Toto

Are you unable to read? No one is talking about "proof." You asked for substantive objections to Anderson's paper, and I gave you the reference that Stephen Carlson provided on his blog. But you can't seem to understand that demonstrating Markan priority is an argument against an extremely early dating of Luke.

So you don't know what consensus means. Going on...

What folks? Not any scholars that I can track down.

And lots of Christians accuse skeptics of attacking inerrancy because it is like shooting fish in a barrel, and is unfair because most Christians are not inerrantists...

You know that this is not true. There are a lot of Christians who post here without feeling intimidated.

It is only Christians who have problems with following the rules who get suspended or banned.

And I see that ideas that you don't like = junque. Debating issues = harassment.

"gnashing of teeth" is out for me - my dentist recommends against it.

:rolling:

Steven Avery

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov Am I correct in stating that you hold to Lukan priority and that Luke was written is the 40s?

Hi Khal,

I have always been a pre-70AD dating of NT person. Lately the concerns about Revelation (often dated later) were essentially eliminated.

And recently I learned the view of a 40-AD Luke addressed to Theophilus the high priest. The view seems very sensible, and has many supporting elements. Helped by the fact that I was already aware of the view that Luke was Jewish, not Gentile. And I was aware that Paul considers Luke as scripture when he writes his epistle to Timothy. So this view of a 40-AD Luke is not an article of faith and if there were real compelling evidence against it I would simply accept such evidence with no doctrinal concerns or qualms whatsoever.

As for "Lukan priority" a 40-AD Luke would likely mean "Lukan antecedence" to the rest of the NT books. I would prefer to use that phrase, since "priority" often is used with overtones and undertones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov Are you a biblical literalist

By most standards, yes, although clearly there is figurative and allegorical language used in the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov and do you see the Gospels as historically reliable?

Most definitely.

Many threads here on IIDB where issues like the Lukan geographical and historical precision is discussed. One tawdry trick of the skeptics here is to play games trying to separate Luke and Acts in those discussions - since so many of the specific historical and geographical elements are in Acts. Similar discussions could be held about John, and I showed how the attempts to attack Luke were based on modern version corruptions like the swine marathon from Gerash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov I'm just asking because I've noticed that these things often go together with an extreme early dating. What is your solution to the synoptic problem?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a 'problem'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov We know there's a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke, so what is it? Luke was used by Matthew and Mark? Did Mark also use Matthew? What's your view on this?

I dunno. Nobody has made compelling arguments one way or another, if I see some I will take them into consideration. I have found at some cases where the interrelationships of the Gospels was very delicate and interesting when looking at inerrancy & chronology. Each case could be looked at separately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov If you go for a pre-70 Luke what do you think of the standard view that Luke knows about the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70?

Standard view ? Of whom ? Folks who think that Luke was hiding all sorts of information from his readers ?

Even on IIDB you can sometimes see the simple truth expressed. If the NT writers had known of 70AD, you would have expected it to be stated in various places in various ways. The simple Ockham position is that all the NT was written before 70AD and any other position has to jump over a high bar of incredulity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalimirov Of all Canonical Gospels Luke is the one who seems to have the clearest references to the war and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. What do you think of this?

I'll be happy to do a little comparison of the synoptics and see if I think the degree of prophetic specificity seems be a point of significant scholarly interest.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,
Toto do you even read your own posts ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Are you unable to read? No one is talking about "proof."

Proto-Toto
"I am quite familiar with Mark Goodacre's paper on fatigue.
It is offered as proof against Lukan priority". (post#6)

Please, Toto.
I was trying to have a real discussion, it may not be possible.

I do have in my email archives a list of about a half-dozen to a dozen early dating resources, however with the above we might as well close out the conversation.

Perhaps you will be careful with your next "factoid", not foisting off an opinion as fact when challenging another poster. Especially important for 'moderators'.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

I mispoke on #6 - I should have said evidence. But very strong evidence.

If you have some smoking gun that is any sort of evidence for the early dating of the gospels, just post it, and cut the rest of the crap.

khalimirov

Hi Steven,

I think I'm going to have to respectfully decline going into a debate with you on Lukan/ Markan priority. I think the gap between our views is way too large for us to have a fruitful discussion on this issue. I do not accept biblical inerrancy, do not consider the Gospels to be historically reliable, do not think the King James Bible is a particularly good translation and I take mainstream scholarship very seriously. With all due respect, I think your fundamentalism biases you towards certain radical positions. I wish you all the best!

Khalimirov

Sauron

Just for the record, prax -- comments like the above are why the mods go after you. Not for your religious point of view.

Although I could make an argument that anyone who inconsistently uses as many colors as you do in their posts *ought* to get banned for that reason alone....

Sauron

Except it isn't internally consistent.

Which isn't inerrant.

Must not be much of a "movement", I suppose.

On the contrary. What skeptics do is point out the many mistakes in the bible, and most of the time they use the KJV as their starting point. By pointing out these huge errors, the skeptics are able to directly contradict the foundation premise of biblical inerrancy. No need to worry about alternate bible versions, when the KJV has holes in it large enough to drive an aircraft carrier.

The end result of the skeptics eviscerating the KJV bible is precisely what we've seen around here lately: the defeated christians run away with their tails between their legs, and a vague warning that they'll be back soon with evidence for their positions. Instead, they vanish for 2 or 3 months and never come back with the promised evidence.

Sound like anyone you know, prax?:rolling:

Steven Avery

Toto, it is good to see that, after chiding me for not understanding what you were saying, you finally caught up to your own words and are defacto acknowledging :

a) your original error in the blithe assertion of a factoid of no Gospels in the era of Jesus
b) later error in claiming proof from Goodacre
c) another error in denying that you had claimed proof
d) chiding me for thinking that you had claimed proof, you actually had.

Now that is pretty bad, and can explain why the forum gets to be a drag, all this time simply to get one 'moderator' to acknowledge the obvious.

However you now make one additional error, trying to hide the previous blunderama with a "crap" snide remark .. to cover your own acknowledgment-blunder-arrogance city.

Actually this type of 'confusion combined with belligerence' stuff is par-for-the-'moderator'-course.

As for the issue of early dating of the NT texts, it is sufficient to point out that a number of scholars believe this way. It is obviously silly-season if anyone expects a mythicist-oriented bunch to discuss early NT dating ideas sensibly, much less accept evidences. Remember the early dating views are predicated on the simple proposition that the first-person statements (Luke, Paul, Peter et al) are true and accurate.

As for Sauron trying to run interference, the multiple errors of the 'moderator' on this thread, combined with the attempt to combat and harass me into not pressing the issues towards clarification and truth and a level playing field, including attacking my logical understanding of the issues:

"Is binary logic not part of your tool set?"

all speak clearly enough. Especially if anyone thinks that believers who defend the Bible can mix it up here on a fair and level playing field.

However, I will try to just work with threads that are simple and crisp, like correcting the idea that the Bible has an error in John with Jesus not going to the feast. It is clear that this crew is pretty much unworkable in real dialog.

Shalom,
Steven