What do you think the Good News of Jesus Christ is?

[sojourner]

All it points to is that there was likely an individual, or perhaps a few individuals that later got confused into one person, that served as the inspiration.

The King Arthur comparison shines bright here.

Now, granted, Jesus does have a bit more going for him that King Arthur, because the earliest accounts of Jesus were written a bit less than a century after his death, whereas I understand that the earliest accounts of King Arthur are many centuries after the Battle of Baden Hill.

Actually the source material for Jesus' quotations in Matthew and Luke were likely produced less than 7 years following the crucifixion.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually the source material for Jesus' quotations in Matthew and Luke were likely produced less than 7 years following the crucifixion.

I don't recall coming across that when I was doing my amateur Bible study, but that ended almost 5 years ago. Is this consensus more recent than that? Or did I miss something?

 

[Nada]

From my understanding,Matthew was written c.41 C.E. in Palestine and Luke c.56-58 C.E. in Caesarea.Jesus was killed in 33 C.E. ,so Matthew was 8 years after Christ was killed and Luke was 13 to 15 years after Christ was killed.

 

[outhouse]

I don't recall coming across that when I was doing my amateur Bible study, but that ended almost 5 years ago. Is this consensus more recent than that? Or did I miss something?

I myself, would ask him for sources on that one. [not apologetic ones either]

It is unsubstantiated, good call.

 

[outhouse]

From my understanding,Matthew was written c.41 C.E. in Palestine and Luke c.56-58 C.E. in Caesarea.Jesus was killed in 33 C.E. ,so Matthew was 8 years after Christ was killed and Luke was 13 to 15 years after Christ was killed.

Please provide sources.

Standard scholarships date this to roughly 80-90 but range from 70-110

 

[Nada]

Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.

It was evidently before writing the book of Acts that Luke completed his Gospel. (Ac 1:1, 2) Since he had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem at the end of the apostle’s third missionary journey
(Ac 21:15-17), he would have been in a good position to trace accurately the things pertaining to Jesus Christ in the very land where the Son of God had carried out his activity. Following Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem and during Paul’s later imprisonment in Caesarea, Luke would have had many opportunities to interview eyewitnesses and to consult written records. So it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel may have been written at Caesarea sometime during Paul’s confinement there for about two years (c. 56-58 C.E.).—Ac 21:30-33; 23:26-35; 24:27.

Sources:JW.ORG

 

[sojourner]

I don't recall coming across that when I was doing my amateur Bible study, but that ended almost 5 years ago. Is this consensus more recent than that? Or did I miss something?

This is grad school stuff. It has to do with extrapolating a time frame by comparing quotations that appear in both Q and Thomas.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, but many [permanent] documents about Jesus? you have to understand that most writing (when it was done at all) was done on wax tablets. But these documents are on material that was permanent. That implies -- not only that Jesus was real, but that he was an important person.

No. I'm saying that "any evidence -- no matter how 'insignificant' it may seem -- is enormous, given the context."

Yes, I understand what you are saying - but it is nonsense. You are saying that ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL counts as 'enormous'. Well of course it doesn't. You seem to think that the shortage of evidence counts as a wealth of evidence - which makes no sense at all.

Because it's there -- it exists. Writing such as this -- especially quotations -- simply didn't exist then, unless the individual was real and seen as important.

 

[sojourner]

Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.

It was evidently before writing the book of Acts that Luke completed his Gospel. (Ac 1:1, 2) Since he had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem at the end of the apostle’s third missionary journey
(Ac 21:15-17), he would have been in a good position to trace accurately the things pertaining to Jesus Christ in the very land where the Son of God had carried out his activity. Following Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem and during Paul’s later imprisonment in Caesarea, Luke would have had many opportunities to interview eyewitnesses and to consult written records. So it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel may have been written at Caesarea sometime during Paul’s confinement there for about two years (c. 56-58 C.E.).—Ac 21:30-33; 23:26-35; 24:27.

Sources:JW.ORG

Two huge problems here: One is that, while there is an "early Matthew camp," most respected scholars place Matthew much later than you cite here.

Second: Luke/Acts was originally one document. So, evidently, you're mistaken here.

One more thing: Your info is sourced from JW. There are numerous problems with their exegetical scholarship.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I understand what you are saying - but it is nonsense. You are saying that ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL counts as 'enormous'. Well of course it doesn't. You seem to think that the shortage of evidence counts as a wealth of evidence - which makes no sense at all.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer than I already have. Any evidence IS enormous, because written evidence simply didn't normally exist at that time. Nobody wrote anything permanent, unless it was official government business. To have accounts about Jesus in permanent written form is astounding. That evidence points to a high probability of Jesus' actual, historical existence.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know how I can make this any clearer than I already have. Any evidence IS enormous, because written evidence simply didn't normally exist at that time. Nobody wrote anything permanent, unless it was official government business. To have accounts about Jesus in permanent written form is astounding. That evidence points to a high probability of Jesus' actual, historical existence.

You have made yourself clear - I understand what you are saying.

My problem is that what you are saying is illogical - you seem to think that because there is any evidence of Jesus at all, therefore his historicity is all but certain.

Well that is nonsense. The fact that there is a tiny bit of evidence does not magically become a lot of evidence just because it exists at all.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is grad school stuff. It has to do with extrapolating a time frame by comparing quotations that appear in both Q and Thomas.

I know about the Q Gospel, but I understand it's primarily hypothetical; no known copies exist.

I suppose comparative vernacular could be used, but the time frames are too close for that to be reliable, since elders will be using their vernacular, while young people will be using theirs, regardless of the exact year, and both vernaculars will be somewhat distinct.

 

[Riverwolf]

Nobody wrote anything permanent, unless it was official government business.

I actually wonder as to the accuracy of that statement. Many of Paul's letters were just casual letters to friends.

 

[outhouse]

Sources:JW.ORG

Not credible.

 

[outhouse]

This is grad school stuff. It has to do with extrapolating a time frame by comparing quotations that appear in both Q and Thomas.

It is still apologetics more then actual scholarships.

Its like following Ben Witherington as creidble, much of his work is apologetics and some has merit. Its sad he ruins his credibility by overstating and riding the far end of the fence.

Thomas, we have no clue how early it is.

Q is hypothetical, and for all accounts could be Galilean or Johns the Baptist teachings.

It is only a collection of sayings attributed to, not known for sure.

 

[outhouse]

I actually wonder as to the accuracy of that statement. Many of Paul's letters were just casual letters to friends.

And they were for the most part, a community effort, not just Paul writing. Each epistle header tells you who else was involved.


A bit beyond casual epistles, this is known by the communities he was addressing, and the sheer amount of rhetoric used to try and persuade readers to render to Pauls authority under his devotion to the Lord.

 

[Bunyip]

It is still apologetics more then actual scholarships.

Its like following Ben Witherington as creidble, much of his work is apologetics and some has merit. Its sad he ruins his credibility by overstating and riding the far end of the fence.

Thomas, we have no clue how early it is.

Q is hypothetical, and for all accounts could be Galilean or Johns the Baptist teachings.

It is only a collection of sayings attributed to, not known for sure.

You need to get past simply dismissing everything on the basis of your view of the author. Try responding to the contents, to the argument - dismissing everything everyone posts because you dislike the source is the lowest possible form of rhetoric.

 

[Riverwolf]

And they were for the most part, a community effort, not just Paul writing. Each epistle header tells you who else was involved.


A bit beyond casual epistles, this is known by the communities he was addressing, and the sheer amount of rhetoric used to try and persuade readers to render to Pauls authority under his devotion to the Lord.

Well, I didn't really mean the formal epistles, but specifically ones such as to Timothy, which I recall definitely having a very casual air.

 

[outhouse]

I know about the Q Gospel, but I understand it's primarily hypothetical; no known copies exist.

I suppose comparative vernacular could be used, but the time frames are too close for that to be reliable, since elders will be using their vernacular, while young people will be using theirs, regardless of the exact year, and both vernaculars will be somewhat distinct.

We known nothing of Aramaic Judaism in Galilee, and have no writing at all to compare too.

What we do know is that tehre was very little Aramaic transliterations to state an Aramiac origin in Galilee by eyewitnesses.

By our best accounts, these sayings, were collections in Hellenistic communities in Koine believed to have been form. But once again, these have no historical tie to Galilee. We can only state the community compiling the gospel thought it went back to Galilee.

These authors and Q and Thomas, were far removed from any actual event or person, so I place very little faith. As a matter of fact, if this was written closer to his death, we would expect more historical accuracy, and as there is, we have very little that can be stated with any certainty.

 

[outhouse]

Well, I didn't really mean the formal epistles, but specifically ones such as to Timothy, which I recall definitely having a very casual air.

Sure

Each one stands in its own light upon closer inspection, context is key to each one.