When were the gospels written?

[francisdesales]

The Spirit and The Word remain in ONE ACCORD.

Nothing to do with this conversation.

Not really relevant other than the observation of Gods Very Real Workings 'apart from' any [self unit] proclaimed 'total authority of Jesus Christ on earth.'

When is this seen in Scriptures? Aside from obvious miracles that are witnessed by an individual, God works through humans and God does not work "apart from" them. The notion of "God's very real workings" is utterly dependent upon faith - unless one witnesses a supernatural miracle for themselves.

There will remain a unique 'transcendence' of the Spirit in relation to 'written events' as a historical capture of print on paper only.

Of course. And whatever that might be is dependent upon faith.

Are you beginning to see a common theme here? You continue, over and over, to confuse what you believe (using Hebrews' definition) that is unseen to historical analysis.

I had desired to keep this discussion in the historical realm. You keep wanting to go into faith discussions.

I pointed to the matter of the WRITING in that event only to show the WRITING in conjunction with the working and confirmation of the Spirit.

See above...

Your own personal subjective opinions of events of long ago do not confirm anything in the historical realm. No matter "Who" you say is "confirming" it.

Even in the Catholic Church, private revelations are not held up for public belief. Whatever you THINK happened to you personally does not confirm anything for people of the Church.

WHEN did that happen? Certainly not decades later. It was immediate, at the time, and for specific purposes in showing on many counts. The account of the writing and the Spiritual events that accompanied it was observed later by Luke.

You have not demonstrated the need for a motivation or desire of purpose to record what the apostles witnessed. You have only shown that Zac. wrote down the word "John"... - WHEN ASKED.

The same with Luke. WHEN ASKED, he provided a narrative known as the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. His purpose was not to put out writings immediately for future sola scripturists. OBVIOUSLY, he wrote only when asked - not because he was given an immediate command from on High for the purpose of swallowing up oral teachings. Thus, as I said, the motivation of the Apostles differs from your presumptions. They did NOT write so as to "immediately ensure everything was recorded", a la CNN.

Words of the High Priest were matters of recording as well, on an ongoing scale, as we can see here for example:

John 11:
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

There is absolutely no evidence that this was recorded at the time. It is quite easy to see that the Spirit of God (as John later would say) enabled the Apostles to remember these things, MUCH later. Historically, people can be interviewed later, as well. Clearly, Mary was interviewed by Luke YEARS after the fact. Or are you also saying that Mary wrote down these things somewhere?

It is very unlikely that the temple scribes did not capture that fact.

Sure, no doubt they were carrying around wax tablets and papyrus to copy down EVERYTHING that the High Priest said!!!

Too much "Law and Order", methinks...

It is far from a personal opinion to observe that LETTERS were written concerning Gentile matters of LAW and GRACE in Acts 15 or that teachings of the N.T were derived from O.T. scriptures.

that is not an opinion, nor was I addressing that.

That is exactly 'why' all Word claimants must stand under the Authority Writings that were already in existence. Paul did exactly that.

Paul was certainly not speaking about maintaining the Mosaic Law to the Galatians, was he... Please.

No, you have factually sidestepped the Acts 15 LETTERS and the meticulous scribes of the O.T.

The Acts 15 letters were not Sacred Scriptures.

The early immediacy case is made already. See the Acts 15 statement of LETTERS. The Word quickly went out to Gentiles in both Spirit and WRITING as Acts shows.

You are confusing the need to formulate the writings that narrate the Christ with ANY simple act of writing. Your premise states that because people write, the writers of what would be later called "Bible" must have done so immediately.

If this was so, all the Apostles had to do is sit in the upper room for a few weeks, get their thoughts straight, and then write a bunch of tracts as they visited different places. Obviously, that is not what happened. It was only when ASKED for advice - or expecting death - did they actually write.

Your mission - to show the motivation to record this stuff immediately. We know men wrote. There is no need to point out that Zach. wrote "John", since it doesn't prove an impetus to write immediately by the Apostles, which is your claim.

Oh please. It remains a present job of the Spirit to bring LIFE to any.

Through the Church, the Body of Christ. The Spirit does not act separately from the Body. I had thought you agreed to the notions of "trinity". Where the Spirit acts, so does the Body of Christ, the Church.

Our own conscience must rule. Some of what certain sects hold to is against my conscience and even SINFUL, and therefore I can not agree or participate.

No doubt, atheists, murderers and prostitutes use the same "conscience" argument. It's the same ol' story. "I don't need to change, everyone else needs to change to my point of view..."

For example I can NOT in good faith condemn other people of faith who have not been 'fully immersed' in baptism as some baptist sects require. To me what they hold as a 'must have' position for salvation and potentially damning those who have not to me IS A DIRE SIN.

I am not aware of people who take that stance. I would agree that their theology contradicts other theology found in Scriptures, so there is a problem. What one must remember is that WE (or they) don't judge where it matters, in heaven.

As said earlier, the ONLY logical produce in any given set of partial seeing sinners CAN contain is the reality of their mattersand what the scriptures show.

And what is Scriptures? How does a person, without a body of believers, MEN, to tell them, what is Scriptures? Are we to "follow our own conscience"? Maybe if I like the Gospel of Thomas, that becomes Scriptures?

Do you see where this subjectivity leads? You can't even KNOW what is the Bible!

The Acts 15 LETTERS account is openly apparent and VERY early in the process.

Again, consider the motives of the writing of the "letters" of Acts 15 with the actual Acts of the Apostles. Why did the Apostles write the letters mentioned in Acts 15? And why did Luke write Acts/Luke?

These matters were DIRECT MINISTRATIONS of GOD with them.

there is no evidence that this proves an immediate written account.

And just as unlikely in the O.T. to be recorded at much later dates. Paul declared that the SCRIPTURE, that would be IN WRITING, declared the Gospel to Abraham.

"Gospel", to Paul, is not the four Gospels, it is the "good news". Naturally, this does not prove that Abraham was reading Genesis!!! :o

There are no original proven writings of any of it. This does not prove the later date writing.

Nor are there any original autographs of ANY of Sacred Scriptures...

The N.T. teachings were largely base-lined from the O.T. SCRIPTURES they had at the time.

Very little of the NT writings were written from the mold of the OT!!!

You are begging the question again.

Paul penned very accurately that every man must be let to be FULLY CONVINCED in their own MINDS, their own determinations as a matter of their conscience.

That is true, but he ALSO states that this conscience is to be transformed, to be CHANGED. Thus, it follows that the conscience is EXPECTED to be wrong and must be corrected.

Many could not come to grips with Paul's teachings and still can't. And many others appear to twist them beyond any recognition.

true.

Fortunately, God does not require us to be Scriptural scholars to "figure it out".

Jesus left a Church for this purpose - not a stack of Scripture commentaries or gloss notes to be handed out with the tract.

God Himself spoke and commanded very certain men providing to them His Own Words.

another article of faith. Let's stick to history for this discussion, for the hundredth time. I see no point in responding to the individual verses you posted, since they prove nothing of your point.

Regards

 

[smaller]

Your own personal subjective opinions of events of long ago do not confirm anything in the historical realm. No matter "Who" you say is "confirming" it.

1, The Gospel was penned LONG before the N.T. in the O.T.
2, the Apostles based their writings and teachings on the O.T.
3, Text in Acts and other places in the text shows clear record of 'early writing' particularly of the scribe system that was already in place in Israel.

Even in the Catholic Church, private revelations are not held up for public belief.

Oh who are you kidding?

You have not demonstrated the need for a motivation or desire of purpose to record what the apostles witnessed. You have only shown that Zac. wrote down the word "John"... - WHEN ASKED. The same with Luke. WHEN ASKED, he provided a narrative known as the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. His purpose was not to put out writings immediately for future sola scripturists. OBVIOUSLY, he wrote only when asked - not because he was given an immediate command from on High for the purpose of swallowing up oral teachings.

Presumption on your part.
Luke: refers clearly to past tense written accounts in his own written account:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Thus, as I said, the motivation of the Apostles differs from your presumptions. They did NOT write so as to "immediately ensure everything was recorded", a la CNN.

The question is 'how early' in the events were THOSE LETTERS written? It is a general statement that that Jerusalem council transpired about 50 a.d.

In addition the REALITY of Jesus being SENT in Word recorded form is established in the O.T. Law and Prophets in whom The Spirit of Christ spoke and RECORDED in WRITING. That was 'how' The Spirit of Christ was sent even BEFORE His Arrival and recorded for later verifications when He actually DID arrive. This is 'how' Jesus was sent by God before His Incarnation. By Spirit and by recordation of FACT. Jesus' commands to his disciples/Apostles was not one whit different than His Own Directives:
John 20:21
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

I know that connection will be problematic for you to wrap your head around.

There is absolutely no evidence that this was recorded at the time. It is quite easy to see that the Spirit of God (as John later would say) enabled the Apostles to remember these things, MUCH later.

I would not consider 50 a.d. much later and certainly can't discount 'much much' earlier. It would not have been unusual whatsoever for authoritative 'sharing' communications to have transpired IN WRITING very early. I mean seriously, wouldn't you at least write to your distant relatives?

Historically, people can be interviewed later, as well. Clearly, Mary was interviewed by Luke YEARS after the fact. Or are you also saying that Mary wrote down these things somewhere?

Her statements if they are deemed to be accurate would seem to need to have been accurately recorded EARLY unless you want to say the Apostles just trumped up the statements and they are not really hers nor accurate first hand accounts they received from her.

Sure, no doubt they were carrying around wax tablets and papyrus to copy down EVERYTHING that the High Priest said!!!

Temple scribes had paying jobs man. You think they just sat around doing nothing? lol

Too much "Law and Order", methinks...

I know some of these views threaten your groups heavy reliance on practice and oral tradition. I prefer my facts in writing and not hearsay. Here are published facts;

From Peter in Acts 10:
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all )

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Paul was certainly not speaking about maintaining the Mosaic Law to the Galatians, was he... Please.

Did you bother to READ Paul's statement? What makes you 'falsely' think that is ALL they contain? The Spirit of Christ TESTIFIED in the Prophets of both GRACE and righteousness apart from Law that the LAW testifies to.
In Acts 10 here is what Peter testified to:
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

The Acts 15 letters were not Sacred Scriptures.

The facts contained therein are certainly part and parcel of AUTHORITATIVE N.T. teachings and WERE delivered IN WRITING.

You are confusing the need to formulate the writings that narrate the Christ with ANY simple act of writing. Your premise states that because people write, the writers of what would be later called "Bible" must have done so immediately.

You don't even realize that the Gospel is an O.T. matter spoken by Christ in the Prophets and the LAW.

If this was so, all the Apostles had to do is sit in the upper room for a few weeks, get their thoughts straight, and then write a bunch of tracts as they visited different places. Obviously, that is not what happened. It was only when ASKED for advice - or expecting death - did they actually write.

Written communication by those so engaged was a quite normal course of events of sharing information.

Your mission - to show the motivation to record this stuff immediately.

Acts 15 events are clearly Authoritative N.T. teachings by the Apostles sent out in writing, them also already teaching the Gospel from the written Word of the O.T.

We know men wrote.

They wrote in Authority of The Spirit and what they were shown from the O.T. as well and as prior noted. To say that their DECLARATIONS went out apart from O.T. writings or were not taught IN WRITING in conjunction with the actual events would be a FALSE understanding. Jesus Himself both PRE and POST resurrection TAUGHT the disciples from the O.T. WRITTEN Scriptures.

If they were to justify 'how' those events tied in to what they witnessed, then they not only had to TIE their own witness to the WRITINGS they had to justify their witness and their written or oral teachings from the O.T. particularly when witnessing to JEWS who knew their WRIT extremely WELL. This TIES SECURELY with both the WRITTEN testimony of THE WORD and the SPIRIT who both GAVE those statements and was a WALKING REALITY of same in LIVE WORD FLESH.

There is no need to point out that Zach. wrote "John", since it doesn't prove an impetus to write immediately by the Apostles, which is your claim.

The Word of the O.T., The Living Word made FLESH and His Holy Spirit ALL speak in ONE ACCORD. There is no logical dividing of any of these matters available.

Through the Church, the Body of Christ. The Spirit does not act separately from the Body. I had thought you agreed to the notions of "trinity". Where the Spirit acts, so does the Body of Christ, the Church.

The Word of God as recorded by the Law and the Prophets, the Living Word, the Holy Spirit and the HANDLERS all speak in ONE ACCORD. One of the witnesses happens to be IN SOLID WRITING to verify when claimants are speaking TRUTH or their own imaginations. Paul openly testifies that his speakings, teachings and writings stem DIRECTLY from the Old Testament and what The Spirit 'witnessed' to him to both write and teach.

Acts 26:22
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Acts 28:23
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

So, WHEN was The Gospel WRITTEN? That's RIGHT. Long long before the ARRIVAL of The Word in FLESH.

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Any claimants are to be rejected if they DENY THE WRITTEN LAWS AND PROPHETS authority as it was IN WRITING from GOD Himself through the Spirit of Christ who spoke through them as was recorded for the record.

Jesus Himself testified of the legitimacy of Gods Writing:

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

No doubt, atheists, murderers and prostitutes use the same "conscience" argument. It's the same ol' story. "I don't need to change, everyone else needs to change to my point of view..."

The scriptures themselves in the O.T. and also shown in the N.T. by Jesus and the Apostles speaks exactly to many exact reasons of 'why' people doubt and the spirit of slumber that comes upon their minds. It is not only WRITTEN of but guaranteed to happen IN WRITING. It happens not one bit differently TODAY, just as IT IS WRITTEN.

And what is Scriptures? How does a person, without a body of believers, MEN, to tell them, what is Scriptures? Are we to "follow our own conscience"? Maybe if I like the Gospel of Thomas, that becomes Scriptures?

Any believer who takes Gods Words to be Authoritative knows and understands that THOSE WORDS of the O.T. were delivered LONG before the arrival of Jesus, CONTAINED the Gospel, and was intentionally PUT in writing to testify to the validity of GODS WORKINGS in prophetic foretell. And the recording of some of the prophetic events extends into OUR DAY.

Do you see where this subjectivity leads? You can't even KNOW what is the Bible!

You desire to take the teachings of men. The teachings of God say WHY the teachings of men are AUTOMATICALLY faulted.

The believer who comes before God in Truth comes with FAULT and the testimony of TRUTH that God taught IN WRITING:

Isaiah 59:12
For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;

Every Apostle held this fact forth openly and personally.

Again, consider the motives of the writing of the "letters" of Acts 15 with the actual Acts of the Apostles. Why did the Apostles write the letters mentioned in Acts 15? And why did Luke write Acts/Luke?

The point being made was the fact that they did communicate Authoritatively, in writing and EARLY at least from that account. But this does not diminish the fact that the scriptures they had were already transcribed and taken as Authoritative.

there is no evidence that this proves an immediate written account.

It certainly proves that written communication was a factual happening earlier than 70a.d.

"Gospel", to Paul, is not the four Gospels, it is the "good news". Naturally, this does not prove that Abraham was reading Genesis!!!

Abraham my friend was A PROPHET. Prophets had scribes to have written scripture. I take it that their writings as well as their predecessors writings were handed down just as the N.T. was.

Nor are there any original autographs of ANY of Sacred Scriptures...

True, but that is not the only proof of validity. There are many other proofs. The existence of the people of Israel is 'a factual proof.'

Very little of the NT writings were written from the mold of the OT!!!

Wow. You may not read much. I have to consider that a very ignorant statement by simple comparison to Apostolic statements. No offense, but that is quite ridiculous on your part.

That is true, but he ALSO states that this conscience is to be transformed, to be CHANGED. Thus, it follows that the conscience is EXPECTED to be wrong and must be corrected.

The conscience is both right and wrong. When it's right and in accord with written dictum or righteous/good acts, those are right in Gods Eyes. When it's the opposite, it's not. Both of these testimonies come from the hearts of all mankind and are confirmed by the scriptures themselves.

Fortunately, God does not require us to be Scriptural scholars to "figure it out".

I have had to make gain where it could be found. There are few areas I have not tapped to find what my 'conscience' considers to be solid and functional understandings.

I do know that I do NOT want to be in discord with 'as it is Written.' That then requires this:

2 Samuel 22:29
For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness.

Jesus left a Church for this purpose - not a stack of Scripture commentaries or gloss notes to be handed out with the tract.

That would be a very shortsighted view of scriptures of the O.T. The Apostles clearly taught and expounded their positions from the scriptures of the O.T.

another article of faith. Let's stick to history for this discussion, for the hundredth time. I see no point in responding to the individual verses you posted, since they prove nothing of your point.

I'm to a BIG hole in the N.T. Gospel coming later guesswork. The Gospel was quite firmly embedded in writing in the O.T. The teachings that the Apostles put forth came from that written base and was factually SHARED both orally and in writing from the beginning of their going forth TO WITNESS.

s

 

[Zinc]

I regret to say, it is not.

Your 'authorities' are highly suspect.

The reason many of them give for a late date of the gospels is the existence of the Olivet Prophecy predicting the fall of Jerusalem. Go read Robinson for a comprehensive list.



What also astonishes me, is the amazing audacity of these 'critics' who assume that the church was made up of a pack of imbeciles, who would swallow a forgery purporting to be a prophecy.

That for whatever reasons, the forgers were able to forge, and pass off as scriptures, this prophecy, and the dummies who made up the church were so stupid as to accept the forgeries as 'gospel'.

I believe "Robinson" (I assume John A T Robinson) thought the Olivet Discourse prophecy was partly a "forgery".

Anyway, people were willing to swallow the Book of Mormon...