Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Luke and Acts

tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 5:34:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

Acts of the Apostles couldn't have been written any earlier than about the turn of the century since it relies on Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. There is little doubt that the historical elements of Acts borrows from Josephus.

My feeling is that the gospels were only written in close to their current form after the middle of the 2nd century since there is no mention of them by name until circa 180CE.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 6:48:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 5:34:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

Acts of the Apostles couldn't have been written any earlier than about the turn of the century since it relies on Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. There is little doubt that the historical elements of Acts borrows from Josephus.

You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it. Have you looked at how shallow the arguments are? I particularly like the one on "Cilicia":

"The New International Version translation of Acts 6:9 mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s AD. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[47] All other translations only mention the name of Cilicia, without referring to it as a province. In the original Greek (Textus Receptus etc.)"

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


My feeling is that the gospels were only written in close to their current form after the middle of the 2nd century since there is no mention of them by name until circa 180CE.

Well, that may be true. Heck, they weren't written "in their current form" (whatever that is) until well after that.
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: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 7:42:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 6:48:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:34:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

Acts of the Apostles couldn't have been written any earlier than about the turn of the century since it relies on Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. There is little doubt that the historical elements of Acts borrows from Josephus.

You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it. Have you looked at how shallow the arguments are? I particularly like the one on "Cilicia":

"The New International Version translation of Acts 6:9 mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s AD. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[47] All other translations only mention the name of Cilicia, without referring to it as a province. In the original Greek (Textus Receptus etc.)"

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

That's a red herring, Anna. That link and that argument addresses the issue of whether Acts is historically reliable. I'm talking about Acts being dependent on Antiquities for historical information:

http://infidels.org...

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...

My feeling is that the gospels were only written in close to their current form after the middle of the 2nd century since there is no mention of them by name until circa 180CE.

Well, that may be true. Heck, they weren't written "in their current form" (whatever that is) until well after that.

Good, that's another thing we agree upon, and it didn't take another 1,000 posts! (Of course, my position is more extreme than yours as I think that what existed prior to mid-2nd century was probably fairly minimal - a sayings of the apostles text and collected parables with no references to Jesus. But that's another story).
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 8:18:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 7:42:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 6:48:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:34:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

Acts of the Apostles couldn't have been written any earlier than about the turn of the century since it relies on Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. There is little doubt that the historical elements of Acts borrows from Josephus.

You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it. Have you looked at how shallow the arguments are? I particularly like the one on "Cilicia":

"The New International Version translation of Acts 6:9 mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s AD. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[47] All other translations only mention the name of Cilicia, without referring to it as a province. In the original Greek (Textus Receptus etc.)"

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

That's a red herring, Anna. That link and that argument addresses the issue of whether Acts is historically reliable. I'm talking about Acts being dependent on Antiquities for historical information:

http://infidels.org...

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...

My feeling is that the gospels were only written in close to their current form after the middle of the 2nd century since there is no mention of them by name until circa 180CE.

Well, that may be true. Heck, they weren't written "in their current form" (whatever that is) until well after that.

Good, that's another thing we agree upon, and it didn't take another 1,000 posts! (Of course, my position is more extreme than yours as I think that what existed prior to mid-2nd century was probably fairly minimal - a sayings of the apostles text and collected parables with no references to Jesus. But that's another story).

Well, being "historically reliable" and being "dependent upon Josephus" are interrelated. And again, even from a skeptic's standpoint, what if Luke and Josephus relied upon a common source or sources? After all, neither one provided copious footnotes. What if they both relied upon common orally-transmitted stories or histories?
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: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary, it leaves open the possibility that one or more of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life and times of a historical Jesus. If they lose that anchor, they are adrift.

Even you would have to admit that if the dating is moved to the 2nd century, then we are talking about hearsay accounts which must be less reliable than eyewitness accounts. Your "truths" become far less certain. Yes?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 8:37:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 8:18:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:42:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 6:48:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:34:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

Acts of the Apostles couldn't have been written any earlier than about the turn of the century since it relies on Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. There is little doubt that the historical elements of Acts borrows from Josephus.

You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it. Have you looked at how shallow the arguments are? I particularly like the one on "Cilicia":

"The New International Version translation of Acts 6:9 mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s AD. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[47] All other translations only mention the name of Cilicia, without referring to it as a province. In the original Greek (Textus Receptus etc.)"

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

That's a red herring, Anna. That link and that argument addresses the issue of whether Acts is historically reliable. I'm talking about Acts being dependent on Antiquities for historical information:

http://infidels.org...

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...

My feeling is that the gospels were only written in close to their current form after the middle of the 2nd century since there is no mention of them by name until circa 180CE.

Well, that may be true. Heck, they weren't written "in their current form" (whatever that is) until well after that.

Good, that's another thing we agree upon, and it didn't take another 1,000 posts! (Of course, my position is more extreme than yours as I think that what existed prior to mid-2nd century was probably fairly minimal - a sayings of the apostles text and collected parables with no references to Jesus. But that's another story).

Well, being "historically reliable" and being "dependent upon Josephus" are interrelated.

Not really. Not for the argument I was making.

And again, even from a skeptic's standpoint, what if Luke and Josephus relied upon a common source or sources? After all, neither one provided copious footnotes. What if they both relied upon common orally-transmitted stories or histories?

Both articles I linked you to raised this as a possibility and rejected it for several reasons. Did you even bother to read the arguments?

Btw, The Antiquities of the Jews has copious footnotes for each of the 20 books:

http://www.gutenberg.org...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 9:37:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the order goes like this.

Paul followed by the Synoptic Gospels(Matthew, Luke and Mark) and finally John.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Never assume what does or doesn't do me any good, though it is likely that it won;t do me the good you intend it to.

And Please never worry about stating what is obvious to you.


Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary, it leaves open the possibility that one or more of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life and times of a historical Jesus. If they lose that anchor, they are adrift.

Even you would have to admit that if the dating is moved to the 2nd century, then we are talking about hearsay accounts which must be less reliable than eyewitness accounts. Your "truths" become far less certain. Yes?

No, the truths in the bible are self evident to any who know scripture well enough and have the guidance that I have, and are independent of any arguments over who wrote them and when being based purely on the harmony of scriptural teaching from Genesis to Revelation.

People who get tied up in such trivia are not doing themselves any favours. Hence I do not, though I have no problem with touching on the subject when needed.

I agree entirely with what you say about that. After all, ones like Anna try, against all scriptural and historical evidence, to claim that everything was fulfilled in 70 C. E., so they have to cling to an early date like a life raft.

Since I have the same or very similar opinions about the dates to the JWs I shall copy and post what they believe below.

Books of the Hebrew Scriptures Before the Common (Christian) Era

Name of Book: Genesis; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1513;

Name of Book: Exodus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Leviticus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Numbers; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Deuteronomy; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Joshua; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1450;

Name of Book: Judges; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1100;

Name of Book: Ruth; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1090;

Name of Book: 1 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1078;

Name of Book: 2 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1040;

Name of Book: 1 Kings; 2 Kings; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll 580;

Name of Book: 1 Chronicles; 2 Chronicles; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll c. 460;

Name of Book: Ezra; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Nehemiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443;

Name of Book: Esther;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 475;

Name of Book: Job; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1473;

Name of Book: Psalms; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Proverbs; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 717;

Name of Book: Ecclesiastes; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 1000;

Name of Book: Song of Solomon, The; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1020;

Name of Book: Isaiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 732;

Name of Book: Jeremiah;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 580:

Name of Book: Lamentations; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 607;

Name of Book: Ezekiel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 591;

Name of Book: Daniel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 536;

Name of Book: Hosea; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 745;

Name of Book: Joel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 820 (?);

Name of Book: Amos; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 804;

Name of Book: Obadiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 607

Name of Book: Jonah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 844

Name of Book: Micah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 717

Name of Book: Nahum; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 632

Name of Book: Habakkuk; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 628 (?)

Name of Book: Zephaniah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 648

Name of Book: Haggai; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 520

Name of Book: Zechariah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 518

Name of Book: Malachi; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443

Name of Book: Matthew; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 41

Name of Book: Mark; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-65

Name of Book: Luke; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56-58

Name of Book: John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Acts; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

Name of Book: Romans; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56

Name of Book: 1 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: 2 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: Galatians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50-52

Name of Book: Ephesians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Philippians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Colossians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: 1 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50

Name of Book: 2 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 51

Name of Book: 1 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: 2 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Titus; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: Philemon; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Hebrews; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

Name of Book: James; Writing Completed (C.E.): b. 62

Name of Book: 1 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 62-64

Name of Book: 2 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 64

Name of Book: 1 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 2 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 3 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Jude; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Revelation; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 96

Are those dates accurate?

I believe they are as accurate as we are ever likely to know, but whether they are or not, they are as good as any that don't cause problems with scripture like the early dates do.

One thing I have learned in my time as one of Jehovah servants is that we messengers really do not matter, it is the message which is all important. And you've got to get it right.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Never assume what does or doesn't do me any good, though it is likely that it won;t do me the good you intend it to.

And Please never worry about stating what is obvious to you.


Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary, it leaves open the possibility that one or more of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life and times of a historical Jesus. If they lose that anchor, they are adrift.

Even you would have to admit that if the dating is moved to the 2nd century, then we are talking about hearsay accounts which must be less reliable than eyewitness accounts. Your "truths" become far less certain. Yes?

No, the truths in the bible are self evident to any who know scripture well enough and have the guidance that I have, and are independent of any arguments over who wrote them and when being based purely on the harmony of scriptural teaching from Genesis to Revelation.

People who get tied up in such trivia are not doing themselves any favours. Hence I do not, though I have no problem with touching on the subject when needed.

I agree entirely with what you say about that. After all, ones like Anna try, against all scriptural and historical evidence, to claim that everything was fulfilled in 70 C. E., so they have to cling to an early date like a life raft.

Since I have the same or very similar opinions about the dates to the JWs I shall copy and post what they believe below.

Books of the Hebrew Scriptures Before the Common (Christian) Era

Name of Book: Genesis; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1513;

Name of Book: Exodus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Leviticus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Numbers; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Deuteronomy; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Joshua; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1450;

Name of Book: Judges; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1100;

Name of Book: Ruth; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1090;

Name of Book: 1 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1078;

Name of Book: 2 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1040;

Name of Book: 1 Kings; 2 Kings; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll 580;

Name of Book: 1 Chronicles; 2 Chronicles; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll c. 460;

Name of Book: Ezra; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Nehemiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443;

Name of Book: Esther;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 475;

Name of Book: Job; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1473;

Name of Book: Psalms; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Proverbs; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 717;

Name of Book: Ecclesiastes; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 1000;

Name of Book: Song of Solomon, The; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1020;

Name of Book: Isaiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 732;

Name of Book: Jeremiah;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 580:

Name of Book: Lamentations; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 607;

Name of Book: Ezekiel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 591;

Name of Book: Daniel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 536;

Name of Book: Hosea; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 745;

Name of Book: Joel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 820 (?);

Name of Book: Amos; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 804;

Name of Book: Obadiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 607

Name of Book: Jonah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 844

Name of Book: Micah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 717

Name of Book: Nahum; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 632

Name of Book: Habakkuk; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 628 (?)

Name of Book: Zephaniah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 648

Name of Book: Haggai; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 520

Name of Book: Zechariah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 518

Name of Book: Malachi; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443

Name of Book: Matthew; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 41

Name of Book: Mark; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-65

Name of Book: Luke; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56-58

Name of Book: John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Acts; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

Name of Book: Romans; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56

Name of Book: 1 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: 2 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: Galatians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50-52

Name of Book: Ephesians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Philippians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Colossians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: 1 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50

Name of Book: 2 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 51

Name of Book: 1 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: 2 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Titus; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: Philemon; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Hebrews; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

Name of Book: James; Writing Completed (C.E.): b. 62

Name of Book: 1 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 62-64

Name of Book: 2 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 64

Name of Book: 1 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 2 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 3 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Jude; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Revelation; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 96

Are those dates accurate?

I believe they are as accurate as we are ever likely to know, but whether they are or not, they are as good as any that don't cause problems with scripture like the early dates do.

One thing I have learned in my time as one of Jehovah servants is that we messengers really do not matter, it is the message which is all important. And you've got to get it right.
You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 2:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.

Apparently not, but you are welcome to believe that if you wish.

They certainly came before John's Gospel which was the list of the Christian Greek Scripture writings being written even after Revelation.

However the problem remains that there is no definitive evidence for when most of it was written. Even the writing of Paul's letters written from prison in Rome are in doubt because people cannot agree when he was in prison, and the same goes for John's captivity on Patmos.

The important thing remains not when they were written, or even who by, but that the message they contain is truth, and fits in with the overall harmony of scripture, which it is, and which they do.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 3:01:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary,

... and I might (and will) just as accurately say that atheists like you cling to late dates for the gospels (and most of the other NT books), despite the evidence to the contrary. It works both ways.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 3:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 2:06:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.


The important thing remains not when they were written, or even who by, but that the message they contain is truth, and fits in with the overall harmony of scripture, which it is, and which they do.

Yet another of your more ridiculous statements. It matters greatly when they were written. If not, these atheists wouldn't be arguing about it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 5:23:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 2:06:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.

Apparently not, but you are welcome to believe that if you wish.

They certainly came before John's Gospel which was the list of the Christian Greek Scripture writings being written even after Revelation.

However the problem remains that there is no definitive evidence for when most of it was written. Even the writing of Paul's letters written from prison in Rome are in doubt because people cannot agree when he was in prison, and the same goes for John's captivity on Patmos.

The important thing remains not when they were written, or even who by, but that the message they contain is truth, and fits in with the overall harmony of scripture, which it is, and which they do.

It is very important to have the timelines so we know if the material was written before or after the event and if the stories are collaborated by others. Prophesies won't be prophesies if written after the fact or eyewitness accounts reliable if they contradicted each other.
The problem with cults is a lack of independent scholarship. Harmony might be the goal and not the facts.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 3:18:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 3:01:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary,

... and I might (and will) just as accurately say that atheists like you cling to late dates for the gospels (and most of the other NT books), despite the evidence to the contrary. It works both ways.

It doesn't work both ways, Anna. The problem is that you don't have evidence for early dating. You're going on nothing but church tradition. You have agreed that there is no reference to the gospels by name until circa 180CE. You have agreed that they didn't exist in their present form until at least near the end of the 2nd century and under their now assigned names. Yet you still insist on early datings by eyewitnesses. That makes no sense.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:12:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 5:23:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 2:06:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.

Apparently not, but you are welcome to believe that if you wish.

They certainly came before John's Gospel which was the list of the Christian Greek Scripture writings being written even after Revelation.

However the problem remains that there is no definitive evidence for when most of it was written. Even the writing of Paul's letters written from prison in Rome are in doubt because people cannot agree when he was in prison, and the same goes for John's captivity on Patmos.

The important thing remains not when they were written, or even who by, but that the message they contain is truth, and fits in with the overall harmony of scripture, which it is, and which they do.

It is very important to have the timelines so we know if the material was written before or after the event and if the stories are collaborated by others. Prophesies won't be prophesies if written after the fact or eyewitness accounts reliable if they contradicted each other.
The problem with cults is a lack of independent scholarship. Harmony might be the goal and not the facts.

No, it is only the truth of the message that matters, and the fact that Jehovah has allowed it to be included in his word is evidence enough for that.

The dates of writing tell us nothing about the timeline of the future events they describe. Only the timing of the Apostasy taking prominence is given us as when the last of the Apostles has died, since the Apostles were the only ones holding it back.

For instance, it doesn't matter when you claim Revelation was written, the simple fact that much of it is still waiting to be fulfilled shows that ti was not fulfilled earlier.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:13:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 3:18:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 3:01:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary,

... and I might (and will) just as accurately say that atheists like you cling to late dates for the gospels (and most of the other NT books), despite the evidence to the contrary. It works both ways.

It doesn't work both ways, Anna. The problem is that you don't have evidence for early dating. You're going on nothing but church tradition. You have agreed that there is no reference to the gospels by name until circa 180CE. You have agreed that they didn't exist in their present form until at least near the end of the 2nd century and under their now assigned names. Yet you still insist on early datings by eyewitnesses. That makes no sense.

Scripturally, little or nothing Anna teaches makes any sense.

Whenever it was written there is no way anyone can honestly claim that much of it has been fulfilled yet.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 6:18:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 3:05:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 2:06:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.


The important thing remains not when they were written, or even who by, but that the message they contain is truth, and fits in with the overall harmony of scripture, which it is, and which they do.

Yet another of your more ridiculous statements. It matters greatly when they were written. If not, these atheists wouldn't be arguing about it.

No, they are arguing over something men have made important,. not something which is important in itself.

They argue with you because your preferred dates make no sense, and your insistence on them even less, since there is little evidence, if in fact any, as to when they were written.

However the later dates do make more sense historically and scripturally.

If the dates of writing were important the writings themselves would contain solid evidence for it,. Jehovah would make sure of that.

He doesn't tell us everything, but he does tell us what we need to know, and since he hasn't told us anything about the dates, they cannot be important.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 9:16:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

Historical consensus seems to think late first or early 2nd century, 80-100AD.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 9:18:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Never assume what does or doesn't do me any good, though it is likely that it won;t do me the good you intend it to.

And Please never worry about stating what is obvious to you.


Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary, it leaves open the possibility that one or more of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life and times of a historical Jesus. If they lose that anchor, they are adrift.

Even you would have to admit that if the dating is moved to the 2nd century, then we are talking about hearsay accounts which must be less reliable than eyewitness accounts. Your "truths" become far less certain. Yes?

No, the truths in the bible are self evident to any who know scripture well enough and have the guidance that I have, and are independent of any arguments over who wrote them and when being based purely on the harmony of scriptural teaching from Genesis to Revelation.

People who get tied up in such trivia are not doing themselves any favours. Hence I do not, though I have no problem with touching on the subject when needed.

I agree entirely with what you say about that. After all, ones like Anna try, against all scriptural and historical evidence, to claim that everything was fulfilled in 70 C. E., so they have to cling to an early date like a life raft.

Since I have the same or very similar opinions about the dates to the JWs I shall copy and post what they believe below.

Books of the Hebrew Scriptures Before the Common (Christian) Era

Name of Book: Genesis; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1513;

Name of Book: Exodus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Leviticus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Numbers; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Deuteronomy; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Joshua; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1450;

Name of Book: Judges; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1100;

Name of Book: Ruth; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1090;

Name of Book: 1 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1078;

Name of Book: 2 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1040;

Name of Book: 1 Kings; 2 Kings; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll 580;

Name of Book: 1 Chronicles; 2 Chronicles; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll c. 460;

Name of Book: Ezra; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Nehemiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443;

Name of Book: Esther;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 475;

Name of Book: Job; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1473;

Name of Book: Psalms; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Proverbs; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 717;

Name of Book: Ecclesiastes; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 1000;

Name of Book: Song of Solomon, The; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1020;

Name of Book: Isaiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 732;

Name of Book: Jeremiah;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 580:

Name of Book: Lamentations; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 607;

Name of Book: Ezekiel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 591;

Name of Book: Daniel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 536;

Name of Book: Hosea; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 745;

Name of Book: Joel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 820 (?);

Name of Book: Amos; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 804;

Name of Book: Obadiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 607

Name of Book: Jonah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 844

Name of Book: Micah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 717

Name of Book: Nahum; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 632

Name of Book: Habakkuk; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 628 (?)

Name of Book: Zephaniah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 648

Name of Book: Haggai; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 520

Name of Book: Zechariah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 518

Name of Book: Malachi; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443

Name of Book: Matthew; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 41

Name of Book: Mark; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-65

Name of Book: Luke; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56-58

Don't think so. Luke and Acts were composed very close to each other, so c. 80-100 C.E. is a better guess.


Name of Book: John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Acts; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

As I mentioned with Luke, 80-100AD is a better guess.


Name of Book: Romans; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56

Name of Book: 1 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: 2 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: Galatians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50-52

Name of Book: Ephesians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Philippians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Colossians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: 1 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50

Name of Book: 2 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 51

Name of Book: 1 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: 2 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Titus; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: Philemon; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Hebrews; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

Name of Book: James; Writing Completed (C.E.): b. 62

Name of Book: 1 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 62-64

Name of Book: 2 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 64

Name of Book: 1 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 2 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 3 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Jude; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Revelation; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 96

Are those dates accurate?

I believe they are as accurate as we are ever likely to know, but whether they are or not, they are as good as any that don't cause problems with scripture like the early dates do.

One thing I have learned in my time as one of Jehovah servants is that we messengers really do not matter, it is the message which is all important. And you've got to get it right.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:11:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:18:49 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 8:22:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/18/2015 7:59:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 5:03:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's commonly thought by historians that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were authored by the same person. The primary justification for this is that both are addressed to the same person, "Theophilus", literally "Beloved of God" (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

The most commonly proposed date for Luke-Acts is 80-100 AD [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. But there seems to be a rather major belief that Luke (and Acts) was composed prior to 80 AD. Views on this?

The only things that really matter are the truths that the accounts give us.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious and I know it won't do any good for you anyway, but here goes.

Never assume what does or doesn't do me any good, though it is likely that it won;t do me the good you intend it to.

And Please never worry about stating what is obvious to you.


Christians like Anna cling to early dates for the gospels because, despite the evidence to the contrary, it leaves open the possibility that one or more of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life and times of a historical Jesus. If they lose that anchor, they are adrift.

Even you would have to admit that if the dating is moved to the 2nd century, then we are talking about hearsay accounts which must be less reliable than eyewitness accounts. Your "truths" become far less certain. Yes?

No, the truths in the bible are self evident to any who know scripture well enough and have the guidance that I have, and are independent of any arguments over who wrote them and when being based purely on the harmony of scriptural teaching from Genesis to Revelation.

People who get tied up in such trivia are not doing themselves any favours. Hence I do not, though I have no problem with touching on the subject when needed.

I agree entirely with what you say about that. After all, ones like Anna try, against all scriptural and historical evidence, to claim that everything was fulfilled in 70 C. E., so they have to cling to an early date like a life raft.

Since I have the same or very similar opinions about the dates to the JWs I shall copy and post what they believe below.

Books of the Hebrew Scriptures Before the Common (Christian) Era

Name of Book: Genesis; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1513;

Name of Book: Exodus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Leviticus; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1512;

Name of Book: Numbers; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Deuteronomy; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1473;

Name of Book: Joshua; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1450;

Name of Book: Judges; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1100;

Name of Book: Ruth; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1090;

Name of Book: 1 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1078;

Name of Book: 2 Samuel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1040;

Name of Book: 1 Kings; 2 Kings; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll 580;

Name of Book: 1 Chronicles; 2 Chronicles; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 1 roll c. 460;

Name of Book: Ezra; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Nehemiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443;

Name of Book: Esther;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 475;

Name of Book: Job; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1473;

Name of Book: Psalms; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 460;

Name of Book: Proverbs; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 717;

Name of Book: Ecclesiastes; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 1000;

Name of Book: Song of Solomon, The; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1020;

Name of Book: Isaiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 732;

Name of Book: Jeremiah;Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 580:

Name of Book: Lamentations; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 607;

Name of Book: Ezekiel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 591;

Name of Book: Daniel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 536;

Name of Book: Hosea; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 745;

Name of Book: Joel; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 820 (?);

Name of Book: Amos; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 804;

Name of Book: Obadiah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 607

Name of Book: Jonah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 844

Name of Book: Micah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 717

Name of Book: Nahum; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 632

Name of Book: Habakkuk; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 628 (?)

Name of Book: Zephaniah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): b. 648

Name of Book: Haggai; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 520

Name of Book: Zechariah; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): 518

Name of Book: Malachi; Writing Completed (B.C.E.): a. 443

Name of Book: Matthew; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 41

Name of Book: Mark; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-65

Name of Book: Luke; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56-58

Don't think so. Luke and Acts were composed very close to each other, so c. 80-100 C.E. is a better guess.

Well, I won;'t argue with that because I can't prove it either way, but a later date is certainly far more reasonable than an earlier one.



Name of Book: John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Acts; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

As I mentioned with Luke, 80-100AD is a better guess.


Name of Book: Romans; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56

Name of Book: 1 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: 2 Corinthians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Name of Book: Galatians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50-52

Name of Book: Ephesians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Philippians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Colossians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: 1 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50

Name of Book: 2 Thessalonians; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 51

Name of Book: 1 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: 2 Timothy; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Titus; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64

Name of Book: Philemon; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61

Name of Book: Hebrews; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61

Name of Book: James; Writing Completed (C.E.): b. 62

Name of Book: 1 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 62-64

Name of Book: 2 Peter; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 64

Name of Book: 1 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 2 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: 3 John; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 98

Name of Book: Jude; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65

Name of Book: Revelation; Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 96

Are those dates accurate?

I believe they are as accurate as we are ever likely to know, but whether they are or not, they are as good as any that don't cause problems with scripture like the early dates do.

One thing I have learned in my time as one of Jehovah servants is that we messengers really do not matter, it is the message which is all important. And you've got to get it right.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:16:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:16:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

Historical consensus seems to think late first or early 2nd century, 80-100AD.

Your date range as quoted is entirely within the 1st century because there was no year zero. Hence the fact that this millennium didn't really start until 2001.

In effect, Acts is a continuation of Luke so I would say there was enough time between the two for Theophilus to read the first think about it, reply, and for Luke to read his reply and think about it.

But of course I'm guessing.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:18:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:16:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:16:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

Historical consensus seems to think late first or early 2nd century, 80-100AD.

Your date range as quoted is entirely within the 1st century because there was no year zero. Hence the fact that this millennium didn't really start until 2001.

True :P


In effect, Acts is a continuation of Luke so I would say there was enough time between the two for Theophilus to read the first think about it, reply, and for Luke to read his reply and think about it.

But of course I'm guessing.

Could be, so Luke could be composed 80-90CE and Acts 90-110, I suppose.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:18:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

I think not since the author, Luke would not have been alive then.

I would not argue with any date from 60 - 100, though 90 is a more likely upper limit.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:29:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:16:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

Historical consensus seems to think late first or early 2nd century, 80-100AD.

That's because they put Luke priority over Marcion. Problem is, Marcion is mentioned in the early 2nd century, Luke isn't mentioned until the late 2nd century. Also, when considering the principal of accretion, Marcion priority is more parsimonious. Last, the mentioned Theophilus is probably Theophilus of Antioch, who died towards the end of the 2nd century and was a bishop in the latter half of the 2nd century.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:35:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:18:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

I think not since the author, Luke would not have been alive then.

And there is a problem, you assume that the author must have been Luke the traveling companion to Paul.

I would not argue with any date from 60 - 100, though 90 is a more likely upper limit.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:48:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 6:18:26 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 3:05:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/18/2015 2:06:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:46:45 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/18/2015 10:40:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You got all of Paul's writings wrong. They came before the Gospels. Some just a few years after Jesus's death.


The important thing remains not when they were written, or even who by, but that the message they contain is truth, and fits in with the overall harmony of scripture, which it is, and which they do.

Yet another of your more ridiculous statements. It matters greatly when they were written. If not, these atheists wouldn't be arguing about it.

No, they are arguing over something men have made important,. not something which is important in itself.

They argue with you because your preferred dates make no sense, and your insistence on them even less, since there is little evidence, if in fact any, as to when they were written.

However the later dates do make more sense historically and scripturally.

Really? Then give us some "scriptural" reasons for the late dates. (Hint: you won't come up with a one).
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:56:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:16:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:16:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:07:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I think it was written in the latter half of the 2nd century (Marcion priority over Luke makes a lot more sense).

Historical consensus seems to think late first or early 2nd century, 80-100AD.

Your date range as quoted is entirely within the 1st century because there was no year zero. Hence the fact that this millennium didn't really start until 2001.

In effect, Acts is a continuation of Luke so I would say there was enough time between the two for Theophilus to read the first think about it, reply, and for Luke to read his reply and think about it.

But of course I'm guessing.

Well, quit guessing! Make up an exact date, and claim the Holy Spirit revealed it to you. After all, you've make a similar claim many times.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."