Political Crossfire Forums

[JDHURF]

Jesus lived in the first three decades in the first century, allegedly dying somewhere along the year 33 A.D, although there were groups of ancient Jews and Jewish Christians who believed that Jesus was killed a century before. The Gospels, beginning with Mark, were written after 70 A.D. That’s a four decade gap, the only information we have in the gap comes from Paul who claims that Jesus came to him and told him to spread the word. Paul wrote around eighty thousand words about Christianity, Paul’s documents represent, essentially, all we have with regards to the history of Christianity during this four decade gap. What’s further is that Paul was unaware of the “fact” that Jesus allegedly lived as a human on earth, he was unaware of the story of Mary, of Bethlehem, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus, Paul never quotes anything that Jesus allegedly said, Paul never mentioned the ministry of Jesus, Pontius Pilot, any Jewish mob, any trial; Paul was unaware of what we would consider the story of Jesus save for the last three events, events which Paul did not even place as having happened on earth. To Paul Jesus lived, died and ascended all within the confines of a mythical realm. I find it interesting, rather suggestive, that the only link we have between the time frame given for the life of Jesus and the appearance of the first gospels, Paul, never even believed that Jesus was a human being, he was actually unaware of the idea altogether.

When looking at the Gospels one must be aware of the fact that allegorical literature was very common at the time, many of the gospels – the apocryphal – were thrown out due to their being too unbelievable and based on folk lore stemming from a plethora of various other myths; there has been a concerted effort – the Jesuits being an example – of people actively attempting to demythologize the bible, trying to take away the folklore (such as the “virgin birth”).
The folklore inherent in Christianity was nothing new or original. Jesus shared some twenty odd characteristics with other mythical heroes, heroes such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysis, Baal, Attis, Adonis, etc. the shared characteristics being: the heroes mother is a royal virgin, stars appear at his birth, visited by Magi from the east, his father is a king, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, is reputed to be the son of a god, at birth there is an attempt by his father to kill him, but he is hidden away, is raised by foster parents in a foreign country, we are told nothing of his childhood, on reaching manhood he returns and goes to his future kingdom, after a victory over a king, a giant or a dragon, marries a princess, turns water into wine, heals the sick, performs miracles, becomes king, reigns uneventfully, proscribes laws, later losses favor with subjects, is driven from the throne of the city, meets with a mysterious death, death is often at the top of a hill, killed on a cross or a tree, his children if any do not succeed him, his body not buried, etc.
It is a staggering fact to note that Jesus shares the majority of these common hero characteristics with other heroic figures such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, etc. There are other similar savior figures during the same time period such as Apollonius Christ and Osiris, however, nobody takes these stories as anything other than mythical despite the congruent similarity. I find it further revealing that those whose job it was to spread Christianity used the similarity it shared with all other mythology as an advantage:


“When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter.” – Justin Martyr, church father.

What’s even more is that many pagans, after being proselytized to by the early Church fathers, claimed that what the Christians were saying about Jesus had been what they claimed about Dionysis for years and they didn’t actually believe in such myths either anymore. To which the early Christian apologists would respond with the claim that the difference being this time, with Jesus, the story was true, for it was Satan who counterfeited in advance the other stories with the foreknowledge that this day would come and wished to subvert it.

“For when they say that Dionysus arose again and ascended to heaven, is it not evident the devil has imitated the prophecy?” – Justin Martyr, church father

This is clear evidence that the early church was well aware of the fact that their story, their mythology, was perfectly similar to others which came before and in response to this had to resort to claiming that these other similar mythologies were the work of the devil, a sorry argument if there ever was. It is important to keep in mind that the first celebration of easter was in 2400 B.C. long before any alleged existence of Jesus.

For thousands of years humanity has been obsessed with blood sacrifice, it is no coincidence that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus gave Christians a suffering and tortured hero whose flesh they could eat and whose blood they could drink – this is the absolute height of religious sacrifice - and for all those who claim that modern Christians are no longer obsessed with blood sacrifice I submit to them that they watch The Passion of the Christ, the most bloody, gory, violent movie of Jesus ever made and also, far and away, the most popular; many Christians claim this movie is the most profound ever made and it is centered around nothing other than blood sacrifice.

In summation of all of this I find it more than fair and logical to question even the very idea that Jesus ever existed. It seems far more plausible to me that the story of Jesus, the Christian faith, is nothing more than a parsed together story, incorporating the common characteristics of a heroic mythology with a concerted effort to align it with the “prophecy” of the old testament, and nothing more. Thus is, the mythology of Jesus.

[Random Evil Guy]

good thread. the similarities between the jesus myth and earlier stoires such as heracles, mithras, horus etc is definately suspecious. furthermore, jesus isn't mentioned outside the gospels for more than 60 years after his supposed death. hardly convincing evidence of his existance...

[connermt]

Random Evil Guy wrote: good thread. the similarities between the jesus myth and earlier stoires such as heracles, mithras, horus etc is definately suspecious. furthermore, jesus isn't mentioned outside the gospels for more than 60 years after his supposed death. hardly convincing evidence of his existance...

Even if he DID exist, his actions, miracles and beleifs would be extremely questionable.

[ChuckBerry]

I am neither a theologian nor a proper apologist, so I can only refer you to the words of others who have tackled this question.

In This Rock magazine, Catholic apologist James Akin deals with the question of pagan sources of non-pagan beliefs:

The pagan influence fallacy holds that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore tainted or altogether corrupt. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a sub-case of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits; for instance, “No one should use this medicine because its inventor was a drunkard and an adulterer.” With the rise of neo-paganism, some neo-pagans have also committed a variant on the pagan influence fallacy, trying to legitimize their newly created religions on the pretense that “You Christians just copied from us, therefore you are inferior to us.”

When the pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out first of all that it is a fallacy. ...To a secular person, one might point to a parallel case of the genetic fallacy involving his co-religionists—e.g., “Nobody should accept a particular scientific theory because it was developed by an atheist.” You might also point out examples of the associated fallacies, such as assuming a direct connection between things when no such connection can be supported (e.g., “There are pyramids in both Egypt and Meso-America, so there must have been an ancient, mysterious, global civilization responsible for both”).

Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1) Is there a parallel?
Frequently, there is not, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source. For example: “The Egyptians had a Trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (R. Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being, the Christian idea of a Trinity.

2) Is the parallel dependent or independent?
Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs and practices independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology and for good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art universally also includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children. Such images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source, such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Samiramis holding Tammuz.

Following the above link will get you the entire article.

[JDHURF]

CCD wrote: Is there a parallel?
Frequently, there is not


In this case there certainly is:

JDHURF wrote: The folklore inherent in Christianity was nothing new or original. Jesus shared some twenty odd characteristics with other mythical heroes, heroes such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysis, Baal, Attis, Adonis, etc. the shared characteristics being: the heroes mother is a royal virgin, stars appear at his birth, visited by Magi from the east, his father is a king, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, is reputed to be the son of a god, at birth there is an attempt by his father to kill him, but he is hidden away, is raised by foster parents in a foreign country, we are told nothing of his childhood, on reaching manhood he returns and goes to his future kingdom, after a victory over a king, a giant or a dragon, marries a princess, turns water into wine, heals the sick, performs miracles, becomes king, reigns uneventfully, proscribes laws, later losses favor with subjects, is driven from the throne of the city, meets with a mysterious death, death is often at the top of a hill, killed on a cross or a tree, his children if any do not succeed him, his body not buried, etc.

Furthermore your link has nothing to say about the four decades in which the only source of information regarding Christianity we have is from Paul, an individual who was unaware of the “fact” that Jesus allegedly lived as a human on earth, he was unaware of the story of Mary, of Bethlehem, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus, Paul never quotes anything that Jesus allegedly said, Paul never mentioned the ministry of Jesus, Pontius Pilot, any Jewish mob, any trial; Paul was unaware of what we would consider the story of Jesus save for the last three events, events which Paul did not even place as having happened on earth. To Paul Jesus lived, died and ascended all within the confines of a mythical realm. I find it interesting, rather suggestive, that the only link we have between the time frame given for the life of Jesus and the appearance of the first gospels, Paul, never even believed that Jesus was a human being, he was actually unaware of the idea altogether. This in and of itself lends credence to the idea that the gospels which came decades later were only the parsed together stories which incorporated the common characteristics of a heroic mythology with a concerted effort to align the story with the “prophecy” of the old testament, and nothing more.

Even using the resources of other people you don’t have a comprehensive rebuttal.

[ChuckBerry]

There is much in the way of resources that I could point you to that explain the history of the writing of the Gospels and the early Church writings. But, again, it would be me using other people's words to refute your charges, so I won't bother. There is information out there to counter your arguments if you want to find it. I suggest the online magazine This Rock as an excellent source to find Catholic apologetics material.

[cap'n queasy]

JDHURF wrote: CCD wrote: Is there a parallel?
Frequently, there is not


In this case there certainly is:

JDHURF wrote: The folklore inherent in Christianity was nothing new or original. Jesus shared some twenty odd characteristics with other mythical heroes, heroes such as Oedipus, Theseus, Romulus, Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hermes, Dionysis, Baal, Attis, Adonis, etc. the shared characteristics being: the heroes mother is a royal virgin, stars appear at his birth, visited by Magi from the east, his father is a king, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, is reputed to be the son of a god, at birth there is an attempt by his father to kill him, but he is hidden away, is raised by foster parents in a foreign country, we are told nothing of his childhood, on reaching manhood he returns and goes to his future kingdom, after a victory over a king, a giant or a dragon, marries a princess, turns water into wine, heals the sick, performs miracles, becomes king, reigns uneventfully, proscribes laws, later losses favor with subjects, is driven from the throne of the city, meets with a mysterious death, death is often at the top of a hill, killed on a cross or a tree, his children if any do not succeed him, his body not buried, etc.

Furthermore your link has nothing to say about the four decades in which the only source of information regarding Christianity we have is from Paul, an individual who was unaware of the “fact" that Jesus allegedly lived as a human on earth, he was unaware of the story of Mary, of Bethlehem, John the Baptist, any of the miracles of Jesus, Paul never quotes anything that Jesus allegedly said, Paul never mentioned the ministry of Jesus, Pontius Pilot, any Jewish mob, any trial; Paul was unaware of what we would consider the story of Jesus save for the last three events, events which Paul did not even place as having happened on earth. To Paul Jesus lived, died and ascended all within the confines of a mythical realm. I find it interesting, rather suggestive, that the only link we have between the time frame given for the life of Jesus and the appearance of the first gospels, Paul, never even believed that Jesus was a human being, he was actually unaware of the idea altogether. This in and of itself lends credence to the idea that the gospels which came decades later were only the parsed together stories which incorporated the common characteristics of a heroic mythology with a concerted effort to align the story with the “prophecy" of the old testament, and nothing more.

Even using the resources of other people you don’t have a comprehensive rebuttal.

Pfft.

That is simply stupid. There is a world of difference between avoiding redundancy and not being aware of of something.

Also, this claim shows that you are supremely ignorant of what is contained in the scriptures. Paul did not set out to rewrite the gospel, which was a testimony restricted to Israelites, but to spread the Word to the Gentile world.

[JDHURF]

CCD wrote: There is much in the way of resources that I could point you to that explain the history of the writing of the Gospels and the early Church writings. But, again, it would be me using other people's words to refute your charges, so I won't bother. There is information out there to counter your arguments if you want to find it. I suggest the online magazine This Rock as an excellent source to find Catholic apologetics material. Go ahead and provide the alleged evidence that would refute my argument about the gospels. Furthermore note that my argument was not only based upon the gospels but upon the four decade period after Jesus allegedly died and the gospels were written in which the only recorded information we have of Christianity is through Paul, an individual who was absolutely unaware of any of the events that are claimed to have happened within the gospel stories but for the fact that Jesus died, was resurrected and ascended, however, his contention was that these events all happened in a mythical realm and that Jesus was never a human being walking the earth.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: Also, this claim shows that you are supremely ignorant of what is contained in the scriptures. Paul did not set out to rewrite the gospel, which was a testimony restricted to Israelites, but to spread the Word to the Gentile world.

:lol: Paul came before the gospels were even written you silly goose.

[cap'n queasy]

JDHURF wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Also, this claim shows that you are supremely ignorant of what is contained in the scriptures. Paul did not set out to rewrite the gospel, which was a testimony restricted to Israelites, but to spread the Word to the Gentile world.

:lol: Paul came before the gospels were even written you silly goose.

Textual evidence disproves that fallacious claim.

Which is why most Biblical scholars have backed away from the claim that the Gospels were written in the 2nd and 3rd century. You simply are not qualified to discuss the subject.

For one thing the Luke who wrote both Acts and the gospel of Luke wrote this book (Acts) about Paul's ministry. He also records situations where Paul discussed theological points with Peter, and James the brother of Y'shua. Paul mentions meetings with John, Peter (he sometimes calls him by his Greek name Cephas), and James.

Peter mentions Paul in his own epistles.

Additionally, Marcion, the first person to dispute the validity of the Gospel did so in 140 AD.

And what really puts the claims of a late date for the writing of the Gospels to an ignomious death is Clement of Rome, who Paul mentions meeting in the epistle to the Philippians circa 62AD, quotes the New Testament, including the Gospels, over 150 times in his writings and he died in 101 AD.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: Textual evidence disproves that fallacious claim.
You are incorrect.
cap'n queasy wrote: Which is why most Biblical scholars have backed away from the claim that the Gospels were written in the 2nd and 3rd century. You simply are not qualified to discuss the subject.
Not only an ad hominem, but, not a claim which you go on to support in any way, quite the contrary in reality.
cap'n queasy wrote: For one thing the Luke who wrote both Acts and the gospel of Luke wrote this book (Acts) about Paul's ministry.
Which does not disprove the claim that Paul came before the gospels.
cap'n queasy wrote: He also records situations where Paul discussed theological points with Peter, and James the brother of Y'shua. Paul mentions meetings with John, Peter (he sometimes calls him by his Greek name Cephas), and James.
Where are these records? If this is true then that means Paul should have been aware of the stories of Jesus as described in the gospels right? Then why is it that Paul was under the impression that Jesus was not a human being who lived on earth? Why is it that in all of Paul’s writings there is no mention of anything found within the gospels save for the death, resurrection and ascendance of Jesus? Why is it that even these last three items are placed, by Paul, in a mythical realm?
cap'n queasy wrote: Peter mentions Paul in his own epistles.
If the gospels came after Paul, how is this, in any way, refuting the fact that Paul preceded the writing of the gospels?
cap'n queasy wrote: Additionally, Marcion, the first person to dispute the validity of the Gospel did so in 140 AD.
Which would have been eight decades after the gospels were written. The gospels were written around 70 A.D. Did you even bother to read my post?
cap'n queasy wrote: And what really puts the claims of a late date for the writing of the Gospels to an ignomious death is Clement of Rome, who Paul mentions meeting in the epistle to the Philippians circa 62AD, quotes the New Testament, including the Gospels, over 150 times in his writings and he died in 101 AD. In Paul’s epistle to the Philippians he says, in 4:3, “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.” This is widely disputed as actually being Pope Clement I, simply peruse the Oxford Dictionary of Popes. I would also point out that your claim that Paul mentions having met Clement is false, he makes no such claim in the Epistle. No where in this Epistle does Paul quote the gospels, he does claim that he has “labored in the gospel” but this is a clear reference to the spreading of the “good news” which is what gospel means, he is not actually referring to the NT gospels. Furthermore, if it even were true that Paul had met Clement, do you not find it odd that Clement didn’t inform Paul of the stories which reside in the NT gospels? Is it not contradictory to the claim that Clement didn’t inform Paul that Jesus, in fact, lived on earth, was born of a virgin mother, etc.? The fact that Paul never mentions any of this in any of his writings seems to contradict the claim that he was aware of the gospels or that he had met and conversed with anyone else who was, themselves, aware of the gospels or even the information which is espoused in the gospels.

[Random Evil Guy]

the gospel of mark is considered to be the oldest of the gospels and it is usually dated between 65-80 ad. the other three are:
gospel of matthew 80-100
gospel of luke 80-130
gospel of john 90-120



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[toddytodd]

Random Evil Guy wrote: the gospel of mark is considered to be the oldest of the gospels and it is usually dated between 65-80 ad. the other three are:
gospel of matthew 80-100
gospel of luke 80-130
gospel of john 90-120



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

It's interesting that people don't seem to consider this a problem in their belief system at all. Yet they tend to question scientific facts and (very well supported) theories (or at least theories with something more to support its claims than an ancient, rewritten book)... :lol:

[JDHURF]

Random Evil Guy wrote: the gospel of mark is considered to be the oldest of the gospels and it is usually dated between 65-80 ad. the other three are:
gospel of matthew 80-100
gospel of luke 80-130
gospel of john 90-120



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ That is roughly accurate, however the time span is not actually as wide as your link suggests. The time frame for the writing of Mark is more accurately considered anywhere between 65-70, Matthew 80-85, Luke 85-90 and John, the true authorship of which is truly unknown, many commentators take it as anonymous. However, that link was a great find, thanks for posting it. What I find to be further troubling is that the true authorship of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is uncertain and even beyond that none of these accounts were written by eyewitnesses who knew Jesus; they are the product of years of oral tradition. It is widely accepted that Luke and Matthew knew the gospel of Mark and drew upon it which makes them twice removed from direct testimony, because, Mark himself never knew Jesus, but, was a disciple of Peter in Rome. Mark wrote his memoirs , based on Peter’s oral recollections, at best a second hand account. However many scholars now doubt whether Mark actually received his material from Peter; what is thought likely is that he took it from a general oral tradition then existing in his Christian community. I also want to add that the writings of Paul are dated between 40-62, illustrating that they did, in fact, come before the gospels as I have said.
The more you research this the more my contention seems the likeliest conclusion.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: In Paul’s epistle to the Philippians he says, in 4:3, “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.” This is widely disputed as actually being Pope Clement I, simply peruse the Oxford Dictionary of Popes. I would also point out that your claim that Paul mentions having met Clement is false, he makes no such claim in the Epistle. No where in this Epistle does Paul quote the gospels, he does claim that he has “labored in the gospel” but this is a clear reference to the spreading of the “good news” which is what gospel means, he is not actually referring to the NT gospels. Furthermore, if it even were true that Paul had met Clement, do you not find it odd that Clement didn’t inform Paul of the stories which reside in the NT gospels? Is it not contradictory to the claim that Clement didn’t inform Paul that Jesus, in fact, lived on earth, was born of a virgin mother, etc.? The fact that Paul never mentions any of this in any of his writings seems to contradict the claim that he was aware of the gospels or that he had met and conversed with anyone else who was, themselves, aware of the gospels or even the information which is espoused in the gospels.

The point is the writings of Clement contain 150 quotes from the New Testament, including the Gospels and he died in 101 AD and that is an insurmountable obstacle to German higher criticism and a date for the writing of the Gospel that is in the second or third century. You are using scholarship from the 1800's which is obsolete to support your view. There are at least six other examples of first century writers quoting from or mentioning the existence of the Gospels.

And if you actually knew anything about Bible scholarship instead of parroting something written in an obsolete book you would realize this.

There is no current Bible scholarship which supports a 2nd or 3rd century origin for the Gospels.

Though one gospel was definitely written after Paul, the Gospel of John, which was written around 85-90 AD, we know it is first century because a few verses from John were found on a fragment of papyrus, known as the Muratorian fragment, which has been carbon dated to 100-125 AD, but other text evidence puts this fragment closer to 100 AD.

Additionally the first attack of the validity of the Gospels was issued in 145 AD by Marcion. And he couldn't have very well done that without the existence of the Gospels, now could he?



Quote: No where in this Epistle does Paul quote the gospels, he does claim that he has “labored in the gospel” but this is a clear reference to the spreading of the “good news” which is what gospel means, he is not actually referring to the NT gospels.

That is ridiculous. Paul mentions the gospels, specifically 65 times, and alludes to their existence dozens of times. And he discusses the compilation of the gospel.



The dates of the Gospels, according to the latest Biblical scholarship are:

Matthew-as early as 40 AD, but definitely before 50 AD, it was the first Gospel, Markan priority has been disproven.

Mark 50-60 AD

Luke 60 AD

John 85- 90 AD.

These are the accepted dates the experts have proven beyong a shadow of a doubt. If you can't accept that, perhaps your objectivity is compromised.

Q is imaginary, there is absolutely no evidence to support it's existence.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: You are using scholarship from the 1800's which is obsolete to support your view. Ther are at least six other examples of first century writers quoting from or mentioning the existence of the Gospels.
That’s simply false, I am using scholarship from the modern era, people alive right now. Michael White, Earl Doherty, Hyam Maccoby, William B. Smith, George Albert Wells, John Marco Allegro, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy and Larry Wright.
cap'n queasy wrote: And if you actually knew anything about Bible scholarship instead of parroting something written in an obsolete book you would realize this.
There is no current Bible scholarship which supports a 2nd or 3rd century origin for the Gospels.
Apparently you don’t realize this but the first century was 1-100 CE, which means that if the gospels were written as I have said – anywhere from 70-100 CE – they would have been written in the first century, that is precisely the claim that I am making, I have no idea where you conjure up any mention of the second or third century in any of my posts. You are arguing a point which was not made by myself, I claim the gospels were written in the first century, you agree, why in the world are you acting as though I have said they were written in the second or third century? What exactly about claiming the gospels were written no earlier than 70 CE implies that they were written in the second or third century, furthermore I go on to state:

“The time frame for the writing of Mark is more accurately considered anywhere between 65-70, Matthew 80-85, Luke 85-90 and John, the true authorship of which is truly unknown, many commentators take it as anonymous.”

What about that implies to you that I am claiming the gospels were written in the second or third century? You don’t even have any idea what you are arguing anymore.
cap'n queasy wrote: Though one gospel was definitely written after Paul, the Gospel of John, which was written around 85-90 AD, we know it is first century because a few verses from John were found on a fragment of papyrus, known as the Muratorian fragment, which has been carbon dated to 100-125 AD, but other text evidence puts this fragment closer to 100 AD.
Yeah, John was written around 100 CE, that would certainly fit in nicely with my contention.
cap'n queasy wrote: Additionally the first attack of the validity of the Gospels was issued in 145 AD by Marcion. And he couldn't have very well done that without the existence of the Gospels, now could he?
I agree, however, by 145 CE the gospels would have already existed for around seven decades, this also fits in nicely with my contention.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: The dates of the Gospels, according to the latest Biblical scholarship are:
Matthew-as early as 40 AD, but definitely before 50 AD, it was the first Gospel, Markan priority has been disproven.
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85- 90 AD.
That is a whole lot of piffle, I have never seen any scholarship claiming these dates.
cap'n queasy wrote: Q is imaginary, there is absolutely no evidence to support it's existence.
I assume you are referring to Quelle, in which case this unsupported fact of yours remains peripheral to my posts.

[cap'n queasy]

JDHURF wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: The dates of the Gospels, according to the latest Biblical scholarship are:
Matthew-as early as 40 AD, but definitely before 50 AD, it was the first Gospel, Markan priority has been disproven.
Mark 50-60 AD
Luke 60 AD
John 85- 90 AD.
That is a whole lot of piffle, I have never seen any scholarship claiming these dates.
cap'n queasy wrote: Q is imaginary, there is absolutely no evidence to support it's existence.
I assume you are referring to Quelle, in which case this unsupported fact of yours remains peripheral to my posts.

Whether or not you have seen something or not is irrelevent.

And if you think there is some evidence ofor the existence of q, beyond speculation, let us know.

Until then. Disprove any of the facts I have presented.

[JDHURF]

cap'n queasy wrote: Whether or not you have seen something or not is irrelevent. And if you think there is some evidence ofor the existence of q, beyond speculation, let us know. Until then. Disprove any of the facts I have presented. I am not claiming there is evidence for q, I am claiming that it having existed or not is absolutely irrelevant to me and my contention; as far as my posts are concerned q could be imaginary, it doesn’t change any part of my contention.
Furthermore you haven’t presented any facts which directly counter mine but for the dates in which the gospels were written, however, you do not provide any source or reference to where you have obtained these dates and for all I know you completely made them up. I have provided dates and the scholars who have presented them, if you wish me to take those dates in the least bit serious you have to point me in the direction in which they originate.

[cap'n queasy]

How did Marcion launch an attack on the validity of the Gospels, claiming they had been corrupted, in 145 AD when they were not written (so you say) until much later?

Does that make it simple enough for you?

This is a well known and documented part of history. If you were familar with the subject you would know all about it.