Re: funny creationsist

Jim Spaza wrote:
> The following verse indicates that the author of John was a disciple
> and witnessed these events. And this would also mean that the author
> not only met Jesus but worked with Him as the Book of John shows.
>
> "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these
> things: and we know that his testimony is true." - John 21:24
>
> Goodness, Dirk. How could you miss such an obvious verse?

Accepting the verse as proof of the book's origin is . . . remarkably
trusting.

The synoptic gospels were not written by the alleged disciples. My
understanding, and I am admittedly not a historian, is that the
consensus is:

Mark: AD 70
Matthew: AD 85
Luke: AD 90
John: AD 85-100, with later additions

Some conservative Christians do claim earlier dates and that the books
were written by the actual disciples. Unless you have new evidence, it
appears that these claims are based more on wishful theology than
objective history.

> Still not enough evidence for you? Then, try searching the internet
> for "Bible author evidence" or something similar.

I did. That's how I got the above dates. Some historians argue for
even later authorship.

> False. ALL of the evidence indicates that the Gospels were known well
> within the 1st century. In fact, there is evidence that the
> information contained in the Gospels was widely agreed upon and taught
> by 35 A.D.

This does not appear to be the cased. Please present your evidence.

> The dating of the Gospels, even among liberals, is Mark in the 70s,
> Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s. All are still within
> the lifetimes of various witnesses of the life of Jesus, including any
> of those hostile to Christianity. Those hostile to Jesus would have
> had ample opportunity to proclaim their alternative eyewitnesses. We
> find none.

As I mentioned in another thread, history is written by the winners.
The authorities of the early Christian church were certainly not above
the destruction of "heretical" documents.

> Now, here we have the Gospels written within 30 - 60 years after Jesus
> was on the earth. Yet, skeptics immediately whine about the certain
> inaccuracies of such. 30 - 60 years is not enough for legendary
> material to take hold.

In a culture with no understanding of science or rigorous historical
recording, with low literacy rates, and a profusion of religious cults
and "messiahs", it is more than enough time.

Jack

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Beatles myths
    ... the more and better evidence you must have before you have the right to make it. ... You're asserting that over the course of about a decade, with premeditation and sangfroid, Yoko put on a gigantic act, pretending to fall in love with John as he was falling in love with her. ... And the person who she had to convince with this elaborate act was *John Lennon*, who had some of the most piercing wits in the history of people. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: RCC is not Christs church 1
    ... History says otherwise. ... St Iraneus, a disciple of John, ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: RCC is not Christs church 1
    ... History says otherwise. ... St Iraneus, a disciple of John, ... he wasn't a disciple of John. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Polycarp knew the Apostle John, ... And you accept the narrative about Jesus because no ancient author disputes ... out the Apostolic Churches. ... What I am doing is giving evidence and so far ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... Harshman would not support Darwinian evolution if it supported ... If the evidence supported theism, ... No one can go back and undo Darwin in order to find ... Yes, you are right John, what I said is backwards from the ...
    (talk.origins)