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

[Riverwolf]

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.

And even then, the dates relative to the crucifixion assume that the historical "Jesus" was, in fact, crucified in the time frame we assume he was. It's not unfeasible, I think, that it may have been earlier or later than 33 CE.

 

[outhouse]

And even then, the dates relative to the crucifixion assume that the historical "Jesus" was, in fact, crucified in the time frame we assume he was. It's not unfeasible, I think, that it may have been earlier or later than 33 CE.

While I find that very correct, And agree whole hearted, I have also found no evidence for 32 or 34 to be any more compelling, so I stick with the traditional date.

 

[joelr]

Please pay attention. You're arguing a totally different point. However, your 313 AD date is absolute nonsense. See below:

--------------
1C. TESTS FOR INCLUDING A BOOK IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The basic factor for determining New Testament canonicity was inspiration by God, and its chief test, apostolicity. 32/181 Geisler and Nix amplify the above:

"In New Testament terminology, the church was 'built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (Eph. 2:20) whom Christ had promised to guide into 'all the truth' (John 16:13) by the Holy Spirit. The church at Jerusalem was said to have continued in the 'apostles' teaching and fellowship' (Acts 2:42). The term 'apostolic' as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean'apostolic authorship,' or 'that which was prepared under the direction of the apostles....'

"It seems much better to agree with Gaussen, Warfield, Charles Hodge, and most Protestants that it is apostolic authority, or apostolic approval, that was the primary test for canonicity and not merely apostolic authorship." 32/183

N.B. Stonehouse writes that the apostolic authority "which speaks forth in the New Testament is never detached from the authority of the Lord. In the Epistles there is consistent recognition that in the church there is only one absolute authority, the authority of the Lord himself. Wherever the apostles speak with authority, they do so as exercising the Lord's authority. Thus, for example, where Paul defends his authority as an apostle, he bases his claim solely and directly upon his commission by the Lord (Gal. 1 and 2); where he assumes the right to regulate the life of the church, he claims for his word the Lord's authority, even when no direct word of the Lord has been handed down (I Cor. 14:37; cf. I Cor. 7 : 1 0 ) . . . ." 88/117,118 "

The only one who speaks in the New Testament with an authority that is underived and self-authenticating is the Lord." 67/18

2C. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANONICAL BOOKS

1D. Three reasons for a need to determine a New Testament canon: 23/41

--IE. A heretic, Marcion (ca 140 A.D.), developed his own canon and began to propagate it. The church needed to offset his influence by determining what was the real canon of New Testament Scripture.

--2E. Many Eastern churches were using books in services that were definitely spurious. It called for a decision concerning the canon.

--3E. Edict of Diocletian (A.D. 303) declared the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians. Who wanted to die for just a religious book? They needed to know!

2D. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 367) gives us the earliest list of New Testament books which is exactly like our present New Testament. This list was in a festal letter to the churches.

3D. Shortly after Athanasius, two writers, Jerome and Augustine, define the canon of 27 books. 15/112

4D. Polycarp (A.D. 115), Clement and others refer to the Old and New Testament books with the phrase "as it is said in these scriptures."

5D. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), referring to the Eucharist, writes in his First Apology 1.67: "And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader has ceased the president presents admonition and invitation to the imitation of these good things." He adds in his Dialogue with Trypho (pp. 49,103,105,107) the formula "It is written," to quote from the Gospels. Both he and Trypho must have known to what "It is written" refers.

6D. Irenaeus (A.D. 180)
F. F. Bruce writes of the significance of Irenaeus:
"The importance of evidence lies in his link with the apostolic age and in his ecumenical associations. Brought up in Asia Minor at the feet of Polycarp, the disciple of John, he became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, A.D. 180. His writings attest the canonical recognition of the fourfold Gospel and Acts, of Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., and Titus, of I Peter and I John and of the Revelation. In his treatise, Against Heresies, III, ii, 8, it is evident that by A.D. 180 the idea of the fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic throughout Christendom that it could be referred to as an established fact as obvious and inevitable and natural as the four cardinal points of the compass (as we call them) or the four winds." 15/109

7D. Ignatius (A.D. 50-115): "I do not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles...." Trail. 3.3.

8D. The Church Councils. It is much the same situation as the Old Testament (see Chapter 3,6C, The Council of Jamnia).
F. F. Bruce states that "when at last a Church Council—The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 — listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. (The ruling of the Synod of Hippo was re-promulgated four years later by the Third Synod of Carthage.)" 15/113

Since this time, there has been no serious questioning of the 27 accepted books of the New Testament by either Roman Catholics or Protestants.

McDowell, Josh (1992-09-01). Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1: 001 (pp. 36-38). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

________________________
I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8, He so inspires it that it is difficult, if not impossible to mistranslate.

I meant 325, Council of Nicea. Rome made it law, of course it was printed many times?
That say's nothing about it's truth.

As far as dating:

"With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 ad/ce, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord.
In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

Ur-Markus (150)
Ur-Lukas (150+)
Luke (170)
Mark (175)
John (178)
Matthew (180)
To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts. Moreover, these dates correspond perfectly with Theophilus's bishopric of Antioch, which has been dated from about 168 to either 181 or 188 and during which the first definite indications of the canonical gospels begin to materialize.

After this time, in fact, the floodgates open up, with Irenaeus's canon, followed by gospel commentaries of all manner by Irenaeus, Tertullian , Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine, et al. At least three Church fathers, as we have seen, pointed to Gnostic heretics of the second century as some of the "many" in Luke's prologue, also verifying a late second-century date for the emergence of that gospel."


You have too many different historical writers to deal with individually. None of that evidence turns out to be anything in the way of historical proof to early gospel dates. It doesn't matter, the Christ mythos was written originally with them or added later, whatever.

 

[outhouse]

As far as dating:

.

It would be best to get an educated opinion from a credible source.


Your dating is not supported by anyone credible.

 

[sojourner]

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.

In this case, it does, because "a lot" is relative. In a world where written evidence of the existence of people is very, very scarce (to the point of being nonexistent), one or two documents does represent "a lot" of evidence, relative to "no documents at all." In a world where there are birth records, medical records, school records, blogs, email, snail mail, census records, genealogical records, credit receipts, contracts, driver's licenses, insurance policies, deeds of ownership, photo IDs, social security records, tax records, etc., however, one or two documents =/= "a lot" of evidence relative to "a glut of documents."

 

[savagewind]

In this case, it does, because "a lot" is relative. In a world where written evidence of the existence of people is very, very scarce (to the point of being nonexistent), one or two documents does represent "a lot" of evidence, relative to "no documents at all." In a world where there are birth records, medical records, school records, blogs, email, snail mail, census records, genealogical records, credit receipts, contracts, driver's licenses, insurance policies, deeds of ownership, photo IDs, social security records, tax records, etc., however, one or two documents =/= "a lot" of evidence relative to "a glut of documents."

The frubal machine is not working for you. Here; FRUBAL

 

[Nada]

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.

The opening words of Acts refer to the Gospel of Luke as “the first account.” And since both accounts are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, we know that Luke, though not signing his name, was the writer of Acts. (Lu 1:3; Ac 1:1) Both accounts have a similar style and wording. The Muratorian Fragment of the late second century C.E. also attributes the writership to Luke. Ecclesiastical writings of the second century C.E. by Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage, when quoting from Acts, cite Luke as the writer.
The book of Luke and Acts were not originally one document.That is a misconception.It was just the same writer,Luke.

Just because some scholars place Matthews writings at a later date does not make them correct.

What you might see as numerous problems with the JW source, might actually be, a lack of understanding on your part,or that of others.

 

[outhouse]

we know that Luke, though not signing his name, was the writer of Acts.
.

No we don't know who the author or community was.

 

[sojourner]

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.

It is hypothetical, but it makes sense, given the shared quotations between disparate writings. And, assuming Q solves more than a few exegetical problems.
Most scholars operate from the Q camp, lending it further credence in exegetical endeavor.

 

[sojourner]

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

Paul's letters notwithstanding, permanently-written documents (outside government business) was lost nil during that time in that region.

 

[sojourner]

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.

No. It's not apologetics. It's part of a widely-accepted exegetical treatment of the synoptics.

 

[sojourner]

The book of Luke and Acts were not originally one document.That is a misconception.It was just the same writer,Luke.

Most eminent and credible NT scholars disagree with you. Luke/Acts was one document, written as a history, whose concern is the world in light of the Christian movement. There are three parts to that history: prior to Jesus, during the time of Jesus, and Acts, which recounts how the post-Jesus world is changed by the church. The history only makes sense as a history, if all three parts are included. The documents were almost certainly originally two parts of a larger work.

Just because some scholars place Matthews writings at a later date does not make them correct.

Most credible scholars date Matthew between 80-95 c.e.

What you might see as numerous problems with the JW source, might actually be, a lack of understanding on your part,or that of others.

Uh, no. It's not a "lack of understanding on [my] part." There's a very good reason why JW "scholars" are not included in the set of peer-reviewed biblical scholars. Their scholarship has a certain apologetic agenda and is highly biased.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is hypothetical, but it makes sense, given the shared quotations between disparate writings. And, assuming Q solves more than a few exegetical problems.
Most scholars operate from the Q camp, lending it further credence in exegetical endeavor.

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe the Q document to be a possibility.

Just pointing out that we can't really say for certain when it may have been written.

Paul's letters notwithstanding, permanently-written documents (outside government business) was lost nil during that time in that region.

Well, being lost doesn't mean nonexistence. Times were not terribly great at that time.

 

[Sonofason]

I never said I am not responsible for my own actions. I am merely referring to how theism in general and specifically Christianity ruins any meaning to life. As a Christian I had no reason to even be on this earth, I would die and go to heaven. Anything I did was solely for my own benefit, so that I could go to heaven.

No you were never a Christian.
A Christian does not think like that.

You are completely responsible for your own actions.
Following Christ never ruins life.
Christians have very good cause to be on this earth.
And it has absolutely nothing at all to do with their own benefit.

There is nothing you can do to merit heaven. It is by God's grace that anyone is saved at all.

 

[Sonofason]

Ever hear of the Apocalypse of Peter?

Please address the verse of scripture which states that "people innocent of evil behavior should be condemned to a lake of fire to burn forever in eternity".

 

[gnostic]

I'm afraid that your definition of Christianity is tainted by Christendom. Please don't confuse the two. Your sole reason for being on this earth has nothing to do with going to heaven. In fact when God first placed mankind on earth, no one was going to heaven and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not even in the equation.

Man's permanent home was meant to be in paradise on earth, with no sickness, ageing, suffering or death. When the kingdom has accomplished all that it was sent to do, then everything will go back to the way it was.

If man had never disobeyed the only command to carry the death penalty, Adam and his wife would still be alive today with all their offspring. No savior would have been necessary and no kingdom would have been needed to reconcile fallen humanity back with their Creator. What we lost in Genesis is given back to us in Revelation. (Rev 21:1-5)

If that's true, and no one die, then eventually the Earth will be overpopulated, and people will begin starving and suffer, but can't die.

 

[sojourner]

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe the Q document to be a possibility.

Just pointing out that we can't really say for certain when it may have been written.

We can't say much of anything "for certain" where the bible is concerned. But, using some given assumptions (the existence of Q, and the opinion from most scholars that Thomas was written early), and the fact that there are quotations common to both and Thomas, and given the distance of the two communities of origin (Galilee for Q and Syria for Thomas), there must have been a common community that curated these quotations of Jesus, and that community must have split very early -- prior to the year 40 c.e., in order for the Thomas community to get to Syria and become established enough to begin producing written material. Assuming that Jesus was crucified about the year 33 c.e., the production of the quotations was less than 7 years. It's not certain, but it is feasible.

Well, being lost doesn't mean nonexistence. Times were not terribly great at that time.

My quotation was supposed to read "almost nil."

 

[Katzpur]

If that's true, and no one die, then eventually the Earth will be overpopulated, and people will begin starving and suffer, but can't die.

Yeah, JWs conveniently forget that fact.

 

[savagewind]

Yeah, JWs conveniently forget that fact.

No. Sex is going to go out of fashion. Haha

 

[Riverwolf]

Please address the verse of scripture which states that "people innocent of evil behavior should be condemned to a lake of fire to burn forever in eternity".

I did. I provided the passage from the Apocalypse of Peter.