Date is not the only standard by which reliability is judged.
Good then lets drop dates. I don't usually find them important.
Not sure how you think that Christ accepted Paul's writing ? I do not buy into this assumption at all.
Then you disagree with Christ. As well as the other apostles. Unless you assert that the writer whom all the other apostles accepted and who wrote more of the new testament than anyone and who prevailed in the discussion with the other apostles lied when he said he met Christ.
If these four Gospels existed in some earlier form (they certainly did not exist in current form .. Matt for example records events related to the destruction of the temple) then why does Paul never refer to them to support his doctrine.
I don't know what this was addressing.
Also .. why do Pauls treachings about "salvation by faith" contradict James who was leader of the Jerusalem Church, and Jesus himself.
They only contradict your understanding of this issue. I have read eight commentaries on this subject lately and they seem to have no issue reconcileing them. Also the notes in my NIV life application bible had no problem.
I have given you a number of quotes from the Bible where both James and Jesus contradict Pauls "salvation by faith" claim.
I am well aware of these verses. I have investigated them on many occasions. They do seem to contradict on the surface but with a little research these surface problems go away. This is a similar issue in the Gospels themselves and many other places. Where people who do not look past the surface or have a preconcieved bias that doesn't allow haronization.
Paul himself supports this idea in recounting conflicts he had with the diciples.
The conflict which was very small envolved Peter's hypocritical behavior as it related to his associations. Peter was wrong and Paul pointed it out. The other small confrentation involved circumcision and anyone could see that Paul was right again. He was by far and away the expert on the law.
Pauls words are not consistent with James 2 (faith without works is Dead)
James was saying that a faith that results in no works is a dead faith that couldn't save anyone. He is contrasting a superficial faith and a real born again faith.Just try to construct a workable faith based justification. It is impossible.
It is you that has failed to account for or address directly the the contradictions between James 2, the words of Jesus, and Paul.
Your obsessed with these few verses. You have some kind of Bias that is driveing this. Any commentator will do better than I would. It would take more time than I have to hash this out for you. There is plenty of info all over the web to satasfy you if knowledge is actually what you want.
Just because Paul's view prevailed is not necessarily evidence for reliability.
Well it sure as heck is better eveidence for it than your position.
This statement can only come from abject denial. Standing on a stump and shouting "there is nothing inconsistent in the Bible" over and over again does not make it so
I have just spent several hours allowing a Muslim to throw every contradiction he could find at me. Even I was suprised how easily they were shown to be non contradictions. I have however not done that with every single one that anyone thinks might be valid so I will amend my statement to say it is approx 95% free of contradiction and reliable.
I have given you specific inconsistencies from James and the words of Jesus in Matt (sermon on the Mount, and Chapter 23-24)
I thought you said James and Jesus were in agreement. I thought Paul was the rogue. Which is it?
You have not addressed James. You have not addressed the words of Jesus which contradict Paul.
It takes a long time to hash those out. As someone who claims to be Christian you have the know how and ability to read a commentary or scholars that make the case better than I can. If you actually want is the highest quality information then that is where you want to look for it.
All have done in relation to Jesus is point to Johannine material where Jesus seems to support your claim. I have agreed that the words attributed to Jesus in John do seem to support your claim somewhat. This creates a big problem because now we have Jesus contradicting himself which I do not think he did so some editor is putting words in the mouth of Jesus.
I do not agree he is contradicting himself. I suggest some prayer, unbiased thinking, and study can clear any problems you are having reconcileing these things up.
My rational for rejecting John rather than Matt, Mark and Luke, is that the book was not written by a Jew and it is in a completely different style than the other Gospels.
If it was not written by a Jew then shouldn't it be different. Regardless a different style has nothing to do with accuracy or reliability. You reject John because he says things you don't like. His different style is just the best reason you can come up with to dismiss what you don't like.
The other rational is that John is the only Gospel that attributes such verbiage to Jesus.
That is because he has a unique mission and perspective. He was to reveal his devine nature more fully than the others. All of them have a slightly different mission and perspective. It is exactly what you want in multiple witness testimony.
The contradiction in doctrine is there for anyone who is literate to see.
Everyone except all the great commentaries and 90% of Christians. As well as all the people throught the years that have affirmed the canon.
James himself saw this contradiction and he spends all of James 2 in an effort to clarify the issue.
You keep saying the same thing over and over. I have already addressed this as well as hundreds of Christian scholars.
James 2 is the straw that breaks the back of any argument claiming that there was no contradiction.
Only if you refuse to unbiasedly look for legitimate ways they can harmonize. It is you who are bucking the established Christian narrative. You have the burden of proof and that requires a lot more than assertions.
45 is way too early and the Author of the link you provided gives evidence to this effect.
It may very well be that is why I said between 45AD and 100AD. So what is the point?
