|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 21:31:49 GMT -5
Mmmmm - I don't think so ... snow maintains that the gospel accounts were written AFTER the destruction of the Temple She also says that Acts was written before the gospels (if I read correctly). She hasn't yet shown us any widely accepted sources to support her claims. Anything that tells about the destruction of Jerusalem was NOT written before the destruction.Yes. I know. snow is the one saying that the Gospels were written after the destruction and that Acts was written before the gospels. She has provided no sources for either of those statements. Yes, that's a pretty normal description of how the 4 gospels were compiled. Mark is supposed to be first and is compiled from several sources one being the never found gospel of Q. None of them were written by the names in their title and all of them were written after the fall of Jerusalem. That's one of the reasons why referring to Jesus foretelling the fall of Jerusalem is likely an addition especially since they were written after the fall. It would be much easier to 'foretell' after the fact and add it to the text to enhance Jesus' capabilities. This was the start of a new religion and so there definitely was an agenda to how things were told about their leader. That's how I see it anyway, and I'm not alone. What credible sources verify this statement? Pretty much all sources think that. Very few date them before the fall. Acts being one that possibly was. I guess it all boils down to what you consider credible so it doesn't much matter in your case. You choose to believe nothing is credible if it doesn't meet the Catholic story. So for you, there are no credible sources.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 12, 2013 21:32:54 GMT -5
If you've heard of John A. T. Robinson, he is one scholar who proposes that they were written before the war. He started his research as a joke, trying to argue against overwhelming opposition that the gospels were dated early, and seemed to convince himself to the point of publishing his own book a dozen years or so ago. He's now known as sort of a maverick among scholars for his bizarre conclusion of early dating, yet still highly respected.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 12, 2013 21:38:40 GMT -5
StAnne, nearly all Bible scholars agree that Matthew/Luke/John were written after the war. This is simply common knowledge in academic circles. Mark is a little less clear; it may have been written during the war. John appears to have an early tradition embedded within it as well, often called the Book of Signs. The book of John also indicates a higher Christology of Jesus -- more typical of later traditions than of earlier traditions.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 21:40:52 GMT -5
If you've heard of John A. T. Robinson, he is one scholar who proposes that they were written before the war. He started his research as a joke, trying to argue against overwhelming opposition that the gospels were dated early, and seemed to convince himself to the point of publishing his own book a dozen years or so ago. He's now known as sort of a maverick among scholars for his bizarre conclusion of early dating, yet still highly respected. Earlier is fine with me for this discussion - since my point is that it is widely agreed upon that they were written before 70AD. Robinson dated the composition of Matthew from 40 to 60, using dots to indicate the traditions behind the text, dashes to indicate a first draft, and a continuous line to indicate writing and rewriting. Similarly, he dated Mark from 45 to 60, Luke from 55 to 62, and John from 40 to 65. www.jmm.org.au/articles/14452.htm
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 12, 2013 21:42:48 GMT -5
If you've heard of John A. T. Robinson, he is one scholar who proposes that they were written before the war. He started his research as a joke, trying to argue against overwhelming opposition that the gospels were dated early, and seemed to convince himself to the point of publishing his own book a dozen years or so ago. He's now known as sort of a maverick among scholars for his bizarre conclusion of early dating, yet still highly respected. Why would that be considered bizarre - since it is widely agreed upon that they were written before 70AD? It simply isn't, StAnne. Not in academic circles, as I said. Perhaps it is among conservative catholic leaders.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 12, 2013 21:45:25 GMT -5
Anything that tells about the destruction of Jerusalem was NOT written before the destruction. Yes. I know. snow is the one saying that the Gospels were written after the destruction and that Acts was written before the gospels. She has provided no sources for either of those statements. Such sources are almost as easy to find as a source for the statement "The Book of Acts is in the Bible." There are a specifically identified category of people who have not yet accepted Snow's statement. It's easy enough to find scholars who will tell you that.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 12, 2013 21:52:29 GMT -5
This, from wikpedia, may help clear up the confusion:
Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows: Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36] Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36] Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36] John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates ... Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible: Matthew: c. 50 to 70s Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
So we see, as usual, two sides: 1) current-day Bible scholars, and 2) traditional believers.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 21:53:41 GMT -5
Why would that be considered bizarre - since it is widely agreed upon that they were written before 70AD? It simply isn't, StAnne. Not in academic circles, as I said. Perhaps it is among conservative catholic leaders. AFAIK there is no Catholic doctrine binding us to a particular year in which any book of the Bible was written.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 21:58:44 GMT -5
This, from wikpedia, may help clear up the confusion: Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows: Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36] Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36] Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36] John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition. Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates ... Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible: Matthew: c. 50 to 70s Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70 So we see, as usual, two sides: 1) current-day Bible scholars, and 2) traditional believers. And so very, very odd that if they were written after the destruction of the Temple that there is nothing written about it.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 22:11:07 GMT -5
Trivia ... Earlier Than 64AD It is reasonable to conclude that the Book of Acts was completed prior to 64AD. Luke, the author of the text, says nothing about the Jewish war with the Romans that started in 66AD, and he says nothing about the destruction of the temple nor the persecution of the Church that occurred under the Roman army in the mid-60’s. Many of the expressions used by Luke in the Book of Acts are very early and primitive and fit well into the context of Palestine prior to the fall of the temple. In addition, Luke says nothing about the martyrdom of James (that occurred in 61AD), the martyrdom of Paul (that occurred in 64AD) or the martyrdom of Peter (that occurred in 65AD). In fact, Paul is still alive a the end of the Book of Acts. It is reasonable, therefore, to date the writing of Acts prior to 64AD.
pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-early-eyewitnesses-of-jesus/
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 13, 2013 0:08:35 GMT -5
This, from wikpedia, may help clear up the confusion: Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows: Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36] Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36] Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36] John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition. Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates ... Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible: Matthew: c. 50 to 70s Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70 So we see, as usual, two sides: 1) current-day Bible scholars, and 2) traditional believers. And so very, very odd that if they were written after the destruction of the Temple that there is nothing written about it. The fact that it is not written about is no evidence that it did not happen. All it means is that it wasn't written about. If it IS written about, it would mean that it had already taken place. Lots has been written since 9-11 that has not included mention of 9-11 -- it doesn't mean 9-11 had not happened by the time of the writing. The fact that someone mentions 9-11 in writing does mean that it already happened. There are MANY things that happened that NEVER got mentioned in all the gospels. It doesn't seem likely that the authors of these documents had editors checking the writing for appropriate inclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 13, 2013 10:58:42 GMT -5
Matthew 23:35 is my favorite reference to a precise event that happened during the war.
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Josephus tells about this event, how Zacharias son of Barachias died, in The War of the Jews. Can you imagine scripture really predicting a man's death like that, if it was written before it happened? Ha, I'd hate to be Zacharias, living with that over my head.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 11:18:08 GMT -5
Matthew 23:35 is my favorite reference to a precise event that happened during the war. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.Josephus tells about this event, how Zacharias son of Barachias died, in The War of the Jews. Can you imagine scripture really predicting a man's death like that, if it was written before it happened? Ha, I'd hate to be Zacharias, living with that over my head. Pulpit Commentary (1) The words, "son of Barachias" may be an early interpolation, introduced by a copyist who was thinking of the minor prophet. They are omitted by the first correcter of the Sinaitic Manuscript, are not found in the parallel passage of St. Luke (Luke 11:51), and Jerome remarks that in the 'Gospel of the Nazarenes' was read "son of Joiada." biblehub.com/matthew/23-35.htm
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible ... it remains, that it must be Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, who was slain in the court of the house of the Lord, 2 Chronicles 24:20 who, as Abel was the first, he is the last of the righteous men whose death is related in the Scriptures, and for whose blood vengeance was required, as for Abel's. He was slain in the court of the house of the Lord; and so the Ethiopic version here renders it, in the midst of the holy house. ...And elsewhere they say (d), that they
"slew a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary; this is Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. biblehub.com/matthew/23-35.htm
Haydock Of Zacharias, the son of Barachias.[2] Some think this was Zachary, numbered among the lesser prophets, whose father's name was Barachias; but we do not read of his being murdered in this manner. The more common opinion is, that here is meant Zachary, who, preaching to the people, (2 Paralipomenon xxiv. 20,) was stoned to death in the very place where Christ was now speaking. But there he is called the son of Joiada, and not of Barachias. Some conjecture his father might have had both names; and St. Jerome tells us, that in an ancient copy of St. Matthew, called the Gospel of the Nazarenes, he found this Zacharias, of whom our Saviour speaks, called the son of Joiada. (Witham) --- St. Jerome gives another reason why he might have been called the son of Barachias, and not the son of Joiada, and this is to commend the sanctity of the father; for Barachias is interpreted the blessed of the Lord. Others suppose that he was the 11th of the 12 prophets; but it is not mentioned that he was slain between the temple and the altar. Some surmise that it was the father of the Baptist, collecting from the apocryphal writings that he was killed for preaching the arrival of the Redeemer: but that he was the son of Joiada, otherwise called Barachias, is the common opinion. (St. Jerome) --- That upon you may come, &c. Not that they should suffer more than their own sins richly deserved; but that the justice of God should now fall upon them with such a final vengeance once for all, as might comprise all the different kinds of judgments and punishments, that had at any time before been inflicted for the shedding of just blood. (Challoner)
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 13, 2013 11:25:54 GMT -5
lol. StAnne, how about reading the scripture in context? The next verse reads:
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
And the two verses after that makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.
So even if you don't believe what Josephus wrote, or somehow think Matthew refers to a different Zacharias, you still have to believe that it is talking about an event which occurs during the war.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 11:50:44 GMT -5
lol. StAnne, how about reading the scripture in context? The next verse reads: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.And the two verses after that makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. So even if you don't believe what Josephus wrote, or somehow think Matthew refers to a different Zacharias, you still have to believe that it is talking about an event which occurs during the war. Haydock Ver. 36. Amen, I say to you. More severe punishments were inflicted on these Jews, on account of their more grievous and heinous transgressions; for nothing had been able to recall them from their wickedness. They had the example of their ancestors before their eyes, continually irritating the wrath of God; yet all they had suffered for their crimes, could not incite them to leave their sinful ways; but they proceeded further than their ancestors in impiety, and ought therefore to receive a more severe condemnation. Thus though Lamech had not killed a brother, but had neglected to be more prudent after the exemplary punishment of Cain, he still cried out: Seven-fold punishment is taken of Cain, but of Lamech seventy times seven. (Genesis iv.) (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxiii.) Pulpit Commentary Verse 36. - All these things. All the crimes committed by their forefathers shall be visited upon this generation by the destruction of the Jewish city and polity, which took place within forty years from this time. The blood of the past was required from the Jews of the present time, because they and their evil ancestors were of one family, and were to be dealt with as a whole. In spite of the teaching of history and example, in spite of the warnings of Christ and his apostles, they were bent on repeating the acts of their forefathers, and that in an aggravated form and against increased light and knowledge. The punishment here announced is the temporal award. Christ here says nothing of the final judgment. biblehub.com/matthew/23-36.htm
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 11:57:32 GMT -5
lol. StAnne, how about reading the scripture in context? The next verse reads: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.And the two verses after that makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. So even if you don't believe what Josephus wrote, or somehow think Matthew refers to a different Zacharias, you still have to believe that it is talking about an event which occurs during the war. Haydock Ver. 36. Amen, I say to you. More severe punishments were inflicted on these Jews, on account of their more grievous and heinous transgressions; for nothing had been able to recall them from their wickedness. They had the example of their ancestors before their eyes, continually irritating the wrath of God; yet all they had suffered for their crimes, could not incite them to leave their sinful ways; but they proceeded further than their ancestors in impiety, and ought therefore to receive a more severe condemnation. Thus though Lamech had not killed a brother, but had neglected to be more prudent after the exemplary punishment of Cain, he still cried out: Seven-fold punishment is taken of Cain, but of Lamech seventy times seven. (Genesis iv.) (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxiii.) Pulpit Commentary Verse 36. - All these things. All the crimes committed by their forefathers shall be visited upon this generation by the destruction of the Jewish city and polity, which took place within forty years from this time. The blood of the past was required from the Jews of the present time, because they and their evil ancestors were of one family, and were to be dealt with as a whole. In spite of the teaching of history and example, in spite of the warnings of Christ and his apostles, they were bent on repeating the acts of their forefathers, and that in an aggravated form and against increased light and knowledge. The punishment here announced is the temporal award. Christ here says nothing of the final judgment.
Gill all these things shall come upon this generation; all the things which Christ had foretold should come to pass in the present age; as that the apostles and ministers of the word he should send to them, some of them they would kill and crucify, and others they would scourge in their synagogues, or persecute from place to place; and all the horrible murders and bloodshed in any age, committed by that people, would be placed to the account of the men of that generation; and the guilt of them imputed to them, and the punishment due unto them be inflicted on them. And which came to pass, and had its full accomplishment about forty years after this, in the utter destruction of Jerusalem, and the whole nation; so that many now living were personally involved in that temporal ruin, as well as escaped not the damnation of hell, Matthew 23:33. biblehub.com/matthew/23-36.htm
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 14:53:27 GMT -5
Show us credible - and widely accepted by mainstream Christianity pls - sources that verify the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. There is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Acts either. Acts was written by Luke; written AFTER the gospel of Luke. faune already posted a wiki site that pretty much states what mainstream credible bible scholars believe. Acts was written before Luke and it wasn't written by Luke. Again, I'm not needing to get into the conversation about what you find credible. I know what you find credible. Anything that duplicates and confirms what the Roman Catholic Church says. I just happen to not agree with them. You do. End of story. AFAIK faune showed us nothing that says Acts of the Apostles was written before Gospel of Luke. Don't you understand that doesn't make sense. Luke covers the life of Jesus. Acts covers the events after Jesus ascended to heaven Just show us your sources accepted by mainstream Christianity that say Acts was written after Luke. (I'm thinking you're stalling and repeating over and over because you are unable to do so ...)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 15:14:29 GMT -5
snow, you know what? I don't even care when Acts was written vs when Luke was written. It is also thought that it may have been written as one account and then divided as we know it. So. It doesn't matter which was written first.
What does matter is that we take heed to what is written and what is binding upon us from those writings. So that is what I leave with you. God's blessings upon you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2013 15:49:11 GMT -5
Matthew 23:35 is my favorite reference to a precise event that happened during the war. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.Josephus tells about this event, how Zacharias son of Barachias died, in The War of the Jews. Can you imagine scripture really predicting a man's death like that, if it was written before it happened? Ha, I'd hate to be Zacharias, living with that over my head. Interesting that all of that could very easily & accurately be "predicted" when it happened after it actually had happened!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2013 15:52:31 GMT -5
snow, you know what? I don't even care when Acts was written vs when Luke was written. It is also thought that it may have been written as one account and then divided as we know it. So. It doesn't matter which was written first. What does matter is that we take heed to what is written and what is binding upon us from those writings. So that is what I leave with you. God's blessings upon you. Well, of course, you wouldn't care, stanne!
Just as long as it is Catholic doctrine it doesn't matter to you if it is in error or not, right?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 16:00:06 GMT -5
snow, you know what? I don't even care when Acts was written vs when Luke was written. It is also thought that it may have been written as one account and then divided as we know it. So. It doesn't matter which was written first. What does matter is that we take heed to what is written and what is binding upon us from those writings. So that is what I leave with you. God's blessings upon you. Well, of course, you wouldn't care, stanne!
Just as long as it is Catholic doctrine it doesn't matter to you if it is in error or not, right?
Ah. Attack - when you have nothing better to say? There is no specific Catholic doctrine under discussion here - unless you're aware of something I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2013 16:03:25 GMT -5
Well, of course, you wouldn't care, stanne!
Just as long as it is Catholic doctrine it doesn't matter to you if it is in error or not, right?
To what Catholic doctrine do you refer? The RCC, of course! Isn't that the one to which you belong?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 16:09:33 GMT -5
To what Catholic doctrine do you refer? The RCC, of course! Isn't that the one to which you belong?
Yes. There are a good number of them many of which are held by mainstream Christianity. Which are you pre-supposing to be in error? Why don't you PM me - or new thread - doesn't belong here.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 13, 2013 18:14:18 GMT -5
No, StAnne is right, Acts is generally considered the second half of a two-part work by the same author, beginning with Luke's Gospel. It is the observation that Acts seems to not know about the destruction of the temple, and ends while Paul is still alive, that is used as evidence that the Gospel of Luke is a pre-war. It's a reasonable argument ... if only there weren't so much evidence that the Gospels were written late.
There is a recent trend to dating both Luke and Acts now in the second century, as many scholars are convinced that both of them depend upon the writings of Josephus. If true, that would make Luke the final gospel written.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 13, 2013 20:20:47 GMT -5
It's very amusing how many people scream "sources please" -- then accept anything in the Bible to be absolute infallible uncontestable truth -- forget the source.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2013 20:43:02 GMT -5
Well, of course, you wouldn't care, stanne!
Just as long as it is Catholic doctrine it doesn't matter to you if it is in error or not, right?
Ah. Attack - when you have nothing better to say? There is no specific Catholic doctrine under discussion here - unless you're aware of something I'm not. Well, of course, you wouldn't care, stanne!
Just as long as it is Catholic doctrine it doesn't matter to you if it is in error or not, right?
[/quote ]Ah. Attack - when you have nothing better to say? There is no specific Catholic doctrine under discussion here - unless you're aware of something I'm not. No, I'm not attacking, just answering your statement where you said:
"snow, you know what? I don't even care when Acts was written vs when Luke was written."
If you "didn't care", why do you keep arguing so vehemently for your position on the subject?
Why should I pm you or why do I need to start a new "thread"?
I'm on the subject!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 13, 2013 22:00:37 GMT -5
No, StAnne is right, Acts is generally considered the second half of a two-part work by the same author, beginning with Luke's Gospel. Thanks, DD. Appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 15, 2013 15:47:09 GMT -5
Here's something interesting I discovered today from reviewing these sacred texts from the past and one fact will shock you as it did me concerning reincarnation and the pre-existence of the soul being taught within the early church as doctrine. I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church actually taught this spiritual concept up until A.D. 553, until a reigning Pope changed his mind on the subject and began to call it heresy. The story is quite interesting to read and I never thought I would discover such a find from my research. www.near-death.com/experiences/origen03.html
|
|