even with all that bias, and misrepresentation, half the people have luke later that 80 c.e.

Stow the rhetoric on the bias and misrepresentation. The fact is nowhere in the Gospels or Acts ) or in many other NT works, are Nero's persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other events noted above recorded. For the die-hard skeptic, this is the enormous pink elephant in the room that they have to try to ignore.

[Goat]

Stow the rhetoric on the bias and misrepresentation. The fact is nowhere in the Gospels or Acts ) or in many other NT works, are Nero's persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other events noted above recorded. For the die-hard skeptic, this is the enormous pink elephant in the room that they have to try to ignore.

Yet, despite the handwaving and ignoring that J.P Holding has done, which is basically trying to explain away the similarities (rather unsuccessfully), the simularities beteween Luke and Josephus remain.


Do you think Goldbergs answer to the similarities and his explanation about why Luke did not copy Josehephus is credible?

[Easyrider]

Yet, despite the handwaving and ignoring that J.P Holding has done, which is basically trying to explain away the similarities (rather unsuccessfully), the simularities beteween Luke and Josephus remain.

You'll find that in any day and age, where various authors / historians use the (similar) vernacular of their day.

What you haven't shown is the first piece of evidence directly linking Luke to Josephus. There's no evidence that I know of where Luke ever read any of his material.

[Goat]

Yet, despite the handwaving and ignoring that J.P Holding has done, which is basically trying to explain away the similarities (rather unsuccessfully), the simularities beteween Luke and Josephus remain.

You'll find that in any day and age, where various authors / historians use the (similar) vernacular of their day.

What you haven't shown is the first piece of evidence directly linking Luke to Josephus. There's no evidence that I know of where Luke ever read any of his material.

Like I said.. the denial of the evidence. THat is the whole problem with the "apologistic" analsyis of 'J.P. Holding'.. the refusal to acknowledge the evidence.

The "jospehus' home page had an analsysi of just some of the similarities, although I disagree with his conclusions (he is a very strongly believing Christian, and is making some assumptions I don't think are correct).

[Biker]

Cathar,
Since most New Testament scholars now presently believe that Luke wrote his Gospel in either 59 or 60 A.D. And it is universally agreed by scholars that Josephus did not start writing his works until well after 70 A.D. Doesn't it stand to reason and just plain common sense that "if" any copying went on, and (not many concur with your sources) that Josephus would have copied Luke's fine historical account?Wouldn't that be more plausible "if"?

Biker

That is a problem because most don't think it was written in either 59 or 60 but well after Mark which is later then you date for Luke. Josephus is well within the time range for the gospel of Luke and Acts. Some even give it 150 CE. I give it maybe 10 to 50 years before that. But most look at 80-100 with reservation.
Early Christian writings give a date between 80-130 while Josephus 93.

Nope.

Dating the Gospels, etc.

From: http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65), and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9

Scholars Date the Gospel of Luke:

Mark C. Black, Ph.D. AD 65 to 85
Believer's Study Bible, A date of A.D. 59–61 is most probable.
Hans Conzelmann, Th.D. AD 80 - 100 for Luke-Acts, with a likely range of AD 80 - 90 Professor of New Testament at Gottingem, ThD from Tubingen (Yet again, the recognized HEIGHT of European liberal Bibliccal-Critical Scholarship)
Author of one of THE BEST Critical, Academic Commentaries on Acts.
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D., AD 60 or 63, when Luke was in Caesarea
James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Before AD 62, perhaps between 58 and 60
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Norval Geldenhuys, Th.M. AD 64-65
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. AD 62 to 64
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 61-63
John Holland, Ph.D. AD 68-78
Professor of New Testament at Trinity College, Bristol England
Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. AD 80 - 85 for Luke (perhaps a bit earlier ...
he hedges toward 75 CE at times) - Professor of New Testament at Emory
University, Candler School of Theology
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 85
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 70 to 90
Richard C.H. Lenski, D.D. After AD 66, but before 70
I. Howard Marsall, Not far off A.D. 70
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
M.S. Mills, Ph.D. AD 53
John Nolland, Ph.D. late AD 60's to late 70's
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Professor of New Testament at the University of Zurich (Again, about as
Critical and liberal as they come)
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to AD 62 Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80 to 85
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90
G. A. Wells (Hyper-skeptic), after AD 90 in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11

EZ,
Well done post.

Biker

It seems that Carm, being ultra conservative, does load their people with ultraconservative opinions. Even so, most of those DO have luke being written past 75.

And then they had to call someone a 'hyper-skeptic'.

Then, of course, they don't mention that some of those 'hyper-liberals' were early 19th century, and weren't exposed to modern evidence.

And STILL, even with all that bias, and misrepresentation, half the people have luke later that 80 c.e.

Goat,
Big deal. PHD= Piled High and Deep.Good things happen when the inerrant word of God gets in the hands of the common folk, added to a little faith, a humble heart, a repentant lifestyle, hot on the heels of God, surrendering themselves heart, mind, soul and strength, Jew and Greek, to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
I really don't need a phd to tell me anything, about God, its all conjecture anyhow.
Wouldn't you agree?


Biker

[Biker]

Stow the rhetoric on the bias and misrepresentation. The fact is nowhere in the Gospels or Acts ) or in many other NT works, are Nero's persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other events noted above recorded. For the die-hard skeptic, this is the enormous pink elephant in the room that they have to try to ignore.

Yet, despite the handwaving and ignoring that J.P Holding has done, which is basically trying to explain away the similarities (rather unsuccessfully), the simularities beteween Luke and Josephus remain.


Do you think Goldbergs answer to the similarities and his explanation about why Luke did not copy Josehephus is credible?

Goat,
We are saying its not important.
I think Goldberg is grinding his axe.All this is, is conjecture,speculation,voodoo.
The FACTS remain out there that the Gospels and Acts documents do not record the sack of the temple and Jerusalem, Nero, and the death of the original 12.
Now I consider that important.
Don't you see those major historical facts as at least conspicuous in their absence?

Biker

[Goat]

It seems that Carm, being ultra conservative, does load their people with ultraconservative opinions. Even so, most of those DO have luke being written past 75.

And then they had to call someone a 'hyper-skeptic'.

Then, of course, they don't mention that some of those 'hyper-liberals' were early 19th century, and weren't exposed to modern evidence.

And STILL, even with all that bias, and misrepresentation, half the people have luke later that 80 c.e.

Goat,
Big deal. PHD= Piled High and Deep.Good things happen when the inerrant word of God gets in the hands of the common folk, added to a little faith, a humble heart, a repentant lifestyle, hot on the heels of God, surrendering themselves heart, mind, soul and strength, Jew and Greek, to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
I really don't need a phd to tell me anything, about God, its all conjecture anyhow.
Wouldn't you agree?


Biker

When it is about God, then, yes, it is all conjecture.

When it is about scripture, then, no it is not. There is evidence about things. There is also lack of evidence about certain claims in scripture. When people base what they believe about God on scripture, then while the Scripture might be conjecture, the information about when the scripture was written , and the cultural background of the writer, that is not 'all conjecture' but conclusions based on evidence.

When it comes to what sentances mean, that is not 'all conjecture'. That is evidence that people might come to different conclusions on, but that is not all conjecture.

People base their beliefs about God, and about life on these scriptures. The beliefs might be all conjecture, but the history and what the scriptures say have a history that can be tracked.

[Goat]

Stow the rhetoric on the bias and misrepresentation. The fact is nowhere in the Gospels or Acts ) or in many other NT works, are Nero's persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other events noted above recorded. For the die-hard skeptic, this is the enormous pink elephant in the room that they have to try to ignore.

Yet, despite the handwaving and ignoring that J.P Holding has done, which is basically trying to explain away the similarities (rather unsuccessfully), the simularities beteween Luke and Josephus remain.


Do you think Goldbergs answer to the similarities and his explanation about why Luke did not copy Josehephus is credible?

Goat,
We are saying its not important.
I think Goldberg is grinding his axe.All this is, is conjecture,speculation,voodoo.
The FACTS remain out there that the Gospels and Acts documents do not record the sack of the temple and Jerusalem, Nero, and the death of the original 12.
Now I consider that important.
Don't you see those major historical facts as at least conspicuous in their absence?

Biker

Not at all... it is clues, but that is it.

That is the so called 'arguemetn from silence.'. While that is a clue, it is not the only clue.

And yes, the gospels DO indeed mention the destruction of the temple.. much muted.

There is also evidence from outside the gospels about when they were written, the
church 'tradition'. Ireneseas said the gospel of Mark was written by the disciple of Peter after Peter had died. If you accept what he says, that puts the earliest of the 3 synoptic gospels written after 65 c.e. Due to some of the comments he made , sucha s the 'little apcolapse', refering to the destruction of the Jewish Temple, that puts it after 70 c.e.

And the vast majority of Christian scholars feel that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. That puts them even later.

[Biker]

Stow the rhetoric on the bias and misrepresentation. The fact is nowhere in the Gospels or Acts ) or in many other NT works, are Nero's persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other events noted above recorded. For the die-hard skeptic, this is the enormous pink elephant in the room that they have to try to ignore.

Yet, despite the handwaving and ignoring that J.P Holding has done, which is basically trying to explain away the similarities (rather unsuccessfully), the simularities beteween Luke and Josephus remain.


Do you think Goldbergs answer to the similarities and his explanation about why Luke did not copy Josehephus is credible?

Goat,
We are saying its not important.
I think Goldberg is grinding his axe.All this is, is conjecture,speculation,voodoo.
The FACTS remain out there that the Gospels and Acts documents do not record the sack of the temple and Jerusalem, Nero, and the death of the original 12.
Now I consider that important.
Don't you see those major historical facts as at least conspicuous in their absence?

Biker

Not at all... it is clues, but that is it.

That is the so called 'arguemetn from silence.'. While that is a clue, it is not the only clue.

And yes, the gospels DO indeed mention the destruction of the temple.. much muted.

There is also evidence from outside the gospels about when they were written, the
church 'tradition'. Ireneseas said the gospel of Mark was written by the disciple of Peter after Peter had died. If you accept what he says, that puts the earliest of the 3 synoptic gospels written after 65 c.e. Due to some of the comments he made , sucha s the 'little apcolapse', refering to the destruction of the Jewish Temple, that puts it after 70 c.e.

And the vast majority of Christian scholars feel that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. That puts them even later.

Goat,
This is called majoring on the minors. You spend all your time on the unknowable.
The NT was written. It was written soon after Jesus departed. It is reliable. It contains the truth. The content is valuable even for a Jew. The truths it (NT) contain if acted upon, lived, done, are at the very least (even to a skeptic) good life changing truths, leading to righteousness, even if not believed (by a skeptic) in their entirety. Why this incessant arguing over details (insignificant ones) by you. Case in point the present Luke copied Josephus conjecture. This is pure speculation, it is unprovable. I think that there is no copying by either. If there was it would make more sense that Josephus copied Luke because I believe Luke was written long before Josephus. Can I prove it, no. Can you prove the other, no.
Is it knowable, no. Do I care, no. Is it important, no.
The NT stands on its own merit. It is inerrant.

Biker