Total Posts:298|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Matthew 24 concerns Jerusalem's Destruction

PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 1:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is how this thread originated:

Peter wrote:
Dee-em wrote:
Peter wrote:
Dee-em wrote:

Jerusalem was prophesied to be destroyed both in the OT and NT. The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 makes this evident and outlines the events that would take place. We know as fact that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.

Do you agree so far? If not then produce your evidence that the Bible does not teach this and/or that this did not happen.

I don't think you understand the burden of proof. Lol.

Not the question I asked. Can you understand what I asked???

Yes, you asked me to produce evidence that the Bible does not contain text which could be interpreted as prophecy if it was written earlier than 70AD.

I asked you to tell me if you agreed that Jerusalem was prophesied to be destroyed in the Bible, and in AD 70 since Jesus was speaking of this 1st century generation. I did not ask you to produce evidence, I just asked you if you agreed with what I said.

If it was written later than AD 70 then such a prophecy would have failed, yet I believe that the whole OT and NT confirms this is not the case.

Your burden is to show that this text is indeed a prophecy of the fall of the temple in Jerusalem and that it was indeed written prior to 70AD. Start a new thread and go for it. I have no burden. There is no copy of any gospel that is dated prior to late 2nd century or 3rd century. Therefore a rejection of the supernatural is perfectly justified.

My first task is to provide a backdrop for the prophesies in Matthew 24 and throughout the NT. The backdrop is God's covenant relationship with OT Israel and what was prophesied to happen if Israel became apostate to all she had agreed to in following God. This can be demonstrated yet you will have to take my word for it for now.

Throughout the OT we see Israel constantly following other gods and abandoning their relationship to God, yet He sent prophets to warn them and turn from these idols, and how they shed the innocent blood of these prophets. Yet there was a remnant of the people who always remained faithful to God. To this OT people He sent His Son.

Galatians 4:4
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

He also came to judge apostate Israel.

Matthew 23:31-39
31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, ... 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Lament over Jerusalem

37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!


Jerusalem is attributed to the killing of all the prophets God sent to her. To it and the land of Judea God is going to bring His wrath. Matthew 23 is a prelude to Matthew 24. In it Jesus says that not one stone of the temple will be left on another. His disciples ask when this will be, what will be the sign of His coming and the end of the age. The end of the age can be none other than the age of the Old Covenant. This too can be confirmed by many Scriptures. Jesus says that all He prophesied in the discourse would come upon this generation.

My first evidence is that this prophecy can fit no other time than that of AD 70. A generation is defined in Hebrews 3 as being 40 years as well as in other OT Scriptures. In fact Hebrews compares the events of that generation to the 1st Exodus when they left Egypt. In the OT you have types and shadows that point to the NT, the fulfillment of everything not yet fulfilled. This too can be demonstrated more fully. In Exodus we have Moses leading these people out of the bondage of Egypt to the Promised Land, yet they will not enter because their lack of faith. So because of their disbelief the whole generation except for a couple perish. The NT writer of Hebrews warns this people not to be of the same disbelief or they too will perish during the course of this generation. So here we see the Second Moses, the second Exodus, and One who is able to bring these people into the Promised Land, the heavenly country, the New Jerusalem - Jesus. This happens in AD 70.

My second line of evidence is that for an OT people that Jesus came to their heaven and earth, their relationship with God revolved around the temple, priesthood, feast days and animal sacrifices for the atonement of their sins. After AD 70 this is no longer possible. Everything required is gone, never to be seen again for after AD 70 the NT is the covenant that God honors. So if these books were written after AD 70 then it is amazing that there is not even one mention of the destruction of the temple and city as Jesus prophesied. Not one mention of anything like this as already happening yet a constant warning that it is about to happen and a warning to flee from the coming wrath, the sanctions of disobedience required of OT law.

When God made the Old Covenant with Israel these people agreed to follow Him with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. One of the curses for disobedience was that God would destroy their city.

Deuteronomy 28:16
"Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.


Deuteronomy 4:25-27 (NASB)

25 "When you become the father of children and children"s children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God so as to provoke Him to anger, 26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it. You shall not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed. 27 The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord drives you.


Now here is Luke's record of Jesus' words of the Discourse,

Luke 21:20-24 (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


These are the first two evidences, lots more to come. Now dispute them.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 7:44:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hold your horses. Before one can talk about prophecy, we must establish some rules.

These rules come from Atheism and Naturalism by Nicholas Covington.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.

They seem fairly reasonable. Do you agree?

Note: I may not post here since I am still waiting for someone to show that Biblical prophecy is not impossible. As I've already said you are putting the cart before the horse.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 10:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 7:44:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
Hold your horses. Before one can talk about prophecy, we must establish some rules.

These rules come from Atheism and Naturalism by Nicholas Covington.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.

The prophecy is anything but vague. I already claimed it radiated to every part of the Bible, like spokes from a hub.

2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.

How will you do that? Who will you believe? Will you believe the evidence from the 66 books? Will you believe that Daniel was written before the NT, or Isaiah, or the other books of the OT? Can you prove otherwise and how good is the scholarship? Can you prove the NT was written after AD 70? What kind of evidence do you have to rest your case on? Let's see it and see how logically consistent it is.

3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.

My case is that they have been fulfilled completely. These prophesies are not false.

4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.

How would you determine that? The history that we have confirms them. Is that acceptable to you? Do you view the biblical books as historical evidence?

5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.

How could Daniel fulfill prophesies that were not relevant for his time? Which books of the NT can you identify as being written before AD 70? What is your evidence for this?

They seem fairly reasonable. Do you agree?

If I'm understanding them correctly I can work with them. I'll be interested to see who your expert sources will be. I may ask from time to time.

Note: I may not post here since I am still waiting for someone to show that Biblical prophecy is not impossible. As I've already said you are putting the cart before the horse.

No, your whole worldview is doing that - pulling the cart before the horse.

Are you saying that after the trouble I have been through and am willing to go through to show you this evidence you are just going to ignore it and my argument? If so you just confirm that atheists really have very little idea or knowledge of the Bible and what it teaches, yet reject it and misrepresent it on this miniscule evidence they claim to know and have.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 1:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 10:40:58 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/21/2014 7:44:20 AM, dee-em wrote:

Note: I may not post here since I am still waiting for someone to show that Biblical prophecy is not impossible. As I've already said you are putting the cart before the horse.

No, your whole worldview is doing that - pulling the cart before the horse.

What?

Are you saying that after the trouble I have been through and am willing to go through to show you this evidence you are just going to ignore it and my argument? If so you just confirm that atheists really have very little idea or knowledge of the Bible and what it teaches, yet reject it and misrepresent it on this miniscule evidence they claim to know and have.

Me: Unassisted human flight is impossible. We can't discuss how Peter Pan flies to Neverland until we address this question.
Peter: No, we don't need to show how human flight is possible. Let's talk about flying to Neverland.
Me: But you are putting the cart before the horse.
Peter: No, your whole worldview is doing that.
Me: That makes no sense.
Peter: Can we discuss flying to Neverland now, please?
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:11:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 1:52:07 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:40:58 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/21/2014 7:44:20 AM, dee-em wrote:

Note: I may not post here since I am still waiting for someone to show that Biblical prophecy is not impossible. As I've already said you are putting the cart before the horse.

No, your whole worldview is doing that - pulling the cart before the horse.

What?

Are you saying that after the trouble I have been through and am willing to go through to show you this evidence you are just going to ignore it and my argument? If so you just confirm that atheists really have very little idea or knowledge of the Bible and what it teaches, yet reject it and misrepresent it on this miniscule evidence they claim to know and have.

Me: Unassisted human flight is impossible. We can't discuss how Peter Pan flies to Neverland until we address this question.
Peter: No, we don't need to show how human flight is possible. Let's talk about flying to Neverland.
Me: But you are putting the cart before the horse.
Peter: No, your whole worldview is doing that.
Me: That makes no sense.
Peter: Can we discuss flying to Neverland now, please?

I do not have the foggiest of what you are on about.

How do you get conscious mind from a mindless non conscious universe? You don't know but your cart is pulling it.

Do you have enough knowledge to dispute Bible prophecy or not? If not then do not presume that you can disprove it. You keep trying to worm out of discussing it and I can't blame you because of your dismal understanding of it.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 3:00:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:11:07 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 1:52:07 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:40:58 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/21/2014 7:44:20 AM, dee-em wrote:

Note: I may not post here since I am still waiting for someone to show that Biblical prophecy is not impossible. As I've already said you are putting the cart before the horse.

No, your whole worldview is doing that - pulling the cart before the horse.

What?

Are you saying that after the trouble I have been through and am willing to go through to show you this evidence you are just going to ignore it and my argument? If so you just confirm that atheists really have very little idea or knowledge of the Bible and what it teaches, yet reject it and misrepresent it on this miniscule evidence they claim to know and have.

Me: Unassisted human flight is impossible. We can't discuss how Peter Pan flies to Neverland until we address this question.
Peter: No, we don't need to show how human flight is possible. Let's talk about flying to Neverland.
Me: But you are putting the cart before the horse.
Peter: No, your whole worldview is doing that.
Me: That makes no sense.
Peter: Can we discuss flying to Neverland now, please?

I do not have the foggiest of what you are on about.

That's part of the problem.

How do you get conscious mind from a mindless non conscious universe? You don't know but your cart is pulling it.

So Peter, when at a loss, throws out yet another strawman when the subject under discussion is prophecy.

Do you have enough knowledge to dispute Bible prophecy or not? If not then do not presume that you can disprove it. You keep trying to worm out of discussing it and I can't blame you because of your dismal understanding of it.

I'm not going to get into a "discussion" with you. That would be pointless for the reason given above. What I will do is show you how your so-called "prophecy" does not meet the rules which you have tacitly accepted. A new post will be forthcoming.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 3:14:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Firstly, Peter has carefully selecte only a few verses from Luke as his "prophecy". Let's look at the whole chapter so we can see the context.

Luke 21
The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

7 "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, "I am he," and, "The time is near." Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away."

10 Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 "But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25 "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

29 He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

32 "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

34 "Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 3:28:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, let's see how the "prophecy" above stacks up against the rules we have laid down for validiy.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.


I'm going to ignore all the rules except for number 2 for now. I only need one rule to be violated and the "prophecy" is refuted.

From wikipedia:

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[32] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[17] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So that's it. The gospel of Luke was written after 70AD according to concensus. Remember that we must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event. To the contrary, we are very sure of the opposite. This is prophecy after the event.

Hence, this is a "prophecy" fail.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 3:28:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, let's see how the "prophecy" above stacks up against the rules we have laid down for validiy.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.


I'm going to ignore all the rules except for number 2 for now. I only need one rule to be violated and the "prophecy" is refuted.

From wikipedia:

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[32] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[17] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So that's it. The gospel of Luke was written after 70AD according to concensus. Remember that we must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event. To the contrary, we are very sure of the opposite. This is prophecy after the event.

Hence, this is a "prophecy" fail.

The problem is that the evidence does not agree with your "experts" who base their estimates on a much disputed statement from Irenaeus. Many renowned scholars have changed their tune and let's face it, Wikapedia as your source?

Show me that your sources are not biased. Show me that it is more reasonable to believe them than my sources - the Bible as a whole and its internal evidence (such as Daniel's seventy weeks) and not a single mention of Jerusalem as already having been destroyed but constant warning of judgment in almost every NT book, noted scholars like A.T. Robertson, Kenneth Gentry, F. W. Farrar, F.F. Bruce, Phillip Schaff, John Lightfoot, etc., standing by the early dating, the history leading up to the overthrow of Jerusalem by Josephus and so on.

Second, which books of the NT do you believe were written before AD 70?

Third, which books of the OT do you believe were written before the 1st century AD?

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 3:28:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, let's see how the "prophecy" above stacks up against the rules we have laid down for validiy.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.


I'm going to ignore all the rules except for number 2 for now. I only need one rule to be violated and the "prophecy" is refuted.

From wikipedia:

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[32] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[17] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So that's it. The gospel of Luke was written after 70AD according to concensus. Remember that we must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event. To the contrary, we are very sure of the opposite. This is prophecy after the event.

Hence, this is a "prophecy" fail.

The problem is that the evidence does not agree with your "experts" who base their estimates on a much disputed statement from Irenaeus. Many renowned scholars have changed their tune and let's face it, Wikapedia as your source?

Not just wikipedia. Follow the citations.

Let's see. On one side we have the experts in their field giving their position. On the other side we have Peter with an outdated, minority view. Who to believe? Decisions, decisions. You know what? I think I'll go with the experts. Lol.

Show me that your sources are not biased. Show me that it is more reasonable to believe them than my sources - the Bible as a whole and its internal evidence (such as Daniel's seventy weeks) and not a single mention of Jerusalem as already having been destroyed but constant warning of judgment in almost every NT book, noted scholars like A.T. Robertson, Kenneth Gentry, F. W. Farrar, F.F. Bruce, Phillip Schaff, John Lightfoot, etc., standing by the early dating, the history leading up to the overthrow of Jerusalem by Josephus and so on.

What part of "an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward" don't you understand?

Second, which books of the NT do you believe were written before AD 70?

You put forward Luke and I've addressed it. You wouldn't be moving the goalposts by any chance? Lol.

Third, which books of the OT do you believe were written before the 1st century AD?

Ditto.

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

The issue here is a specific prophecy which has turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was trivially easy to refute. Now you want to shift the discussion to something unrelated in order to try and save face. You wouldn't be a sore loser by any chance? Lol.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 3:28:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, let's see how the "prophecy" above stacks up against the rules we have laid down for validiy.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.


I'm going to ignore all the rules except for number 2 for now. I only need one rule to be violated and the "prophecy" is refuted.

From wikipedia:

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[32] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[17] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source."

Pure speculation.

From A.T Robertson, Redating the NT,

http://www.preteristarchive.com...


WHEN WAS THE New Testament written? This is a question that the outsider might be forgiven for thinking that the experts must by now have settled....But it provides an instructive parallel for the way in which the reigning assumptions of scientific scholarship can, and from rime to time do, get challenged for the assumptions they are. For, much more than is generally recognized, the chronology of the New Testament rests on presuppositions rather than facts. It is not that in this case new facts have appeared, new absolute datings which cannot be contested - they are still extraordinarily scarce. It is that certain obstinate questionings have led me to ask just what basis there really is for certain assumptions which the prevailing consensus of critical orthodoxy would seem to make it hazardous or even impertinent to question...

" It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at? And what about those predictions of it in the gospels - were they really the prophecies after the event that our critical education had taught us to believe? So, as little more than a theological joke, I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70. And the only way to try out such a hypothesis was to push it to its limits, and beyond, to discover what these limits were. Naturally, there were bound to be exceptions - II Peter was an obvious starter, and presumably the Pastorals - but it would be an interesting exercise.

But what began as a joke became in the process a serious pre"occupation, and I convinced myself that the hypothesis must be tested in greater detail than the seminar-paper with which it started would allow. The result is that I have found myself driven to look again at the evidence for all the accepted New Testament datings...

ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark....Explanations for this silence have of course been attempted. Yet the simplest explanation of all, that perhaps ... there is extremely little in the New Testament later than ad 70 [Moule, op. cit., 121.] and that its events are not mentioned because they had not yet occurred, seems to me to demand more attention than it has received in critical circles.


Your critics and their consensus are not impressive in what they believe at all. The evidence points the other way from what you and they believe and this can be very convincingly demonstrated.

So I want you to quit evading the questions. When do you place the dating of the earliest gospels and epistles. I have a method for asking such questions that will undermine your argument. So if you want to accept the challenge go ahead and answer my question.

So that's it. The gospel of Luke was written after 70AD according to concensus. Remember that we must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event. To the contrary, we are very sure of the opposite. This is prophecy after the event.

Hence, this is a "prophecy" fail.

The problem is that the evidence does not agree with your "experts" who base their estimates on a much disputed statement from Irenaeus. Many renowned scholars have changed their tune and let's face it, Wikapedia as your source?

Not just wikipedia. Follow the citations.

Let's see. On one side we have the experts in their field giving their position. On the other side we have Peter with an outdated, minority view. Who to believe? Decisions, decisions. You know what? I think I'll go with the experts. Lol.

Outdated? This is the view more and more scholars are taking who have in fact examined the evidence. Your experts are wrong. I need to know from you when your experts date the earliest of the NT documents so that I can turn your silly arguments on their head. Do you dare comply?

What part of "an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward" don't you understand?

What you fail to understand is that more scholars of the Bible are reconsidering the dating methods on the evidence that Preterism presents. You do not understand the significance of AD 70.

Second, which books of the NT do you believe were written before AD 70?

You put forward Luke and I've addressed it. You wouldn't be moving the goalposts by any chance? Lol.

Third, which books of the OT do you believe were written before the 1st century AD?

Ditto.

Give me your experts dating for the earliest NT document and who your experts are please.

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

The issue here is a specific prophecy which has turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was trivially easy to refute. Now you want to shift the discussion to something unrelated in order to try and save face. You wouldn't be a sore loser by any chance? Lol.

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is make a claim and an assumption at that.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 2:46:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:

"The author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source."

Pure speculation.

From A.T Robertson, Redating the NT,

http://www.preteristarchive.com...


WHEN WAS THE New Testament written? This is a question that the outsider might be forgiven for thinking that the experts must by now have settled....But it provides an instructive parallel for the way in which the reigning assumptions of scientific scholarship can, and from rime to time do, get challenged for the assumptions they are. For, much more than is generally recognized, the chronology of the New Testament rests on presuppositions rather than facts. It is not that in this case new facts have appeared, new absolute datings which cannot be contested - they are still extraordinarily scarce. It is that certain obstinate questionings have led me to ask just what basis there really is for certain assumptions which the prevailing consensus of critical orthodoxy would seem to make it hazardous or even impertinent to question...


<snip>

Your critics and their consensus are not impressive in what they believe at all. The evidence points the other way from what you and they believe and this can be very convincingly demonstrated.

So I want you to quit evading the questions. When do you place the dating of the earliest gospels and epistles. I have a method for asking such questions that will undermine your argument. So if you want to accept the challenge go ahead and answer my question.

Neither you nor I are qualified historical scholars. We rely on the experts. As such, I have pointed you to what is indisputably an impartial source which tells us what the consensus view is. You don't agree with this so you flail around trying to find people who support your position. You could quote a thousand of them and it would not avail you. The consensus is what it is. Here's another source:

The terminus ad quem or latest possible date for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (third century)[26] and the mid to late second century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[27] Donald Guthrie states that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[28] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[29] While some scholars argue for a pre-70 date for when the gospel was written, most scholars place the date ca. 80-90.[30][31]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Would you like more?

So that's it. The gospel of Luke was written after 70AD according to concensus. Remember that we must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event. To the contrary, we are very sure of the opposite. This is prophecy after the event.

Hence, this is a "prophecy" fail.

The problem is that the evidence does not agree with your "experts" who base their estimates on a much disputed statement from Irenaeus. Many renowned scholars have changed their tune and let's face it, Wikapedia as your source?

Not just wikipedia. Follow the citations.

Let's see. On one side we have the experts in their field giving their position. On the other side we have Peter with an outdated, minority view. Who to believe? Decisions, decisions. You know what? I think I'll go with the experts. Lol.

Outdated? This is the view more and more scholars are taking who have in fact examined the evidence. Your experts are wrong.

My experts? Lol.

I need to know from you when your experts date the earliest of the NT documents so that I can turn your silly arguments on their head. Do you dare comply?

What you ask is completely irrelevant. Remember that the hurdle you had to jump was that we had to be sure that the "prophecy" was written before the event. I agree that there is the traditional view and the modern historical view, with the latter now prevailing. I don't need consensus really just reasonable doubt, and I don't think even you would dispute that there is that.

There is nothing you can "prove" to me. I am not qualified to assess whatever you may present. If you have something compelling, publish a book and get unanimous agreement on your side. Then come back and talk to me. Until then you are whistling Dixie.

What part of "an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward" don't you understand?

What you fail to understand is that more scholars of the Bible are reconsidering the dating methods on the evidence that Preterism presents. You do not understand the significance of AD 70.

If you say so. It's not me you have to convince.

Second, which books of the NT do you believe were written before AD 70?

You put forward Luke and I've addressed it. You wouldn't be moving the goalposts by any chance? Lol.

Third, which books of the OT do you believe were written before the 1st century AD?

Ditto.

Give me your experts dating for the earliest NT document and who your experts are please.

I will repeat. You put forward a prophecy from Luke. It has failed for the reason given. The dating of the other gospels is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

The issue here is a specific prophecy which has turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was trivially easy to refute. Now you want to shift the discussion to something unrelated in order to try and save face. You wouldn't be a sore loser by any chance? Lol.

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is make a claim and an assumption at that.

I have made no claim. I have pointed you to scholarly consensus. Your problem is that you cannot accept the umpire's decision. This seems to be a typical reaction by theists.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:40:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 2:46:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:

"The author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source."

Pure speculation.

From A.T Robertson, Redating the NT,

http://www.preteristarchive.com...


WHEN WAS THE New Testament written? This is a question that the outsider might be forgiven for thinking that the experts must by now have settled....But it provides an instructive parallel for the way in which the reigning assumptions of scientific scholarship can, and from rime to time do, get challenged for the assumptions they are. For, much more than is generally recognized, the chronology of the New Testament rests on presuppositions rather than facts. It is not that in this case new facts have appeared, new absolute datings which cannot be contested - they are still extraordinarily scarce. It is that certain obstinate questionings have led me to ask just what basis there really is for certain assumptions which the prevailing consensus of critical orthodoxy would seem to make it hazardous or even impertinent to question...


<snip>
...I want you to quit evading the questions. When do you place the dating of the earliest gospels and epistles. I have a method for asking such questions that will undermine your argument. So if you want to accept the challenge go ahead and answer my question.

Neither you nor I are qualified historical scholars. We rely on the experts. As such, I have pointed you to what is indisputably an impartial source which tells us what the consensus view is. You don't agree with this so you flail around trying to find people who support your position. You could quote a thousand of them and it would not avail you. The consensus is what it is. Here's another source:

Experts are not neural. They build on what other experts have lead them to believe. The consensus is built on a view that does not support the evidence and the consensus is changing as people are being exposed to the evidence. Consensus changes when someone shakes the accepted paradigm. We see this shift in science all the time.

The terminus ad quem or latest possible date for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (third century)[26] and the mid to late second century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[27] Donald Guthrie states that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[28] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[29] While some scholars argue for a pre-70 date for when the gospel was written, most scholars place the date ca. 80-90.[30][31]

These scholars that support your view are ignoring the biblical writings themselves, as A.T. Robertson and Kenneth Gentry and a host of others have made clear. I bet you too are ignorant (completely) of the evidence.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Would you like more?

What I want from you is what the evidence rests on. I want you to establish which NT books the consensus says were written before AD 70 so that we have your definite evidence to work on and that will leave the ones written after it. Then I will demonstrate how flimsy your evidence is.

List the books your experts believe were written before AD 70, their reason for doing so and who they are or shut up and admit you are fumbling in the dark.

Let's see. On one side we have the experts in their field giving their position. On the other side we have Peter with an outdated, minority view. Who to believe? Decisions, decisions. You know what? I think I'll go with the experts. Lol.

Outdated? This is the view more and more scholars are taking who have in fact examined the evidence. Your experts are wrong.

My experts? Lol.

Exactly!

I need to know from you when your experts date the earliest of the NT documents so that I can turn your silly arguments on their head. Do you dare comply?

What you ask is completely irrelevant. Remember that the hurdle you had to jump was that we had to be sure that the "prophecy" was written before the event. I agree that there is the traditional view and the modern historical view, with the latter now prevailing. I don't need consensus really just reasonable doubt, and I don't think even you would dispute that there is that.

Then give the evidence I have asked for and we will see if what you say is true. And don't just give me some web address, cut and paste the relevant information and why it is believed so.

There is nothing you can "prove" to me. I am not qualified to assess whatever you may present. If you have something compelling, publish a book and get unanimous agreement on your side. Then come back and talk to me. Until then you are whistling Dixie.

You are the one whistling Dixie. You case is not compelling at all. You spout off but you have nothing behind that spout.

What part of "an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward" don't you understand?

What you fail to understand is that more scholars of the Bible are reconsidering the dating methods on the evidence that Preterism presents. You do not understand the significance of AD 70.

If you say so. It's not me you have to convince.

Present your evidence as I have requested or admit you are extremely ignorant of the view you hold.

Give me your experts dating for the earliest NT document and who your experts are please.

I will repeat. You put forward a prophecy from Luke. It has failed for the reason given. The dating of the other gospels is completely irrelevant to this thread.

It has not at all failed. It is what these "experts" of yours rest their case on. They base their opinion of the Bible based on the dating of the NT.

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

The issue here is a specific prophecy which has turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was trivially easy to refute. Now you want to shift the discussion to something unrelated in order to try and save face. You wouldn't be a sore loser by any chance? Lol.

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is make a claim and an assumption at that.

I have made no claim. I have pointed you to scholarly consensus. Your problem is that you cannot accept the umpire's decision. This seems to be a typical reaction by theists.

You have rested your case on scholarly evidence that does not logically support the evidence available to us from antiquity. You can't accept that evidence, even though you have no idea of what it is, thus you guise of "the experts say." Talk about a biased position that is totally one sided and funneled completely through that one side and does not produce one shred of the evidence in its fallacious appeal to authority argument.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 11:52:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/24/2014 2:46:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:


PGA, they go backwards, or work backwards. They assume that such accurate predictions, prophesies, of future events are impossible, thus they arbitrarily move the dates to either (1) so close to the event that accurate prediction would have been likely or (2) after the event itself. Unfortunately, liberal theologians make the same case.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 4:42:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 9:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/24/2014 2:46:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:

"The author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source."

Pure speculation.

From A.T Robertson, Redating the NT,

http://www.preteristarchive.com...

<snip>
...I want you to quit evading the questions. When do you place the dating of the earliest gospels and epistles. I have a method for asking such questions that will undermine your argument. So if you want to accept the challenge go ahead and answer my question.

Neither you nor I are qualified historical scholars. We rely on the experts. As such, I have pointed you to what is indisputably an impartial source which tells us what the consensus view is. You don't agree with this so you flail around trying to find people who support your position. You could quote a thousand of them and it would not avail you. The consensus is what it is. Here's another source:

Experts are not neural. They build on what other experts have lead them to believe. The consensus is built on a view that does not support the evidence and the consensus is changing as people are being exposed to the evidence. Consensus changes when someone shakes the accepted paradigm. We see this shift in science all the time.

Sure. When and if the consensus changes, then you may be able to mount a case. Right now, your "prophecy" is kaput.

The terminus ad quem or latest possible date for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (third century)[26] and the mid to late second century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[27] Donald Guthrie states that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[28] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[29] While some scholars argue for a pre-70 date for when the gospel was written, most scholars place the date ca. 80-90.[30][31]

These scholars that support your view are ignoring the biblical writings themselves, as A.T. Robertson and Kenneth Gentry and a host of others have made clear. I bet you too are ignorant (completely) of the evidence.

Yeah, everyone's ignorant except your cherry-picked minority scholars. You should hear yourself.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Would you like more?

What I want from you is what the evidence rests on. I want you to establish which NT books the consensus says were written before AD 70 so that we have your definite evidence to work on and that will leave the ones written after it. Then I will demonstrate how flimsy your evidence is.

What's wrong with you? Already answered. See my previous response.

List the books your experts believe were written before AD 70, their reason for doing so and who they are or shut up and admit you are fumbling in the dark.

Ditto.

Let's see. On one side we have the experts in their field giving their position. On the other side we have Peter with an outdated, minority view. Who to believe? Decisions, decisions. You know what? I think I'll go with the experts. Lol.

Outdated? This is the view more and more scholars are taking who have in fact examined the evidence. Your experts are wrong.

My experts? Lol.

Exactly!

I need to know from you when your experts date the earliest of the NT documents so that I can turn your silly arguments on their head. Do you dare comply?

What you ask is completely irrelevant. Remember that the hurdle you had to jump was that we had to be sure that the "prophecy" was written before the event. I agree that there is the traditional view and the modern historical view, with the latter now prevailing. I don't need consensus really just reasonable doubt, and I don't think even you would dispute that there is that.

Then give the evidence I have asked for and we will see if what you say is true. And don't just give me some web address, cut and paste the relevant information and why it is believed so.

Did you read a single word of what I wrote above? Do you know what the word "irrelevant" means?

There is nothing you can "prove" to me. I am not qualified to assess whatever you may present. If you have something compelling, publish a book and get unanimous agreement on your side. Then come back and talk to me. Until then you are whistling Dixie.

You are the one whistling Dixie. You case is not compelling at all. You spout off but you have nothing behind that spout.

I have consensus. That's not nothing. Lol.

What part of "an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward" don't you understand?

What you fail to understand is that more scholars of the Bible are reconsidering the dating methods on the evidence that Preterism presents. You do not understand the significance of AD 70.

If you say so. It's not me you have to convince.

Present your evidence as I have requested or admit you are extremely ignorant of the view you hold.

What is wrong with you? Read.

Give me your experts dating for the earliest NT document and who your experts are please.

I will repeat. You put forward a prophecy from Luke. It has failed for the reason given. The dating of the other gospels is completely irrelevant to this thread.

It has not at all failed. It is what these "experts" of yours rest their case on. They base their opinion of the Bible based on the dating of the NT.

It failed according to the rules you accepted.

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

The issue here is a specific prophecy which has turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was trivially easy to refute. Now you want to shift the discussion to something unrelated in order to try and save face. You wouldn't be a sore loser by any chance? Lol.

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is make a claim and an assumption at that.

I have made no claim. I have pointed you to scholarly consensus. Your problem is that you cannot accept the umpire's decision. This seems to be a typical reaction by theists.

You have rested your case on scholarly evidence that does not logically support the evidence available to us from antiquity. You can't accept that evidence, even though you have no idea of what it is, thus you guise of "the experts say." Talk about a biased position that is totally one sided and funneled completely through that one side and does not produce one shred of the evidence in its fallacious appeal to authority argument.

Wow. You accept a set of rules. Then when you violate a rule, you want to toss that rule out. You won't accept scholarly consensus and then have the gall to say I am biased!

If I have appealed to authorities (not a fallacy unless misused) then what are you doing appealing to your authority? You're a hypocrite.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:35:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 11:52:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/24/2014 2:46:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:


PGA, they go backwards, or work backwards. They assume that such accurate predictions, prophesies, of future events are impossible, thus they arbitrarily move the dates to either (1) so close to the event that accurate prediction would have been likely or (2) after the event itself. Unfortunately, liberal theologians make the same case.

It's not only the NT they have to explain away.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 4:42:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/24/2014 2:46:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:06:54 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:50:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/22/2014 9:47:46 AM, PGA wrote:
Neither you nor I are qualified historical scholars. We rely on the experts. As such, I have pointed you to what is indisputably an impartial source which tells us what the consensus view is. You don't agree with this so you flail around trying to find people who support your position. You could quote a thousand of them and it would not avail you. The consensus is what it is. Here's another source:

Experts are not neural. They build on what other experts have lead them to believe. The consensus is built on a view that does not support the evidence and the consensus is changing as people are being exposed to the evidence. Consensus changes when someone shakes the accepted paradigm. We see this shift in science all the time.

Sure. When and if the consensus changes, then you may be able to mount a case. Right now, your "prophecy" is kaput.

Consensus does not necessarily make something true. If you believe that then you are very gullible. The evidence supports my position.

These scholars that support your view are ignoring the biblical writings themselves, as A.T. Robertson and Kenneth Gentry and a host of others have made clear. I bet you too are ignorant (completely) of the evidence.

Yeah, everyone's ignorant except your cherry-picked minority scholars. You should hear yourself.

And you should hear yourself. Unless it is the "scholars" you cherry pick or others cherry pick for you it can't be true.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Would you like more?

What I want from you is what the evidence rests on. I want you to establish which NT books the consensus says were written before AD 70 so that we have your definite evidence to work on and that will leave the ones written after it. Then I will demonstrate how flimsy your evidence is.

What's wrong with you? Already answered. See my previous response.

No you did not answer my questions. You cited a site to do that because you don't know why you believe what you do other than the consensus says so. List the NT books written before AD 70. Are you capable of doing that?

List the books your experts believe were written before AD 70, their reason for doing so and who they are or shut up and admit you are fumbling in the dark.

Ditto.

Not at all. I have very sound and logical reasons for why I believe what I do.

Outdated? This is the view more and more scholars are taking who have in fact examined the evidence. Your experts are wrong.

My experts? Lol.

Exactly!

I need to know from you when your experts date the earliest of the NT documents so that I can turn your silly arguments on their head. Do you dare comply?

What you ask is completely irrelevant. Remember that the hurdle you had to jump was that we had to be sure that the "prophecy" was written before the event. I agree that there is the traditional view and the modern historical view, with the latter now prevailing. I don't need consensus really just reasonable doubt, and I don't think even you would dispute that there is that.

Then give the evidence I have asked for and we will see if what you say is true. And don't just give me some web address, cut and paste the relevant information and why it is believed so.

Did you read a single word of what I wrote above? Do you know what the word "irrelevant" means?

They mean you are trying to escape answering my question because you have no idea.

There is nothing you can "prove" to me. I am not qualified to assess whatever you may present. If you have something compelling, publish a book and get unanimous agreement on your side. Then come back and talk to me. Until then you are whistling Dixie.

You are the one whistling Dixie. You case is not compelling at all. You spout off but you have nothing behind that spout.

I have consensus. That's not nothing. Lol.

I have 30 plus years of studying the bible and documents related to it. You think that just because I have not published a book I know nothing of what is behind the arguments. Your logic is flawed. You haven't even heard my argument yet you are rejecting whatever I have to say on the grounds of many conflicted opinions. That is not open or logical. I don't believe you can logically refute my position without getting caught up in a web of confusion.

Present your evidence as I have requested or admit you are extremely ignorant of the view you hold.

What is wrong with you? Read.

List what books they believe were written before AD 70 if any. Are you capable of doing that???

Give me your experts dating for the earliest NT document and who your experts are please.

I will repeat. You put forward a prophecy from Luke. It has failed for the reason given. The dating of the other gospels is completely irrelevant to this thread.

You are assuming an awful lot. Justify your position in your own words.

It has not at all failed. It is what these "experts" of yours rest their case on. They base their opinion of the Bible based on the dating of the NT.

It failed according to the rules you accepted.

No it has not.

Do you dare to stick your neck out so that I can prove your claims unwarranted?

The issue here is a specific prophecy which has turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was trivially easy to refute. Now you want to shift the discussion to something unrelated in order to try and save face. You wouldn't be a sore loser by any chance? Lol.

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is make a claim and an assumption at that.

I have made no claim. I have pointed you to scholarly consensus. Your problem is that you cannot accept the umpire's decision. This seems to be a typical reaction by theists.

You have rested your case on scholarly evidence that does not logically support the evidence available to us from antiquity. You can't accept that evidence, even though you have no idea of what it is, thus you guise of "the experts say." Talk about a biased position that is totally one sided and funneled completely through that one side and does not produce one shred of the evidence in its fallacious appeal to authority argument.

Wow. You accept a set of rules. Then when you violate a rule, you want to toss that rule out. You won't accept scholarly consensus and then have the gall to say I am biased!

I will accept consensus only if you can show me that it is reasonable to do so. In the process I will undermine your arguments and show them for what they are - untrue.

If I have appealed to authorities (not a fallacy unless misused) then what are you doing appealing to your authority? You're a hypocrite.

Before you call me hypocritical justify what your "scholars" believe. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to do just that. I believe my argument is logical and consistent with history.

Luke 21:20-22 (NASB)
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.


Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 2:32:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The better question would be. Could Jesus have prevented the destruction of Jerusalem? The answer is NO!!, it was already prophesied. In the OT. As was Jesus's own death and demise. Jesus himself declared he was not sent to change the laws or the prophets but to fulfill their prophesies.
In other words the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem was unavoidable. Jesus did not come to save them or the temple. The temple and people were doomed.

Any wonder why they crucified Jesus. He came to fulfill their destruction. Was he expecting to be rewarded for that?
The Jews have been made scapegoats by Christians . But they stood up to God as children stand up to their parents when they disappoint them. Time to applaud the Jews for judging God and holding him accountable. You read it first here!!!
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:16:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

It's not a question of timidity. All the evidence I needed has been provided. I've met my burden of proof. Remember that all I needed was reasonable doubt that the gospel of "Luke" was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, I only needed a handful of respectable scholars to support such dating. The fact that I have a majority of such scholars is a bonus and it's a situation you can do nothing about. Checkmate.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:46:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 6:16:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

It's not a question of timidity. All the evidence I needed has been provided. I've met my burden of proof. Remember that all I needed was reasonable doubt that the gospel of "Luke" was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, I only needed a handful of respectable scholars to support such dating. The fact that I have a majority of such scholars is a bonus and it's a situation you can do nothing about. Checkmate.

A handful of "respectable scholars" to support such dating does not necessarily represent the truth of the matter and your unwillingness to consider and engage in my argument speaks volumes. It shows just how closed you are.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:54:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 6:46:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:16:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

It's not a question of timidity. All the evidence I needed has been provided. I've met my burden of proof. Remember that all I needed was reasonable doubt that the gospel of "Luke" was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, I only needed a handful of respectable scholars to support such dating. The fact that I have a majority of such scholars is a bonus and it's a situation you can do nothing about. Checkmate.

A handful of "respectable scholars" to support such dating does not necessarily represent the truth of the matter and your unwillingness to consider and engage in my argument speaks volumes. It shows just how closed you are.

It's obvious that you didn't understand what I wrote. So it goes.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 7:07:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 2:32:19 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The better question would be. Could Jesus have prevented the destruction of Jerusalem? The answer is NO!!, it was already prophesied. In the OT. As was Jesus's own death and demise.

Why do you think He wanted to prevent it? This OT people where always disobedient and He came to bring judgment on them as per the curses of the covenant they had agreed to and disobeyed, except for the faithful remnant.

Deuteronomy 28:15-68 [Full Chapter]
[ Consequences of Disobedience ] "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: "Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. "Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. ...


Jesus himself declared he was not sent to change the laws or the prophets but to fulfill their prophesies.

And He did!

In other words the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem was unavoidable. Jesus did not come to save them or the temple. The temple and people were doomed.

Exactly. He told them to heap up the full measure of their sins, that this generation will not pass until all He said would happen happened.

Any wonder why they crucified Jesus. He came to fulfill their destruction. Was he expecting to be rewarded for that?

He also came to save His people, the faithful remnant and those who would put their trust in Him. To do that He would have to fulfill the whole law on their behalf, including taking their punishment upon Himself.

The Jews have been made scapegoats by Christians . But they stood up to God as children stand up to their parents when they disappoint them. Time to applaud the Jews for judging God and holding him accountable. You read it first here!!!

I take it you are either Jewish or atheist/agnostic? How well could a creature judge his Creator?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 7:10:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 6:54:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:46:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:16:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

It's not a question of timidity. All the evidence I needed has been provided. I've met my burden of proof. Remember that all I needed was reasonable doubt that the gospel of "Luke" was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, I only needed a handful of respectable scholars to support such dating. The fact that I have a majority of such scholars is a bonus and it's a situation you can do nothing about. Checkmate.

A handful of "respectable scholars" to support such dating does not necessarily represent the truth of the matter and your unwillingness to consider and engage in my argument speaks volumes. It shows just how closed you are.

It's obvious that you didn't understand what I wrote. So it goes.

Nor you me.

{eter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 9:49:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 7:07:51 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 2:32:19 PM, Harikrish wrote:
The better question would be. Could Jesus have prevented the destruction of Jerusalem? The answer is NO!!, it was already prophesied. In the OT. As was Jesus's own death and demise.

Why do you think He wanted to prevent it? This OT people where always disobedient and He came to bring judgment on them as per the curses of the covenant they had agreed to and disobeyed, except for the faithful remnant.

Deuteronomy 28:15-68 [Full Chapter]
[ Consequences of Disobedience ] "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: "Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. "Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. ...


Jesus himself declared he was not sent to change the laws or the prophets but to fulfill their prophesies.

And He did!

In other words the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem was unavoidable. Jesus did not come to save them or the temple. The temple and people were doomed.

Exactly. He told them to heap up the full measure of their sins, that this generation will not pass until all He said would happen happened.

Any wonder why they crucified Jesus. He came to fulfill their destruction. Was he expecting to be rewarded for that?

He also came to save His people, the faithful remnant and those who would put their trust in Him. To do that He would have to fulfill the whole law on their behalf, including taking their punishment upon Himself.

The Jews have been made scapegoats by Christians . But they stood up to God as children stand up to their parents when they disappoint them. Time to applaud the Jews for judging God and holding him accountable. You read it first here!!!

I take it you are either Jewish or atheist/agnostic? How well could a creature judge his Creator?

Peter

Test
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:05:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 6:54:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:46:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:16:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

It's not a question of timidity. All the evidence I needed has been provided. I've met my burden of proof. Remember that all I needed was reasonable doubt that the gospel of "Luke" was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, I only needed a handful of respectable scholars to support such dating. The fact that I have a majority of such scholars is a bonus and it's a situation you can do nothing about. Checkmate.

A handful of "respectable scholars" to support such dating does not necessarily represent the truth of the matter and your unwillingness to consider and engage in my argument speaks volumes. It shows just how closed you are.

It's obvious that you didn't understand what I wrote. So it goes.

You may find these debates between Peter and I interesting.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 5:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 1:51:31 AM, PGA wrote:
My first task is to provide a backdrop for the prophesies in Matthew 24 and throughout the NT.
Given the thread's title, why don't you start by addressing the Gospel of Matthew and yell us who you think wrote it, when, and for whom?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 10:24:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:05:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:54:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:46:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:16:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:18:41 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:51:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:40:58 AM, PGA wrote:

Apologies for having ignored this thread. As you may be aware, there has been a lot going on.

Obviously, I'm not going to answer you point by point. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I've said everything I wanted to say and you are only repeating yourself.

Remember that we agreed to a set of criteria on what constituted a valid prophecy. I have conclusively shown you how the prophecy you put forward violated one of those criteria. (I could demonstrate that it violates others as well, but I don't need to). I know you don't accept this but it doesn't matter. I feel my job is done. Let the humble reader decide the issue for themselves who has the better argument. To me it's cut and dried.

I note that you wanted to move the goalposts and start a discussion about the dating of all the gospels. That question cannot produce an undisputed, definitive answer, so it is irrelevant to this thread as I've explained repeatedly. If that topic interests you, by all means start a new thread on it. Anna Nicole would enjoy it.

It can give a timeline of when scholars believe the gospels and epistles were written. This is the first step in examining the evidence and the rationality of their and your worldview claims. The problem is you are too timid to provide any evidence that supports your position so you revert to all kinds of ways to wriggle out from this.

It's not a question of timidity. All the evidence I needed has been provided. I've met my burden of proof. Remember that all I needed was reasonable doubt that the gospel of "Luke" was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, I only needed a handful of respectable scholars to support such dating. The fact that I have a majority of such scholars is a bonus and it's a situation you can do nothing about. Checkmate.

A handful of "respectable scholars" to support such dating does not necessarily represent the truth of the matter and your unwillingness to consider and engage in my argument speaks volumes. It shows just how closed you are.

It's obvious that you didn't understand what I wrote. So it goes.

You may find these debates between Peter and I interesting.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

So Peter had his chance in the second debate and, despite all the bluster, he still could not mount a convincing case. Not that this will stop his assertions, though. Dogmatic people never know when they are beaten. :-)
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 10:31:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 5:36:26 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/20/2014 1:51:31 AM, PGA wrote:
My first task is to provide a backdrop for the prophesies in Matthew 24 and throughout the NT.
Given the thread's title, why don't you start by addressing the Gospel of Matthew and yell us who you think wrote it, when, and for whom?

I believe the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, as per early church fathers tradition, and to a Jewish audience (the constant mention of OT prophecy fulfillment) and not a mention of Jerusalem's destruction. Eusebius puts the date of the gospel to around AD 41. The apostolic fathers witness is more credible than those removed by 17-20 centuries. Much of the evidence has been lost that was available at that time.

Early church evidence
The early churchman, Papias, wrote that "Matthew wrote down the sayings in Hebrew and each translated it as he was able", (Eusebius, H.E. [the History of the Church], 3.39; cf. 3.24).

"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke ... . Lastly, John ..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, H.E., 5.8)

Pantaenus, c.180s, an early church missionary and Bible scholar, travelled to India to preach the gospel but found that the apostle Bartholomew had gone there before and left behind Matthew's gospel,

"in the actual Hebrew characters" (Eusebius, H.E., 5.10; cf. Jerome, De.Vir.Ill. 36).

Origen, around the end of the 2nd century, wrote in his commentary on Matthew that he only accepted,

"the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it ... Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile converts ... Last of all came John's." (Origen cited in Eusebius, H.E., 6.25).

Athanasius and Epiphanius (Synops. sacr. Script. p. 134. Vol. 2.; Contra Haeres. 1. Haer. 29. & 30) confirm the above traditions as does Jerome (4th century, Catalog. Script. Eccles fol. 90. Tom. 1. ad Hedib. fol. 46. Tom. 3).

The early Arabic, Persian and Syriac manuscript versions also assert the original primacy and Hebrew language of Matthew.

Matthew's is the only gospel apart from John's which was written by an original apostle of the 12. Are we really to think that the one who heard Jesus' words in person had to copy Mark's second-hand reporting of Peter or Luke's 3rd hand narrative via Paul?

Carsten Thiede recently reviewed some manuscript fragments of Matthew's gospel and redated them to sometime in the 40s or 50s because of a number of reasons. Firstly, the writing style was that of a scribal copyists hand which was not used later. More interestingly, the name of Jesus was written \1;]1; rather than \1;[7;]1;\7;]3;]1;, i.e., 'J-S' rather than 'Jesus', in English transliteration. This is similar to the Jewish practice of rendering Yahweh as YHVH, YH or YY. This implies that the author of Matthew was Jewish, of an early date, and probably writing before the major influx of gentiles into the church after Acts 11/15.

The actual date of Matthew
The time when this Gospel was written is said by some (Vid. Fabricii Biblioth. Graec. 4.5. sect. 2. p. 197 & Vales. not. in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. p. 52; cf. 3.24,39) to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ. This is in part based upon Irenaeus' comment above about Peter's preaching in Rome, held by traditionalists to be A.D. 42 (the second year of Claudius by one tradition (Eusebius Chronicle 153), of Peter's going to "another place" (Acts 12:17) and building a foundation for the church of Rome (Romans 15:20-24) and the year of the apostles' dispersion from Jerusalem), some 9 or 12 years after the ascension depending on the date of that in 30/33. The dates have varies considerably from A.D. 33 (A 6th century writer) to 150! Eusebius, writing in the 3rd century, favoured A.D. 41.

Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem. Even for those that accept a pre-70 date, Mark is 99% of the time considered to be first, with Matthew and Luke copying later. Luke refers (1:1-3) to previous accounts (plural) of the gospel and of his as a more ordered one, so his can neither be first or second. Some scholars are now coming full circle and accepting an early Matthew. For example:

J.B.Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, H&S, 1991
John A.T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976
Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996

Further proofs of the priority of Matthew
Deuteronomy 6:5 appears to divide man up into "heart, soul and might", however only Matthew preserves the 3-fold imagery, Luke and Mark, writing later, realise that in Greek a 4-fold example is necessary to fully translate the sense.

"heart, soul and mind" (Matthew 22:37)
"heart, soul, mind and strength" (Mark 12:30)
"heart, soul, strength and mind" (Luke 10:27)

In Jesus' words about the 'end' or the destruction of Jerusalem, he says "pray that your flight will not be in winter" (Mark 13:18) but Matthew gives a fuller version, adding, "or on a Sabbath" (Matthew 24:20). This fact would not likely be added by Matthew if he was copying Mark, rather the reverse is true. Matthew's additional statement would only be relevant to his Jewish readers.

The Didache ('teaching of the 12 apostles', an early Christian writing) refers to a single gospel as either 'his' or 'the' gospel in existence and which is closest in form to Matthew (Didache 8:2; 11:3; 15:3; 15:4; cf. John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976). Both the Didache and Matthew are sometimes considered to have derived from Syrian Antioch, a thriving early church base from which Paul's missionary journeys began.

Matthew also contains the most typically Jewish passages (e.g., 5:18f.; 10:5; 15:26; 18:17; 23:2f.).


http://www.biblicalhebrew.com...

When you consider the other gospels and the epistles of Paul and Peter the evidence is strongly united to confirm an early date. Paul who died in AD 68 wrote about and had similarities to the Gospel of Matthew. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Luke was the travel companion of Paul and is mentioned by Paul various times in his epistles:

Colossians 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas.

2 Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.

Philemon 1:24
as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.


It is believed with good reason that Luke wrote the gospel under the tutelage of Paul. It is also logical to believe Paul wrote the epistles before his death for this is what the epistles reveal:

2 Thessalonians 3:17
I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.


See also 1 Corinthians 4:14, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 2 Corinthians 9:1, Philippians 3:1, Colossians 4:18, 1 Timothy 3:15, Philemon 1:21.

Again this is the tip of the iceberg.

Peter