Quote:
Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by glitch";p="
There are some today who don't like what he had to say and thus try to claim he must have had a different message than what his apostles wrote down. I trust his apostles over the modern-day revisionists. They were there.
|
It was common in the days of the gospel writers to assume the names of important recent religious figures. They did so out of respect for their heroes and out of a very practical fear of persecution. Everyone understood and accepted this literary device. The Romans, having tired of the Jewish unrest in that province, annihilation the Hebrew state and reduced the Temple to rubble. It was a very dangerous time to be a Jew or to be closely related to them.
The revisionist movement of which you speak began in the mid-1800's. It was then that literalism was embraced and notions that the synoptic gospels were authored by contemporaries of Jesus. There is 2,000 years of scholarship to back me up.
It is you who have absorbed these erroneous revisionist traditions.
Don't believe everything you hear in Sunday school. |
"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." - Luke 1:2,3
The claim is to be
eyewitnesses to the events. The document you provided gives no evidence to disprove this and even the later dates in your document are still within the lifetimes of the apostles and eyewitnesses to the events.
Luke wrote in such historical detail. The liberal "scholars" tried to discredit his historical accuracy and attacked the details of his writings as part of their attempt to push it to a later date. However as the true historical record was uncovered it turned out the eyewitness (Luke) to the events was correct and the liberal "scholars" ended up eating crow. True scholars no longer challenge Luke's historical accuracy.
I believe there is good evidence the New Testament was completed by 70 A.D. or maybe 80 A.D. but it is possible some of the books were written later than this. However the evidence says the gospels were written before this.
There is hard evidence that the gospels must have been written at a quite early date. This is found in other documents that quote the gospels. We know that some of these documents precede liberal dating. Here are some examples of older documents quoting the gospels:
- Magdalen Papyrus dated before 66 A.D. quotes Matthew extensively.
- Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 before 68 A.D. quotes an extensive passage from Mark
- Paris Papyrus shortly after 66 A.D. quotes two verses from Luke
- The Bodmer Papyrus dated 125 A.D. contains a near complete copy of the gospel of John
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html[/url]
11-15-2006, 05:15 AM
Tickity Boo?
Linear Mode
