When were the gospels written?

[reba]

I wonder what some of these posts would read like if i went in and cleaned out the snarky snide remarks.

knowing once the snarky remarks have been read by the intended they have done their job.... We do have an option here the good ol QUE. Post can be reviewed, seen only by the mods, before they are place in open threads.....

Think about it...

 

[smaller]

What is really worth a "laugh out loud" is your strong implication that if we cannot "prove" something, we cannot otherwise reasonably come to have confidence that the thing is "true".

Foul. Not in need of you laying strong implications of your own making in my mouth.

By that (of course highly unrealistic) standard, you would doubt that Jesus lived as a human being 2000 years ago.

FOUL again Drew.

Your position is extremely unusual

FOUL again Drew. Your lack of ability to communicate clearly does not an unusual position on my part make.

- you are basically discrediting the entire enterprise of history (since historical events cannot be proven).

FOUL again Drew. I accept every jot and tittle of the accepted text as completely valid, legitimate, historical, Inspired and even DIRECT Word of God.


s

 

[francisdesales]

You appear to be carpet-bombing with rhetoric - making untrue assertions that, even if they were true, are not relevant to the matter at issue.

LOL! That comment was worth coming back here for 10 minutes...

Regards

 

[smaller]

There is a very Perfect Reason 'why' religious historian efforts are intentionally kept from making any factual discoveries about 'when, why and how' The Words of God came.

His Words are and always have been FOREVER and ETERNAL. They are not 'locked in time' and they do not BOW to man.

God and His Word are One and The Same. John tells us all about 'The Word' in John 1, showing the Divine Position of The Word and thereby bowing in respect to this exact matter.

s

 

[Zinc]

the dating is irrelevant to the truth contained in the Gospels and their divine inspiration.

Something can be written down later and yet be true, or it can be written down earlier and yet be false.

However, I wouldn't say that, "dating is irrelevant to the truth".

It is a part of how the documents were produced, and I think it does connect with the question of reliability.

 

[Zinc]

Also, if something is a late dated "forgery", then is that not relevant to the question of reliability? And could we not question whether God would really have allowed such a thing if the Bible was really coming from him?

 

[Drew]

There is a very Perfect Reason 'why' religious historian efforts are intentionally kept from making any factual discoveries about 'when, why and how' The Words of God came.

This is always your argument - you claim privileged access to special knowledge that is denied to others.

This is very convenient - it spares you from doing the hard work of actually supporting your positions.

 

[Zinc]

This is always your argument - you claim privileged access to special knowledge that is denied to others.

If someone tries that, then it's fair play to start questioning whether they may be suffering from delusions. It is very possible that people that make that kind of claim are genuinely mentally "unstable" and irrational types. Fact is, is that the world of religion has its fair share of such people.

 

[smaller]

This is always your argument - you claim privileged access to special knowledge that is denied to others.

This is very convenient - it spares you from doing the hard work of actually supporting your positions.

Historians can search all they want. More power to 'em. I hope they make this discovery!

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

I'll wait for their headlines of pinning that down to a date in time! I'll say though that Living Word may evade same.


enjoy!


smaller

 

[Drew]

Let's be clear about something: There is a question on the table - When were the gospels written? Fine, we can talk about that. But another, arguably more fundamental issue has also arisen - the question of how we discern truth.

One poster in particular appears to be arguing that truth is communicated directly to those who are "able" to see it, bypassing the need to do the careful, historical, cultural, and linguistic study that others, such as myself, would argue is necessary for a complete and full understanding of the scriptures.

It is clear that God works through history - He has chosen "narrative" as the primary "form" of His written word to us. The Bible is not a compendium of abstract metaphysical and moral truths -it is a history of God at work in the world, largely through a particular people (Israel) in a particular time. God loves His creation - the physicality and materiality of it. So I am very suspicious of the view that we can dispense with the "details of the history" and jump straight to mystical truths that are only accessible to some. Yes, there is an element of "mystery" and "metaphysics" to the Christian worldview. But I suggest it is primarily in the nuts and bolts of mundane history, daily moral struggle, and communal pursuit of knowledge of the kingdom of God that the essence of the Christian is to be lived out.

In short, I am very suspicious of efforts to dismiss the work of those who labour tirelessly at doing the hard work of analyzing history, culture, and language to slowly advance our shared knowledge of what the Bible it telling us. The church is not a bunch of individuals with "hot-lines" to God that make hard and careful work unnecessary - it is an organic collective, and it is in the difficult, often mundane, tasks of historical, cultural, and linguistic study that our knowledge of the Bible is advanced.

Fundamentally, this is a disagreement about how God works in the world. I am suggesting that He works "through" the world - we advance our knowledge as we understake the very human activities of hard historical, cultural, and linguistic analysis. By contrast, God does not - in the main at least- work in a manner that bypasses the nuts and bolts of hard human thinking, that is, by "beaming" truth unmediated into the minds of individual believers.

Yes, the Spirit is real and it does give us truth. But not by "magic" (at least in the main). Instead, I suggest, the Spirit is with us as we do the hard and necessary work of slowly slogging away at understanding the rich Biblical narrative.

 

[Drew]

Fact is, is that the world of religion has its fair share of such people.

I agree. And this is part of the reason why I am so convinced that the advancement of Biblical knowledge needs to be a communal activity - not a private one.

 

[smaller]

If someone tries that, then it's fair play to start questioning whether they may be suffering from delusions. It is very possible that people that make that kind of claim are genuinely mentally "unstable" and irrational types. Fact is, is that the world of religion has its fair share of such people.

From a 'theological' perspective, Paul tells us THE NATURE of THE WORD:

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

An historian will be unable to 'capture' this particular fact. This does transition the 'Nature' of the Word to an active PRESENT matter and one that must be grappled with in this direction.

To a passive viewer they are only Words on paper. That is not the case to a believer.

enjoy!

s

 

[Drew]

From a 'theological' perspective, Paul tells us THE NATURE of THE WORD:

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

An historian will be unable to 'capture' this particular fact.

No one is suggesting that historical study will be able to capture this particular truth.

But let's remember what we are supposedly talking about. The fact that historians cannot, through the academic principles of 'doing history', discover all Biblical truth does not, of course, mean that they cannot give us a picture of when the gospels were written.

 

[Eventide]

spiritual discernment..

There are many in Christendom who must simply parrot what they're taught by others.. and this is why so many would claim that they're the one true church etc etc.. add all the nonsense you wish.. or that you can dunk infants in water and then declare that they're born again.. because without the Spirit of God providing discernment in these matters.. it's completely carnal and literally impossible to see the truth of these matters.

 

[smaller]

No one is suggesting that historical study will be able to capture this particular truth.

That's the point Drew. To some the Word is merely type on paper.

To others The Word walked this earth in flesh, died and was resurrected.

I can not logically SEPARATE The Word from what happened to The Word any more than I can 'separate' Jesus Christ from God or The Spirit. They are all ONE.

That is why some will view these matters from entirely different perspectives.

To me The Word always has been and forever Will Be. That is the Spiritual Nature of The Word and I have no use in trying to divide The Word from His Living Spirit. They are ONE and THE SAME.

But let's remember what we are supposedly talking about. The fact that historians cannot, through the academic principles of 'doing history', discover all Biblical truth does not, of course, mean that they cannot give us a picture of when the gospels were written.

What is THE WORD Drew? Who is The WORD Drew?

s

 

[Drew]

To me The Word always has been and forever Will Be. That is the Spiritual Nature of The Word and I have no use in trying to divide The Word from His Living Spirit. They are ONE and THE SAME.

I agree.

But how, precisely, does this truth demonstrate the believing historians cannot come to the conclusion that the gospels were written late in the 1st century

What is THE WORD Drew? Who is The WORD Drew?

s

I probably share your view that the "Word" refers to this mysterious means by which the truth of God are communicated to us. It is indeed not appropriate to try to "divide" the Word from the Spirit of God.

But, of course, this is entirely beside the point. The question is this: Do you have any actual case that the gospels were not written late in the 1st century?

Do you have any actual case that believing (or even unbelieving) historians have erred in their consensus that the gospels were written late in the 1st century?

 

[Eventide]

I think that we'll ultimately find that this is essentially what is going on here.. that the word of God as written in the holy scriptures is somehow disconnected from the Word made flesh...

That's impossible.. and of course now all of the bible worship criticism will follow..

So be it.

 

[Drew]

I think that we'll ultimately find that this is essentially what is going on here.. that the word of God as written in the holy scriptures is somehow disconnected from the Word made flesh...

That's impossible..
So be it.

I agree - they cannot be disconnected.

But the question remains - when were the gospels written?

 

[Eventide]

I agree - they cannot be disconnected.

But the question remains - when were the gospels written?

The scriptures do not tell us and I'm sure that it's not important because of the facts already mentioned..

It makes not even one iota of difference if a person tells me that there were written early or late.. because both are simply specualtions of men and have no bearing whatsoever concerning their content.

What would concern me is if any professing Christian started to tell me that this does matter..

 

[Asyncritus]

A claim was made in the OP regarding dating and that essentially all scholars are wrong in dating the Gospels 30-70 years after Jesus' ministry. However, there has been no support or substantial reason given for such an assertion, and as such, it remains baseless opinion.

Free

You cannot have read the OPs.

The reasons given were

1 It is in the highest degree improbable that men who could write did not or would not have written the events down as and when they happened, because of their importance

2 Luke's prologue shows that other gospels had been written before his. It also supports the idea that he was present when at least some of the events happened

3 Those gospels were most likely to have been Matthew, Mark and John. Mark and John's focus on 'the beginning' is a strong indicator that they were the first ones written

4 There is a considerable amount of internal evidence that shows without doubt that they were written when the events were taking place. Ihaven't posted this evidence, but will do so if requested.

5 The absence of manuscripts that early (AD 33 or thereabouts) is no proof that they did not exist.

6 Jesus must have been doing something during the 40 days after the resurrection. He was equipping the disciples for the task of preaching - and he knew that the written word was going to be one of the most powerful tools they could have.

He therefore oversaw the writing task, which accounts for their vast literary superiority over any other writings ever produced. It also accounts for why He did no writing of His own.

7 Mark's opening words are: 1 ¶ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

This could mean ABOUT Him, or BY Him which would fit very nicely into my theory. It's His work, not somebody else's. But that's a suggestion.

There's some new material there, but you get my drift.