Quoting Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of that fits with what serious bible scholars think - particularly as there is no certainty about the actual authors of the gospels - let alone who might have 'supervised' them.
Contradicts serious bible scholarly consensus who date Matthew around 70AD at the very earliest, with most scholars suggesting between 80-90AD.

You seem to be putting a prohibition on the writing of histories after the event.
There are thought to have been source materials which predate the gospels.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be putting a prohibition on the writing of histories after the event.

No I'm not - that would be daft. However the credibility of a historical document purporting to record historical events is influenced by:

1. The proximity in time it was written to the actual event.
2. The level of bias of the writer, and the purpose it was written for.
3. How clear the link to original source material is.
4. Whether it is corroborated other other independent evidence, crucially involving non partial sources (or alternatively partial sources writing from another viewpoint).

In all three cases the gospels lose credibility being non contemporaneous, written by authors who weren't impartial and were writing 'for a purpose' and with no clear evidence on source materials linking back to the actual events and those that witness them.

There are thought to have been source materials which predate the gospels.

See above.

[DaveM]

No I'm not - that would be daft. However the credibility of a historical document purporting to record historical events is influenced by:

1. The proximity in time it was written to the actual event.
2. The level of bias of the writer, and the purpose it was written for.
3. How clear the link to original source material is.
4. Whether it is corroborated other other independent evidence, crucially involving non partial sources (or alternatively partial sources writing from another viewpoint).

In all three cases the gospels lose credibility being non contemporaneous, written by authors who weren't impartial and were writing 'for a purpose' and with no clear evidence on source materials linking back to the actual events and those that witness them.
See above.

Not that I expect it to produce a 'Damascus Road' experience for you but, if it is still in print and if you have not yet read it, you might find a short booklet entitled, 'The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?' of interest.  It was written by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the most highly respected theological scholars of the late 20th century.  It should at least allow a more balanced perspective to be obtained compared to that being pushed by the 'liberal theology' schools of thought.

[Shaker]

You mean: "I agree with it and I'm encouraging you to read it because I want you to agree with it and me."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not - that would be daft. However the credibility of a historical document purporting to record historical events is influenced by:

1. The proximity in time it was written to the actual event.

The credibility depends on the scholarship and research of the author. Compare for instance a journalistic account of an event and that event written as history

2. The level of bias of the writer, and the purpose it was written for.

I find it ironic that there are those who say there are no independent roman or jewish accounts as if that would demonstrate bias ignoring of course that those could be biased themselves!. There seems to be a doctrinal drive attending the gospels probably because there were other theories of who Jesus was doing the rounds I'm thinking here of the Ebionites who think of Jesus as a prophet in the OT fashion. The trouble is of course is that the epistles already talk of a distinctly orthodox Christian position as held decades before AD 80.

3. How clear the link to original source material is.
4. Whether it is corroborated other other independent evidence, crucially involving non partial sources (or alternatively partial sources writing from another viewpoint).
See above.

Impartiality would be difficulty to attain in this issue....Take this forum for instance.
It may have been better from a roman and jewish point of view to let it lie.
What we don't see of course is Jesus as myth or composite or with a radically different role or ministry until centuries later

In all three cases the gospels lose credibility being non contemporaneous, written by authors who weren't impartial and were writing 'for a purpose' and with no clear evidence on source materials linking back to the actual events and those that witness them.

Non contemporaneousness is not a guarantee of lower credibility see my comments on newspaper report versus scholarly and researched history.

Writing for a purpose does not necessarily inhibit historical reporting.
The gospel is reported as being abroad, anyway, in the earlier epistles.

That a resource was likely used can be established by literary analysis and I believe has been.

[Owlswing]

Yes, yes! We all know the arguments. They mention the destruction of the Temple therefore they must have been written after 70 AD. Seems like a massive non sequitur to me or the argument of an atheist or someone on the edge of apostasy.

According to you ANY argument that contradicts you and/or your version of Christianity is heresy and/or apostacy - talk about a broken record - click - a broken record - click - a broken record - etc ad nauseam!

[Owlswing]

You seem to be putting a prohibition on the writing of histories after the event.
There are thought to have been source materials which predate the gospels.

My, and others more erudite than I, point exactly - THERE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN - there is no proff thgat they did.

[Owlswing]

Not that I expect it to produce a 'Damascus Road' experience for you but, if it is still in print and if you have not yet read it, you might find a short booklet entitled, 'The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?' of interest.  It was written by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the most highly respected theological scholars of the late 20th century.  It should at least allow a more balanced perspective to be obtained compared to that being pushed by the 'liberal theology' schools of thought.

Are you really suggesting that a theological scholar is unbiased in matters pertaining to theology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My, and others more erudite than I, point exactly - THERE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN - there is no proff thgat they did.

The epistles predate the Gospels and the orthodox Christian gospel is found in those. Literary analysi of the gospel points to a high probability of source material so there are the two separate strands of epistle and gospel and most probable third strand the sources.

[DaveM]

Are you really suggesting that a theological scholar is unbiased in matters pertaining to theology?

I am certainly seriously claiming that FF Bruce meets all the requirements for theological scholarship as listed by Prof Davey in post #56.  Which is why I suggested he read the booklet to get a somewhat different view from an internationally acclaimed scholar

[Shaker]

I am certainly seriously claiming that FF Bruce meets all the requirements for theological scholarship as listed by Prof Davey in post #56.

Which might well be an answer to some other question posed by someone else somewhere else, but certainly not the one by Owlswing in #64.

Does Brucie baby meet the criteria of following a: "sensible, objective, consistent and neutral approach to dating historical documents used by serious academics engaged in serious and credible academic study"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which might well be an answer to some other question posed by someone else somewhere else, but certainly not the one by Owlswing in #64.

Does Brucie baby meet the criteria of following a: "sensible, objective, consistent and neutral approach to dating historical documents used by serious academics engaged in serious and credible academic study"?

His credentials seem to be in order.
Just had a look at the scholars behind The God who wasn't there, Flemming, Sam Harris SAM HARRIS?!, the New Atheist Sam Harris? The chap who someone in New Scientist referred to as a big noise in neuroscience? What's this .............................moonlighting as a historian?

[Shaker]

His credentials seem to be in order.
Just had a look at the scholars behind The God who wasn't there, Flemming, Sam Harris SAM HARRIS?!, the New Atheist Sam Harris? The chap who someone in New Scientist referred to as a big noise in neuroscience? What's this .............................moonlighting as a historian?

Is Harris's work categorised as history, then? News to me.

[DaveM]

Evidence please.

The timing of the gospels by itself makes non-sense of your claims. For example James is believed to have died on about AD44, some 30 years before the gospel of Matthew.

James, the brother of the apostle John was certainly martyred at an early stage.  42AD would be my preferred date but I have no problems with any date from 41 to 44AD.  We have no record that he ever wrote anything and if he did it is long since lost.

The almost unanimous view of the early church is that the Letter of James was written by James, one of the natural children of Joseph and Mary and generally known as the Lord's brother.  He was the recognized head of the church in Jerusalem.  James was martyred in 62AD so if he was the author of the Letter then it would have been written before that.  In fact some conservative scholars believe it could have been written quite a few years earlier.  Arguments put forward in support of this view include:

In James 1:1 we read that the letter is written to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”.  Thus the audience for James’s letter is almost certainly Jewish Christians only and not Gentile Christians.  Strongly suggesting it was written before the results of Paul's missionary efforts had led to large numbers of Gentile Christians.

In James 2:2 where James talks about your “assembly” the Greek word he uses is actually ‘synagōgē’.  But it did not take long for the term Church (Gk ekklēsiastēs) to be used to describe the meetings of believers.  Once again evidence for an early date for James.

While the 'argument from silence' should only be used in a secondary support role it can possibly be applied here.  James played the key role at the Council of Jerusalem.  If the letter had been written after the council (AD 48–49), it would be expected that James would have mentioned the issues from that momentous occasion. But he did not.

The above would all support an early date for James when the Church was still predominantly Jewish and the exiles were those from one of the earliest persecutions of believers in Judah.  This would make it a possible contender, together with Galatians and 1 Thessalonians, as the earliest of the New Testament Documents.

Of course liberal scholars do not like such arguments as the need to insist that all the New Testament documents were written long after the events drives them to find another James of a much later date.

[Alan Burns]

And how does anyone come to a belief in the holy spirit and a belief that the holy spirit protected the scriptures from error except, directly or indirectly, via the scriptures.

If you had personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would realise that this power has the ability to inspire the Gospel writers too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is Harris's work categorised as history, then? News to me.

Are you not aware what the God who wasn't there is?

[Shaker]

Are you not aware what the God who wasn't there is?

Other than a god that isn't there ... ? 

[Shaker]

If you had personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would realise that this power has the ability to inspire the Gospel writers too.

Non sequitur.

[Gordon]

Not that I expect it to produce a 'Damascus Road' experience for you but, if it is still in print and if you have not yet read it, you might find a short booklet entitled, 'The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?' of interest.  It was written by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the most highly respected theological scholars of the late 20th century.  It should at least allow a more balanced perspective to be obtained compared to that being pushed by the 'liberal theology' schools of thought.

Looking at the wiki article on this chap says the following:

' He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hinging on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to some confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce

This would imply he thinks that details such as the claimed miracles associated with Jesus (inc. the resurrection), which I'm assuming are examples of such truth claims, should be accepted as being historically reliable since they are noted in the NT.

Nope: it might be theology but it ain't history.

[DaveM]

Looking at the wiki article on this chap says the following:

Nope: it might be theology but it ain't history.

Rather than basing your conclusions on a third party opinion, which may or may not simply have been written by a biased liberal theologian, why don't you read the little booklet for yourself and form your own opinion directly.

[Gordon]

Rather than basing your conclusions on a third party opinion, which may or may not simply have been written by a biased liberal theologian, why don't you read the little booklet for yourself and form your own opinion directly.

Do you have a link to it?

Does wiki summary accurately represent his views or not?

[floo]

If you had personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, you would realise that this power has the ability to inspire the Gospel writers too.

Can you describe this experience you attribute to the HS?

[Shaker]

Can you describe this experience you attribute to the HS?

If he can find the time and space for that perhaps he can find the time and space to explain the process that took him from 'such-and-such an experience' to 'Holy Spirit".

I'd caution you not to hold your breath, though.

[DaveM]

Do you have a link to it?

Does wiki summary accurately represent his views or not?

Afraid not and have no idea as to the extent. if any, that his writings are available online.  I have my own hard copy of the book.  If you are really interested in looking at it, perhaps Anchorman could point you in the right direction.  I would not be surprised to hear that he is also familiar with FF Bruce's writings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Other than a god that isn't there ... ? 

It is the cinematic testament of Jesus Myth theorists like Carrier.