Total Posts:272|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Dating of Matthew and the NT (for Dee-em)

PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT, not a discussion on the Trinity or some side issue that has nothing to do with the topic. Please form another thread to discuss other issues that do not relate to the dating.

This has become personal between Dee-em and myself. He has constantly accused me of lying and unethical conduct. We have swamped another thread topic with our back-and-forth for around three hundred posts. It was his constant accusations of me lying that created this animosity. After pleading with him for hundreds of posts to lay down his evidence (instead of his constant repetition about doubt in knowing) and my decision to end our discussion when he started calling me a liar, he has started to do just that due to my silence, lay down some of the evidence that supports his position. I was going to let it slide because of his accusations but decided instead to challenge him to a debate, explaining the circumstances for it in my initial challenge to him. He has declined to accept so far. I am transferring the topic over to here by copying our latest exchanges. Since he will not debate I want to expand on this subject of the dating game here by answering his posts and pushing the subject deeper.

I am asking him to transfer his last six posts from the other thread to this one.

I would like to limit the number of participants to six, three representing the Christian position of an early dating and three representing the current "scholarly" majority position as made popular in the last 100 years or so. I am inviting four additional people to participate. If these four accept we are set. If they don't I will open it up to whoever wants to fill the vacancies. If there is no interest I will focus strictly on a discussion with Dee-em.

If the people below decline I want people who are somewhat familiar with the arguments. In that case I will take the first two volunteers for each side.

Early date:
1. Me (Peter).............................Yes
2. Annanicole............................Yes or no?
3. ??? Looking for a Christian who holds to an early dating of Matthew and the NT or someone familiar enough to argue for it.

Late date:
1. Dee-em..................................Yes or no?
2. Skepticalone..........................Yes or no?
3. Ruv Draba..............................Yes or no?

If I get commitments then I would like to zero in on specific discussion subtopics, work on those arguments then go to another discussion piece. We can agree to perhaps as many as ten lines of evidence or subtopics, discuss the specifics of what those lines of argument will entail since there are a lot of different contentions. For instance, the topic of who wrote the gospels, or whether Paul authored all the canonized epistles attributed to him, or whether prophecy was written into these accounts before or after AD 70. What historical evidences does each side have for an early verses late date as opposed to what is pure speculation. I would also like to include (perhaps even as the starting argument since it is a huge factor) worldview bias and what this means in examining the evidence. That first subtopic can be somewhat shortened or not?

On each subtopic we could limit the number of opening statements by each participant to a determined amount, such as three or five posts or what is agreeable. Maybe we could limit the extent of our replies and rebuttals to each subtopic in regarding the subtopic to ten posts to each participant which would be titled Responses # 1 to Dee-em, or Response # 5 to Skepticalone, etc., until our ten responses are used up, then go on to a different subtopic of determining the dating. Once our posts are used up for each person we are on the side-lines for the rest of the subtopic so use them wisely. Or we can continue until the subtopic is exhausted. These details need to be worked out.

In presenting an argument I welcome quotes and citations but only as support, not a website with no summary argument attached. IOW's, these specific quotes or citations should be used to summarize or support the argument, not the sole argument itself. You can do this in two ways, either by including the web address after the quote or by the use of footnotes. I don't want to wade through thousands of pages to find out what a person's position is. Since there is only a limited amount of space available for opening statements and arguments (# of posts to be agreed upon) the longer the quotation the less space left available. Once the commitment spaces are verified we can begin on the desired first subtopic, agreed or conceded by all.

I'm looking for a comprehensible and detailed argument/discussion. Are you agreeable?

I would ask these invitees to please reply within 24 hours so that I can open it up to the first people who qualify and sign up if I get no commitments. The whole discussion can take place on this thread. We do not need to formalize a debate.

Position # 3 is open now for the Christian side of the debate.

Until I get commitments by these people to either discuss or decline I am going to reply to Dee-ems latest posts from the other thread.

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 8:30:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT
That sounds like a great discussion opportunity, Peter, and thank you for the invitation.

I don't myself have a view on the most likely date of Matthew's authorship, and the date of writing need not be related to a date of redaction, since works can be redacted more than once, over time. So this seems a question that can't conclusively prove Biblical authenticity, but might disprove it.

However, I'd have to research historical investigations into the question before I had any view at all. I suspect though, that such research might unearth a spectrum of credible views and some debunked ones.

In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)

That being so, I'd happily yield a place to an interested member that you felt was the right fit for the question.

Regardless, I wish this discussion the best of success, and at the very least, look forward to reading it.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 8:58:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 8:30:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT
That sounds like a great discussion opportunity, Peter, and thank you for the invitation.

I don't myself have a view on the most likely date of Matthew's authorship, and the date of writing need not be related to a date of redaction, since works can be redacted more than once, over time. So this seems a question that can't conclusively prove Biblical authenticity, but might disprove it.

However, I'd have to research historical investigations into the question before I had any view at all. I suspect though, that such research might unearth a spectrum of credible views and some debunked ones.

In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)

That being so, I'd happily yield a place to an interested member that you felt was the right fit for the question.

Regardless, I wish this discussion the best of success, and at the very least, look forward to reading it.

Okay then, if the two weeks are up and there are no takers can I scribble you in for a yes? We can discuss the format later. In the mean time I will keep looking.

I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:02:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 8:58:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:30:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT
That sounds like a great discussion opportunity, Peter, and thank you for the invitation.

I don't myself have a view on the most likely date of Matthew's authorship, and the date of writing need not be related to a date of redaction, since works can be redacted more than once, over time. So this seems a question that can't conclusively prove Biblical authenticity, but might disprove it.

However, I'd have to research historical investigations into the question before I had any view at all. I suspect though, that such research might unearth a spectrum of credible views and some debunked ones.

In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)

That being so, I'd happily yield a place to an interested member that you felt was the right fit for the question.

Regardless, I wish this discussion the best of success, and at the very least, look forward to reading it.

Okay then, if the two weeks are up and there are no takers can I scribble you in for a yes? We can discuss the format later. In the mean time I will keep looking.
Yes. If it's active when I return, and a belated contribution is timely, I'd be happy to contribute.

I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.
That sounds organised and productive, Peter. It's beginning to sound like a panel discussion, from which members might make up their own minds.

I think that could be a good format.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It'll be interesting, but I still hold that those who plead for a later date have nothing more than:

"Well, it contains accurate predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, and since no one could have made such accurate predictions, then I'll date it after AD 70."

They might not word it that way, but that's what it amounts to. The trouble, of course, is that they then have to claim that the writer of Matthew plagiarized .... pretty much everyone: Mark, Paul, and everyone else, including perhaps Josephus. And the conclusion will have to be that the writer of Matthew was exceedingly dishonest - dishonest at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, and all throughout.

I hope this discussion, if it materializes, does not degenerate into a "so-and-so told me" type of thing. Dee-em has asked if "scholars" evolve their opinions from reading tea leaves. My answer to that is: at times, no, they didn't use such sophisticated methods.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT, not a discussion on the Trinity or some side issue that has nothing to do with the topic. Please form another thread to discuss other issues that do not relate to the dating.

This has become personal between Dee-em and myself. He has constantly accused me of lying and unethical conduct. We have swamped another thread topic with our back-and-forth for around three hundred posts. It was his constant accusations of me lying that created this animosity. After pleading with him for hundreds of posts to lay down his evidence (instead of his constant repetition about doubt in knowing) and my decision to end our discussion when he started calling me a liar, he has started to do just that due to my silence, lay down some of the evidence that supports his position. I was going to let it slide because of his accusations but decided instead to challenge him to a debate, explaining the circumstances for it in my initial challenge to him. He has declined to accept so far. I am transferring the topic over to here by copying our latest exchanges. Since he will not debate I want to expand on this subject of the dating game here by answering his posts and pushing the subject deeper.

I am asking him to transfer his last six posts from the other thread to this one.

I would like to limit the number of participants to six, three representing the Christian position of an early dating and three representing the current "scholarly" majority position as made popular in the last 100 years or so. I am inviting four additional people to participate. If these four accept we are set. If they don't I will open it up to whoever wants to fill the vacancies. If there is no interest I will focus strictly on a discussion with Dee-em.

If the people below decline I want people who are somewhat familiar with the arguments. In that case I will take the first two volunteers for each side.

Early date:
1. Me (Peter).............................Yes
2. Annanicole............................Yes or no?
3. ??? Looking for a Christian who holds to an early dating of Matthew and the NT or someone familiar enough to argue for it.

Late date:
1. Dee-em..................................Yes or no?
2. Skepticalone..........................Yes or no?
3. Ruv Draba..............................Yes or no?

If I get commitments then I would like to zero in on specific discussion subtopics, work on those arguments then go to another discussion piece. We can agree to perhaps as many as ten lines of evidence or subtopics, discuss the specifics of what those lines of argument will entail since there are a lot of different contentions. For instance, the topic of who wrote the gospels, or whether Paul authored all the canonized epistles attributed to him, or whether prophecy was written into these accounts before or after AD 70. What historical evidences does each side have for an early verses late date as opposed to what is pure speculation. I would also like to include (perhaps even as the starting argument since it is a huge factor) worldview bias and what this means in examining the evidence. That first subtopic can be somewhat shortened or not?

On each subtopic we could limit the number of opening statements by each participant to a determined amount, such as three or five posts or what is agreeable. Maybe we could limit the extent of our replies and rebuttals to each subtopic in regarding the subtopic to ten posts to each participant which would be titled Responses # 1 to Dee-em, or Response # 5 to Skepticalone, etc., until our ten responses are used up, then go on to a different subtopic of determining the dating. Once our posts are used up for each person we are on the side-lines for the rest of the subtopic so use them wisely. Or we can continue until the subtopic is exhausted. These details need to be worked out.

In presenting an argument I welcome quotes and citations but only as support, not a website with no summary argument attached. IOW's, these specific quotes or citations should be used to summarize or support the argument, not the sole argument itself. You can do this in two ways, either by including the web address after the quote or by the use of footnotes. I don't want to wade through thousands of pages to find out what a person's position is. Since there is only a limited amount of space available for opening statements and arguments (# of posts to be agreed upon) the longer the quotation the less space left available. Once the commitment spaces are verified we can begin on the desired first subtopic, agreed or conceded by all.

I'm looking for a comprehensible and detailed argument/discussion. Are you agreeable?

I would ask these invitees to please reply within 24 hours so that I can open it up to the first people who qualify and sign up if I get no commitments. The whole discussion can take place on this thread. We do not need to formalize a debate.

Position # 3 is open now for the Christian side of the debate.

Until I get commitments by these people to either discuss or decline I am going to reply to Dee-ems latest posts from the other thread.

Peter

I am a little concerned about a "response" taking multiple posts. A concise discussion would be preferred since it is more likely to hold the attention of those unfamiliar with the topic (and also not be a tremendous chore). That being said, I'm interested.
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
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:02:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:58:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:30:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT
That sounds like a great discussion opportunity, Peter, and thank you for the invitation.

I don't myself have a view on the most likely date of Matthew's authorship, and the date of writing need not be related to a date of redaction, since works can be redacted more than once, over time. So this seems a question that can't conclusively prove Biblical authenticity, but might disprove it.

However, I'd have to research historical investigations into the question before I had any view at all. I suspect though, that such research might unearth a spectrum of credible views and some debunked ones.

In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)

That being so, I'd happily yield a place to an interested member that you felt was the right fit for the question.

Regardless, I wish this discussion the best of success, and at the very least, look forward to reading it.

Okay then, if the two weeks are up and there are no takers can I scribble you in for a yes? We can discuss the format later. In the mean time I will keep looking.
Yes. If it's active when I return, and a belated contribution is timely, I'd be happy to contribute.

I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.
That sounds organised and productive, Peter. It's beginning to sound like a panel discussion, from which members might make up their own minds.

I think that could be a good format.
Good. BTW, sounds like a nice vacation.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
It'll be interesting, but I still hold that those who plead for a later date have nothing more than:

"Well, it contains accurate predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, and since no one could have made such accurate predictions, then I'll date it after AD 70."

They might not word it that way, but that's what it amounts to. The trouble, of course, is that they then have to claim that the writer of Matthew plagiarized .... pretty much everyone: Mark, Paul, and everyone else, including perhaps Josephus. And the conclusion will have to be that the writer of Matthew was exceedingly dishonest - dishonest at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, and all throughout.

I hope this discussion, if it materializes, does not degenerate into a "so-and-so told me" type of thing. Dee-em has asked if "scholars" evolve their opinions from reading tea leaves. My answer to that is: at times, no, they didn't use such sophisticated methods.

Great, then maybe we could refine the rules so that the discussion is more formal, like an actual debate format where it does not digest into name-calling, but if he wishes to use such a source as tea-bags then the argument should be seen for what it is, ridiculous and unsupported by any credibility.

We can discuss on what the first subtopic should be or we can all list a number of subtopics to be discussed and decide where to start, what to eliminate.

I for one would like to start with worldview presuppositions because I think that modern scholarship brings a particular frame of reference to the discussion of dating. Also our own particular worldviews could be brought into the equation since Dee-em has brought into the discussion the question of whether anything can be determined because of the doubt involved. Since Dee-em has brought into question who actually wrote these gospels I think that could be one of the subtopics too. Paul's epistles could be another. Prophecy is definitely one since I feel the whole argument revolves around this subtopic. Prophecy could be broken down into a couple of subtopics such as what the internal evidence points to and whether the prophesies were written in after the event.

So please add your input in determining where to start and what particular subtopics you see as relevant to the topic at hand in an early or late date.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
It'll be interesting, but I still hold that those who plead for a later date have nothing more than:

"Well, it contains accurate predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, and since no one could have made such accurate predictions, then I'll date it after AD 70."

They might not word it that way, but that's what it amounts to. The trouble, of course, is that they then have to claim that the writer of Matthew plagiarized .... pretty much everyone: Mark, Paul, and everyone else, including perhaps Josephus. And the conclusion will have to be that the writer of Matthew was exceedingly dishonest - dishonest at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, and all throughout.

I hope this discussion, if it materializes, does not degenerate into a "so-and-so told me" type of thing. Dee-em has asked if "scholars" evolve their opinions from reading tea leaves. My answer to that is: at times, no, they didn't use such sophisticated methods.

Great, then maybe we could refine the rules so that the discussion is more formal, like an actual debate format where it does not digest into name-calling, but if he wishes to use such a source as tea-bags then the argument should be seen for what it is, ridiculous and unsupported by any credibility.

We can discuss on what the first subtopic should be or we can all list a number of subtopics to be discussed and decide where to start, what to eliminate.

I for one would like to start with worldview presuppositions because I think that modern scholarship brings a particular frame of reference to the discussion of dating. Also our own particular worldviews could be brought into the equation since Dee-em has brought into the discussion the question of whether anything can be determined because of the doubt involved. Since Dee-em has brought into question who actually wrote these gospels I think that could be one of the subtopics too. Paul's epistles could be another. Prophecy is definitely one since I feel the whole argument revolves around this subtopic. Prophecy could be broken down into a couple of subtopics such as what the internal evidence points to and whether the prophesies were written in after the event.

So please add your input in determining where to start and what particular subtopics you see as relevant to the topic at hand in an early or late date.

Peter

I don't know where to start! I know that any discussion of internal evidence will be fruitless, mainly because so few (including the three on the late-date side) know so little of what's in the books.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:

Excuse me. I didn't see Skepticalone's name up there. Ruv Drava admits to not knowing. Dee-em doesn't know, but I'm not so sure that he realizes it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:15:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:
This thread is strictly on the subject of dating the NT, not a discussion on the Trinity or some side issue that has nothing to do with the topic. Please form another thread to discuss other issues that do not relate to the dating.

This has become personal between Dee-em and myself. He has constantly accused me of lying and unethical conduct. We have swamped another thread topic with our back-and-forth for around three hundred posts. It was his constant accusations of me lying that created this animosity. After pleading with him for hundreds of posts to lay down his evidence (instead of his constant repetition about doubt in knowing) and my decision to end our discussion when he started calling me a liar, he has started to do just that due to my silence, lay down some of the evidence that supports his position. I was going to let it slide because of his accusations but decided instead to challenge him to a debate, explaining the circumstances for it in my initial challenge to him. He has declined to accept so far. I am transferring the topic over to here by copying our latest exchanges. Since he will not debate I want to expand on this subject of the dating game here by answering his posts and pushing the subject deeper.

I am asking him to transfer his last six posts from the other thread to this one.

I would like to limit the number of participants to six, three representing the Christian position of an early dating and three representing the current "scholarly" majority position as made popular in the last 100 years or so. I am inviting four additional people to participate. If these four accept we are set. If they don't I will open it up to whoever wants to fill the vacancies. If there is no interest I will focus strictly on a discussion with Dee-em.

If the people below decline I want people who are somewhat familiar with the arguments. In that case I will take the first two volunteers for each side.

Early date:
1. Me (Peter).............................Yes
2. Annanicole............................Yes or no?
3. ??? Looking for a Christian who holds to an early dating of Matthew and the NT or someone familiar enough to argue for it.

Late date:
1. Dee-em..................................Yes or no?
2. Skepticalone..........................Yes or no?
3. Ruv Draba..............................Yes or no?

If I get commitments then I would like to zero in on specific discussion subtopics, work on those arguments then go to another discussion piece. We can agree to perhaps as many as ten lines of evidence or subtopics, discuss the specifics of what those lines of argument will entail since there are a lot of different contentions. For instance, the topic of who wrote the gospels, or whether Paul authored all the canonized epistles attributed to him, or whether prophecy was written into these accounts before or after AD 70. What historical evidences does each side have for an early verses late date as opposed to what is pure speculation. I would also like to include (perhaps even as the starting argument since it is a huge factor) worldview bias and what this means in examining the evidence. That first subtopic can be somewhat shortened or not?

On each subtopic we could limit the number of opening statements by each participant to a determined amount, such as three or five posts or what is agreeable. Maybe we could limit the extent of our replies and rebuttals to each subtopic in regarding the subtopic to ten posts to each participant which would be titled Responses # 1 to Dee-em, or Response # 5 to Skepticalone, etc., until our ten responses are used up, then go on to a different subtopic of determining the dating. Once our posts are used up for each person we are on the side-lines for the rest of the subtopic so use them wisely. Or we can continue until the subtopic is exhausted. These details need to be worked out.

In presenting an argument I welcome quotes and citations but only as support, not a website with no summary argument attached. IOW's, these specific quotes or citations should be used to summarize or support the argument, not the sole argument itself. You can do this in two ways, either by including the web address after the quote or by the use of footnotes. I don't want to wade through thousands of pages to find out what a person's position is. Since there is only a limited amount of space available for opening statements and arguments (# of posts to be agreed upon) the longer the quotation the less space left available. Once the commitment spaces are verified we can begin on the desired first subtopic, agreed or conceded by all.

I'm looking for a comprehensible and detailed argument/discussion. Are you agreeable?

I would ask these invitees to please reply within 24 hours so that I can open it up to the first people who qualify and sign up if I get no commitments. The whole discussion can take place on this thread. We do not need to formalize a debate.

Position # 3 is open now for the Christian side of the debate.

Until I get commitments by these people to either discuss or decline I am going to reply to Dee-ems latest posts from the other thread.

Peter

I am a little concerned about a "response" taking multiple posts. A concise discussion would be preferred since it is more likely to hold the attention of those unfamiliar with the topic (and also not be a tremendous chore). That being said, I'm interested.

The problem is the more we limit it the less discrepancies can be brought out and targeted. If we agree to a limit of responses to each person we can carry out a reasonable amount of probing and how each person uses their responses is up to them. It would be in refutation of the other persons position. If you can say that in lesser posts then you might not need the prescribed amount. There is nothing worse than not being able to respond because you have no space left.

If we can keep the responses systematic and on topic it would be desired, but that will take disciple. I planned on using scholarly quotes that support my early dating position as well as historicity, even a bit of philosophy and hopefully logic.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
It'll be interesting, but I still hold that those who plead for a later date have nothing more than:

"Well, it contains accurate predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, and since no one could have made such accurate predictions, then I'll date it after AD 70."

They might not word it that way, but that's what it amounts to. The trouble, of course, is that they then have to claim that the writer of Matthew plagiarized .... pretty much everyone: Mark, Paul, and everyone else, including perhaps Josephus. And the conclusion will have to be that the writer of Matthew was exceedingly dishonest - dishonest at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, and all throughout.

I hope this discussion, if it materializes, does not degenerate into a "so-and-so told me" type of thing. Dee-em has asked if "scholars" evolve their opinions from reading tea leaves. My answer to that is: at times, no, they didn't use such sophisticated methods.

Great, then maybe we could refine the rules so that the discussion is more formal, like an actual debate format where it does not digest into name-calling, but if he wishes to use such a source as tea-bags then the argument should be seen for what it is, ridiculous and unsupported by any credibility.

We can discuss on what the first subtopic should be or we can all list a number of subtopics to be discussed and decide where to start, what to eliminate.

I for one would like to start with worldview presuppositions because I think that modern scholarship brings a particular frame of reference to the discussion of dating. Also our own particular worldviews could be brought into the equation since Dee-em has brought into the discussion the question of whether anything can be determined because of the doubt involved. Since Dee-em has brought into question who actually wrote these gospels I think that could be one of the subtopics too. Paul's epistles could be another. Prophecy is definitely one since I feel the whole argument revolves around this subtopic. Prophecy could be broken down into a couple of subtopics such as what the internal evidence points to and whether the prophesies were written in after the event.

So please add your input in determining where to start and what particular subtopics you see as relevant to the topic at hand in an early or late date.

Peter

I don't know where to start! I know that any discussion of internal evidence will be fruitless, mainly because so few (including the three on the late-date side) know so little of what's in the books.

You are right. That particular subtopic should be most exclusively in our favor and I look forward to it. It will definitely bring out how competent a Bible knowledge everyone has.

I feel this subtopic of internal evidence could even be broken down further, by prophetic and historic discussion plus by particular gospels, such as Matthew and/or Luke/Mark/John, or Revelation, or the epistles. To lump that all into one subtopic would not present a fraction of the internal evidence. It is an exhaustive subject, especially in regard to prophecy. It is one I know you and I could discuss for hundreds of posts yet I feel that cannot be said for the rest. What is a discussion on the internal evidence without a discussion on the OT prophesies? These quotes and citations used by the NT authors are extensive in their own right.

I wonder if we should put our desired discussions/argument preferences in point form, say five each and then we get to eliminate the least relevant subtopics from the list. I listed areas I would like to see discussed, but my choice would not include everything there if I only had a few options. I can put these in point form and I would ask everyone else to, then we can eliminate one or two from each list and see what is left. In this way everyone gets to discuss areas they want to and are forced to comply with the rest. There are only so many points that would be relevant to the early and late date and I'm sure that each list will have some that overlap other lists.

What would you agree to as a suitable list - three, five, or more subtopics and on that list would we eliminate some? It would be easy if we have shared points on our lists.

PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:18:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:20:02 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:02:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)
I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.
That sounds organised and productive, Peter. It's beginning to sound like a panel discussion, from which members might make up their own minds.

I think that could be a good format.
Good. BTW, sounds like a nice vacation.

(335mi in 9 days, with one day off for good behaviour. But easier than two years ago. That was 380mi, some of it up and down mountains.)

Good luck on the topic. :D
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:23:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:40:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 8:10:14 PM, PGA wrote:

Excuse me. I didn't see Skepticalone's name up there. Ruv Drava admits to not knowing. Dee-em doesn't know, but I'm not so sure that he realizes it.

Skepticalone said he was game but wants to discuss the details.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:27:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:18:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:20:02 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:02:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)
I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.
That sounds organised and productive, Peter. It's beginning to sound like a panel discussion, from which members might make up their own minds.

I think that could be a good format.
Good. BTW, sounds like a nice vacation.

(335mi in 9 days, with one day off for good behaviour. But easier than two years ago. That was 380mi, some of it up and down mountains.)

Where to?

Good luck on the topic. :D

Do you have a proxy, someone you would recommend in your place that I can invite?

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
So please add your input in determining where to start and what particular subtopics you see as relevant to the topic at hand in an early or late date.

Peter

I don't know where to start! I know that any discussion of internal evidence will be fruitless, mainly because so few (including the three on the late-date side) know so little of what's in the books.

I don't have a view on the likely date at this time, Annanicole. I agree that diplomatics (the study of historical documents) should include coverage of the content, but it's also generally accepted that it should include also context, language, format and external contextual knowledge such as traditions.

I don't yet know what independent academic material is available on this topic.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:28:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:

PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Nope, not on here. I know very few professed Christians on here who know enough to advocate any date at all - and defend that date.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:30:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:28:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
So please add your input in determining where to start and what particular subtopics you see as relevant to the topic at hand in an early or late date.

Peter

I don't know where to start! I know that any discussion of internal evidence will be fruitless, mainly because so few (including the three on the late-date side) know so little of what's in the books.

I don't have a view on the likely date at this time, Annanicole. I agree that diplomatics (the study of historical documents) should include coverage of the content, but it's also generally accepted that it should include also context, language, format and external contextual knowledge such as traditions.

I don't yet know what independent academic material is available on this topic.

Well, that's basically what I just said! Most of what you mentioned, however, tilts in favor of the early date.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:27:41 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:18:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:20:02 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:02:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)
I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.
That sounds organised and productive, Peter. It's beginning to sound like a panel discussion, from which members might make up their own minds.

I think that could be a good format.
Good. BTW, sounds like a nice vacation.

(335mi in 9 days, with one day off for good behaviour. But easier than two years ago. That was 380mi, some of it up and down mountains.)

Where to?

The goldfields of Victoria, Australia. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] There was a gold-rush in Australia in the 1850s, much at the same time it happened in the US. It had a major impact on Australia's pre-Federal colonial history, including its (gradual) move to multiculturalism, pluralism and social democracy. These days the Victorian goldfields are a heritage area, and a significant agricultural area. They're also reasonably flat and visually interesting -- ideal for cycling. :)

Good luck on the topic. :D

Do you have a proxy, someone you would recommend in your place that I can invite?

If he were available, I'd recommend Envisage. He generally loves academic questions; researches rapidly and thoroughly; and is inclined to be skeptical about religious exceptionalism. But his participation in DDO waxes and wanes.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:36:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:28:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:


PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Nope, not on here. I know very few professed Christians on here who know enough to advocate any date at all - and defend that date.

If we can't get one then we might have to limit the participation to two from each side since Ruv can't participate for two weeks. Three was just an arbitrary number but I'm open to see if we get a response. Maybe some Christian who has a fair biblical knowledge would be willing to defend it, but that is asking a little much since the subject is so involved.

I was trying to get people from both sides of the fence to present their best arguments.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:39:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:36:54 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:


PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Nope, not on here. I know very few professed Christians on here who know enough to advocate any date at all - and defend that date.

If we can't get one then we might have to limit the participation to two from each side since Ruv can't participate for two weeks. Three was just an arbitrary number but I'm open to see if we get a response. Maybe some Christian who has a fair biblical knowledge would be willing to defend it, but that is asking a little much since the subject is so involved.

Yeah, good luck on that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:40:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:34:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:27:41 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:18:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:20:02 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:02:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
In principle, I'd be happy to do the research and report whatever I find, however I'll be away for the next two weeks on a bike tour, so wouldn't be able to participate until much later (allowing for my absence, then some time to research.)
I was thinking of a conclusion to each subtopic too, after each person has posted the allotted number of replies.
That sounds organised and productive, Peter. It's beginning to sound like a panel discussion, from which members might make up their own minds.

I think that could be a good format.
Good. BTW, sounds like a nice vacation.

(335mi in 9 days, with one day off for good behaviour. But easier than two years ago. That was 380mi, some of it up and down mountains.)

Where to?

The goldfields of Victoria, Australia. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] There was a gold-rush in Australia in the 1850s, much at the same time it happened in the US. It had a major impact on Australia's pre-Federal colonial history, including its (gradual) move to multiculturalism, pluralism and social democracy. These days the Victorian goldfields are a heritage area, and a significant agricultural area. They're also reasonably flat and visually interesting -- ideal for cycling. :)

Not familiar with the area but hope you enjoy it!

Good luck on the topic. :D

Do you have a proxy, someone you would recommend in your place that I can invite?

If he were available, I'd recommend Envisage. He generally loves academic questions; researches rapidly and thoroughly; and is inclined to be skeptical about religious exceptionalism. But his participation in DDO waxes and wanes.

Good idea. Right now I'm having trouble rounding up a third Christian and Dee has not committed either. I will give it more time.

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:43:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:30:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
I don't know where to start! I know that any discussion of internal evidence will be fruitless, mainly because so few (including the three on the late-date side) know so little of what's in the books.

I don't have a view on the likely date at this time, Annanicole. I agree that diplomatics (the study of historical documents) should include coverage of the content, but it's also generally accepted that it should include also context, language, format and external contextual knowledge such as traditions.

I don't yet know what independent academic material is available on this topic.

Well, that's basically what I just said!
You implied a bit more than that, Annanicole, in suggesting there was a problem on the 'nontheistic' side which you don't share.

I claim no expertise on Biblical diplomatics, but do you consider yourself an expert in Ancient Near-Eastern history? If not, is your criticism honest, fair or relevant?

Most of what you mentioned, however, tilts in favor of the early date.
That's what you'd need to establish. And for all I know, I might agree with you.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:43:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:39:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:36:54 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:


PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Nope, not on here. I know very few professed Christians on here who know enough to advocate any date at all - and defend that date.

If we can't get one then we might have to limit the participation to two from each side since Ruv can't participate for two weeks. Three was just an arbitrary number but I'm open to see if we get a response. Maybe some Christian who has a fair biblical knowledge would be willing to defend it, but that is asking a little much since the subject is so involved.

Yeah, good luck on that.

Yeah, the problem is that most Christians have never even considered the argument let alone researched it in any fashion. I'm also waiting for Dee to chime in.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:44:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:43:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:39:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:36:54 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:


PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Nope, not on here. I know very few professed Christians on here who know enough to advocate any date at all - and defend that date.

If we can't get one then we might have to limit the participation to two from each side since Ruv can't participate for two weeks. Three was just an arbitrary number but I'm open to see if we get a response. Maybe some Christian who has a fair biblical knowledge would be willing to defend it, but that is asking a little much since the subject is so involved.

Yeah, good luck on that.

Yeah, the problem is that most Christians have never even considered the argument let alone researched it in any fashion. I'm also waiting for Dee to chime in.

I'm not.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:49:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:43:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:30:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:

I claim no expertise on Biblical diplomatics, but do you consider yourself an expert in Ancient Near-Eastern history? If not, is your criticism honest, fair or relevant?

Mediocre. Pretty decent at 100 BC - 100 AD.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:50:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:49:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:43:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:30:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:

I claim no expertise on Biblical diplomatics, but do you consider yourself an expert in Ancient Near-Eastern history? If not, is your criticism honest, fair or relevant?

Mediocre. Pretty decent at 100 BC - 100 AD.

I look forward to reading your contributions and citations.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 10:50:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 10:44:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:43:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:39:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:36:54 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:28:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 10:09:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:38:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:36:00 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/25/2015 9:07:05 PM, annanicole wrote:


PS. Do you know of a third party who I or you can invite that favors a early dating of the NT?

Nope, not on here. I know very few professed Christians on here who know enough to advocate any date at all - and defend that date.

If we can't get one then we might have to limit the participation to two from each side since Ruv can't participate for two weeks. Three was just an arbitrary number but I'm open to see if we get a response. Maybe some Christian who has a fair biblical knowledge would be willing to defend it, but that is asking a little much since the subject is so involved.

Yeah, good luck on that.

Yeah, the problem is that most Christians have never even considered the argument let alone researched it in any fashion. I'm also waiting for Dee to chime in.

I'm not.

I want to see his scholarly evidence. So far he has taken me to a site titled "The Church of Truth" even though he says the truth can't be known. The "church" was an atheist encampment. (^8

Have to run an errand.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 11:42:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You can have my scholarly biblical advice. Late dating. The order of the NT starts with Paul then Mark followed by Matthew and Luke and lastly John. The last three were written after the fall of Jerusalem and the second destruction of the temple or after 70AD.
I wouldn't call Peter a liar. As a Preterism defender his hands are tied. Here is a link to our exchanges.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 2:35:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I explained in the other thread, I will not debate with someone who does not have the intellectual honesty to concede when they agree to a set of rules and one of those rules is indisputably violated. Peter wants to change topic because he ran out of strawmen in the other thread. He then tried to start a debate with me where he began by complaining about being called a liar in the religion forum. I pointed out the unethical nature of carrying this baggage into a new debate and creating prejudice in any vote. Now he starts a new "debate" thread where he begins in exactly the same way. Clearly, Peter lacks any ethical standard.

He complains about being called out as a liar but has no comeback when the lies are pointed out. He simply keeps repeating the lies. He continually tells me what I think despite being told countless times that this is not what I think or claim. When all else fails Peter will abandon any argument and resort to bulverism, telling me that my worldview and preconceptions are the problem. I point out the fallacy but he just ignores it and carries on.

As for Anna, in that other thread she butted in and, without provocation, called me a dimwit and an idiot. I asked her to stop and she called me a dimwit again. I then had to put her in her place.

Are Peter and Anna people I wish to engage in debate with? I think I would rather go to the dentist and have teeth pulled.

If anyone takes up this challenge, you have been warned with respect to the likely tactics. For the record, Peter bugged out of the discusssion on prophecy in the other thread, not once, but three times. He was argued to a standstill and all he could do was lie continually and try to change the subject. Hence this thread.