There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[YoursTrue]

I don't know what you're trying to say ...

I mentioned that it's quite clear by the start of the 2nd century, all Greek Christian writings included in the New Testament were already finished. I also provided evidence to support this, and anyone can reflect on that:

How did Tatian compile the Diatessaron, a side-by-side comparison of the four Gospels, between 160-175 if those Gospels were not yet completed by that time?

Good reminder, thanks for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what you're trying to say ...

I mentioned that it's quite clear by the start of the 2nd century, all Greek Christian writings included in the New Testament were already finished. I also provided evidence to support this, and anyone can reflect on that:

How did Tatian compile the Diatessaron, a side-by-side comparison of the four Gospels, between 160-175 if those Gospels were not yet completed by that time?

Or: How could a fragment of the Gospel of John, dated to 150, be discovered in Egypt if the Gospel of John did not exist until some years before that date?

Or: Which gospels were the Apostolic Fathers quoting in the early second century if those gospels hadn't been written and circulated in the various cities where they lived?

So I evidently refuted this:

... indicating that certain individuals persistently disseminate misinformation online. What motivates them to do so?

Furthermore, what is your point regarding my comments to @shunyadragon about the fake news he is circulating on the web?

Actually at last John and Luke show signs of possibly being edited in the second century. It was early second century, but they were by now means finished products at the end of the first century. And why do you think that we could no have a fragment of a book from 150 CE that was finished in 110 CE?

 

[YoursTrue]

The gospels are the heart of the scripture and Paul relies on the scripture. There are serious questions as to how original Paul's letters are. and there is no original provenance.

I believe Paul was the beginning of the Roman-Hellenist Paulist Christian religion we have today, which virtually excluded Jews form the future of Christianity.

As Paul said, he knew Jewish thought pretty well from his intense education on Judaistic thought and history.

 

[Eli G]

Paul likely was killed during Nero's reign, around 65/66. So, how could letters attributed to him be dated beyond his death?

Peter referenced Paul's letters in one of his own, which he wrote around 64, in 2 Pet. 3:15,16. By then, most of Paul's letters were already composed and circulated among Christian communities.

Additionally, there's no evidence to conclusively show that Mark's gospel was written before Matthew and Luke. Nor can it be proven that any New Testament books (except those by John) were written post-70, a claim often based on speculation from atheist Bible critics who assume that human prophecy of divine origin is not possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul likely was killed during Nero's reign, around 65/66. So, how could letters attributed to him be dated beyond his death?

Peter referenced Paul's letters, which he wrote around 64, in 2 Pet. 3:15,16. By then, most of Paul's letters were already composed and circulated among Christian communities.

Additionally, there's no evidence to conclusively show that Mark's gospel was written before Matthew and Luke. Nor can it be proven that any New Testament books (except those by John) were written post-70, a claim often based on speculation from atheist Bible critics who assume that human prophecy of divine origin is not possible.

Why couldn't they? Back then it was not a big taboo for a follower of someone to write a letter for him using the person's name that he is following. Any of the letters of Paul that were not written by him were almost surely written by one of his followers. They were not trying to lie, but they do not have as much authority as the actual work of Paul.

 

[Sumadji]

Peter referenced Paul's letters in one of his own, which he wrote around 64, in 2 Pet. 3:15,16

The authenticity of Peter's letters is a matter of debate amongst scholars

Nor can it be proven that any New Testament books (except those by John) were written post-70,

There is evidence and scholarship for an earlier John, even preceding Mark

 

[Eli G]

The Apostolic Fathers frequently mention the biblical writers, referring to them as real individuals who established the original congregation based on Jesus' teachings and the holy spirit’s revelations during early Christianity. These Apostolic Fathers recognized the authorship attributed to the New Testament books as belonging to real people, whose lives and contributions to true Christianity were well-known. They were also aware of the deaths of most of them, knowing how and when they died, since these figures lived only a few years before the Apostolic Fathers themselves were converted by them or by other first-generation Christians.

In contemporary times, some atheists attempt to rewrite history, trying to dictate to Christians what they should believe about biblical writings. Christianity didn't "just" emerge in the first century; its history has continued to thrive up to the present day, non stop. Whether original or apostate, Christianity has never been a dead religion. Atheists won't be able to extinguish it or alter history simply because they wish to do so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why couldn't they? Back then it was not a big taboo for a follower of someone to write a letter for him using the person's name that he is following. Any of the letters of Paul that were not written by him were almost surely written by one of his followers. They were not trying to lie, but they do not have as much authority as the actual work of Paul.

Aren't you trying to say so what once again? Meantime you're not making sense except to show your lack of understanding both of science and of the human psyche. I'm a little worried about you -- hope things get better for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren't you trying to say so what once again? Meantime you're not making sense except to show your lack of understanding both of science and of the human psyche. I'm a little worried about you -- hope things get better for you.

Nope. Sorry if you cannot follow an argument. I cannot help you on that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. Sorry if you cannot follow an argument. I cannot help you on that.

Lol you probably think you have tried...lol that's ok. Thanks for trying and I'm outta your class for a couple of reasons. But thanks and have a good one. I appreciate it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I mentioned that it's quite clear by the start of the 2nd century, all Greek Christian writings included in the New Testament were already finished.

And yet there are scholars (albeit a minority) that suggest a slightly later date.

Furthermore, what is your point regarding my comments to @shunyadragon about the fake news he is circulating on the web?

I cannot answer that specific question because he's on my ignore list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol you probably think you have tried...lol that's ok. Thanks for trying and I'm outta your class for a couple of reasons. But thanks and have a good one. I appreciate it.

Countless people have tried to help you to learn. To date you seem to be incapable of doing so. If I was the only one then it might be my fault but I am far from being the only one to observe this about you.

 

[Eli G]

And yet there are scholars (albeit a minority) that suggest a slightly later date.

Since there are so many scholars with so many different opinions, what is a person truly interested in the correct answer to do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there are so many scholars with so many different opinions, what is a person truly interested in the correct answer to do?

You do not even seem to understand what a scholar is. A biblical scholar not only has to be familiar with the Bible. They also need to be familiar with the history and languages of the area so that they can properly interpret the parts of the Bible that they are discussing. They also have to publish their works in professional journals where other experts can correct them if necessary. There will be a range of opinions but eventually they tend to agree on the main points. Quite often those will go against the views of Bible literalists. But then that is not the only way that we know that literalists are wrong.

By the way, why did my response to @YoursTrue anger you? I have tried to get her to discuss the basics of science in the past. She claims to understand the sciences and then writes posts that show the opposite. Many others have tried and failed to get her to even understand the basics. I would gladly discuss the basics with her if she were open to learning. I would do the same for you. I do not think that anyone here cannot learn. But many here will not learn.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not even seem to understand what a scholar is. A biblical scholar not only has to be familiar with the Bible. They also need to be familiar with the history and languages of the area so that they can properly interpret the parts of the Bible that they are discussing. They also have to publish their works in professional journals where other experts can correct them if necessary. There will be a range of opinions but eventually they tend to agree on the main points. Quite often those will go against the views of Bible literalists. But then that is not the only way that we know that literalists are wrong.

By the way, why did my response to @YoursTrue anger you? I have tried to get her to discuss the basics of science in the past. She claims to understand the sciences and then writes posts that show the opposite. Many others have tried and failed to get her to even understand the basics. I would gladly discuss the basics with her if she were open to learning. I would do the same for you. I do not think that anyone here cannot learn. But many here will not learn.

You are a continual put-down artist. And that's all I have to say now about your comment except -- so what. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not even seem to understand what a scholar is. A biblical scholar not only has to be familiar with the Bible. They also need to be familiar with the history and languages of the area so that they can properly interpret the parts of the Bible that they are discussing. They also have to publish their works in professional journals where other experts can correct them if necessary. There will be a range of opinions but eventually they tend to agree on the main points. Quite often those will go against the views of Bible literalists. But then that is not the only way that we know that literalists are wrong.

By the way, why did my response to @YoursTrue anger you? I have tried to get her to discuss the basics of science in the past. She claims to understand the sciences and then writes posts that show the opposite. Many others have tried and failed to get her to even understand the basics. I would gladly discuss the basics with her if she were open to learning. I would do the same for you. I do not think that anyone here cannot learn. But many here will not learn.

Oh I never said I understood the "sciences," because there's a lot to learn. What I did say is that I understood the theory of evolution. It's easy to understand in a nutshell. What you do not get is that I do not agree with it any more, and I will close with -- so what...

 

[YoursTrue]

Countless people have tried to help you to learn. To date you seem to be incapable of doing so. If I was the only one then it might be my fault but I am far from being the only one to observe this about you.

Some people unlike yourself have a better way of teaching. (Have a good one and so what)

 

[YoursTrue]

Countless people have tried to help you to learn. To date you seem to be incapable of doing so. If I was the only one then it might be my fault but I am far from being the only one to observe this about you.

As has been said, unfortunately you do not understand (comprehend) that scientists themselves differ amongst themselves. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Countless people have tried to help you to learn. To date you seem to be incapable of doing so. If I was the only one then it might be my fault but I am far from being the only one to observe this about you.

As has been said, unfortunately you do not understand (comprehend) that scientists themselves differ amongst themselves. Have a good one.

You do not even seem to understand what a scholar is. A biblical scholar not only has to be familiar with the Bible. They also need to be familiar with the history and languages of the area so that they can properly interpret the parts of the Bible that they are discussing. They also have to publish their works in professional journals where other experts can correct them if necessary. There will be a range of opinions but eventually they tend to agree on the main points. Quite often those will go against the views of Bible literalists. But then that is not the only way that we know that literalists are wrong.

By the way, why did my response to @YoursTrue anger you? I have tried to get her to discuss the basics of science in the past. She claims to understand the sciences and then writes posts that show the opposite. Many others have tried and failed to get her to even understand the basics. I would gladly discuss the basics with her if she were open to learning. I would do the same for you. I do not think that anyone here cannot learn. But many here will not learn.

Are you a "biblical scholar?"

 

[YoursTrue]

The Apostolic Fathers frequently mention the biblical writers, referring to them as real individuals who established the original congregation based on Jesus' teachings and the holy spirit’s revelations during early Christianity. These Apostolic Fathers recognized the authorship attributed to the New Testament books as belonging to real people, whose lives and contributions to true Christianity were well-known. They were also aware of the deaths of most of them, knowing how and when they died, since these figures lived only a few years before the Apostolic Fathers themselves were converted by them or by other first-generation Christians.

In contemporary times, some atheists attempt to rewrite history, trying to dictate to Christians what they should believe about biblical writings. Christianity didn't "just" emerge in the first century; its history has continued to thrive up to the present day, non stop. Whether original or apostate, Christianity has never been a dead religion. Atheists won't be able to extinguish it or alter history simply because they wish to do so.

Insofar as Christianity emerging, many Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. Many are not because they've given up or believe that the Hebrew scriptures are mythical, did not happen as written, and so forth.