|
Author
|
Topic: How do we know when the Gospels were written?
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
Sacred Cows
DTS writes: Most scholars--probably even fundamentalists--agree that the Gospels were written several decades after the time they purport to cover. But what is the basis for these beliefs? Is it the apparent errors, contradictions, and other inconsistencies; or is it the language the Gospel writers used, frequently alluding to events that happened much later? Is it universally accepted that the Gospels were written near the end of the first century A.D. (or even later), probably after the Pauline and other Epistles were written? There is NO universal acceptance or agreement about who wrote the Gospels, how they were written, or when they were written. For me personally, the important issue is the zeitgeist
of that time. From wiki: It is a term that refers to the ethos of a cohort of people, that spans one or more subsequent generations, who despite their diverse age and socio-economic background experience a certain worldview, which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression. Zeitgeist is the experience of a dominant cultural climate that defines, particularly in Hegelian thinking, an era in the dialectical progression of a people or the world at large. We need to consider not only the mindset of the authors, whomever they were, whatever inspired them, and how the future mindsets of the councils who promoted and reinterpreted these worldviews played themselves out on the world stage.
Again, there most definitely is no universal consensus. We folk will always argue, debate, and discuss this topic until the sacred cows come home! 
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
Message 6 of 123 (299966)
04-01-2006 12:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by ReverendDG
03-31-2006 11:18 PM
|
|
Most of us are not likely to be convinced
The Right Reverand DG writes: its only amazing if jesus really did say that, most likely since it was written after the temple was destroyed it was just put in there to make jesus right, ie: the temple was destroyed, jesus said it would be, jesus was right since we can't ask jesus (unless we believe) its kind of pointless since we believe he was right anyway most scholars believe the author of mark or mathew wasn't even from israel, but a roman jew, he had no clue where some of the cities were, one city he puts on the other side of jersualam one of the other ways we can tell that the gospels were written long after the events is the anarchisms, that creep into the writings Or should I call you the Left Reverand DG? 
Terms such as most likely... and most scholars believe... mean nothing to me. Its like my Mama used to tell me: If Most of the kids jumped off of a cliff, are you gonna do it? The issue is not what most of us believe since this is a faith/belief issue anyway. So tell me more about these mysterious anarchisms....and while you are at it, think about what I suggested regarding the zeitgeist surrounding this topic and around our conversations at large. Not all arguments need to be won or lost. Some discussions are just endless discussions and lobbing the ball back and forth on the tennis court. This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 10:10 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by ReverendDG, posted 03-31-2006 11:18 PM | | ReverendDG has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
Re: Internet sources
Robert J. Miller was one of the participants in The Jesus Seminar. This seminar has been lauded by liberal Christians and scorned by conservative Christians since its inception. I have not read all of what has been discussed, but I am a bit skeptical about these folks being inspired by the Holy Spirit. (In all fairness, my critics could say the same thing about me! ) Here is an excerpt from the link I provided:
westarinstitute writes: In the aftermath of the controversy over Darwin's The Origin of Species (published in 1859) and the ensuing Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925, American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials and suffered the loss of academic posts. They learned it was safer to keep their critical judgments private... Thus it is the debate between critical empirical scholars and traditionalists who have never trusted their own sources of beliefs. edit for missing link This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 11:27 PM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by lfen, posted 04-01-2006 1:52 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
Re: Zeitqeist
purpledawn writes: So given what you have stated, do you feel any of that counters what the skeptic links provided as their evidence for the later writing of Mark? Im gonna have to read some more before having an opinion. Even then, Im not sure if I will be convinced of anything new. As a believer, I tend to be biased. Perhaps I should pray. Skeptics sharpen us. Its like Ali and Frazier. Joe made Muhammed a better fighter. (add by edit) I have read a lot of what the apologists have to say, which is why I may be biased. I suppose that I should have more guts so as to critically examine my faith. This message has been edited by Phat, 04-01-2006 07:36 AM
Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2006 4:32 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
Re: Most of us are not likely to be convinced
SNC writes: The issue of who wrote the gospels and when they were written is most certainly NOT a faith/belief issue. It is an archeological and historical research question. True. But at the risk of sounding biased, the zeitgeist behind the authorship and motive of the Gospels is also a faith issue. We cant assume that human wisdom is the final arbitrator while ignoring the Creator of human wisdom...now can we?
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 58 of 123 (360728)
11-02-2006 9:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Legend
11-02-2006 8:01 AM
|
|
Re: Antichrists
Legend writes: On the contrary, historical accounts (Tacitus) claim that Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat for the Great Fire or Rome, as the populace were blaming him for it. If anything, the Romans were treating the Christians with either ridicule or pity (Annals by Tacitus), far from feeling threatened by them. In a similar vein, the Nazis felt threatened by the Jewish people, yet also used them as scapegoats. There were many people in the Roman Empire worshipping other gods...why the Christians were picked on so much is curious. Perhaps they were a threat.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Legend, posted 11-02-2006 8:01 AM | | Legend has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by Legend, posted 11-02-2006 10:34 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2