Jeffrey Gibson

I have no intentions of stepping on your neck. I'm only interested in knowing whether your basis for saying that we don't know anything about where the Gospels were written is well informed and, more importantly, a version of the the argument from incredulity.

Neither of which really deal (or deal in any depth) with the issue of the place of Gospel composition, do they?

Perhaps it would be wise for you to actually look at what scholars who discuss this issue have said before you make such a global and apodictic pronouncement. That's all I'm saying.

Jeffrey

Mythra

I know what you're saying. It's not that I'm too lazy or unintelligent to research for myself. But truthfully, I wouldn't have any idea where to even begin. I mean, there are lots and lots of scholars who (presumably) vary widely in their viewpoints. And I'm probably not learned enough to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Mythra

Now then, what I said is that "no one knows the place where the gospels were authored."

I'm comfortable with that statement - as demonstrable (or apodictic, if you prefer) as it is.

No one knows. I'm sure there are some who think they know. Or think they have a pretty good idea based on textual analysis and other data. But no one knows. No one knows who wrote the gospels either.

I don't need to be a scholar to make those statements.

If someone does know, he or she should let the world in on it.

Michael

Toto

Jeffrey: do you mean to say that anyone can say anything other than we don't know where the gospels were written, or when - even after reading what scholars say on the subject ? Does one have to wade through all of the inconclusive scholarship before getting to the crux of the matter?

Don't you think that people have better uses for their time than to slog though every inconclusive and speculative book and article written on the question, when the answer is going to be that no one knows?

If you claim that there is any clear indication of where the gospels were written, just come out with it.

Jeffrey Gibson

How do you know it's inconclusive?

You know that already, do you?

I think people should not post global claims about scholarship when they, like you, are as unfamiliar with scholarship as you have admitted you are.

Want to make good use of your time. Do some reading.

Jeffrey

Toto

I've sampled it. And I think that if there were something conclusive, someone would have mentioned it.

burning flames

the reason I bring him up is because of these 2 interesting links, recommended to me by someone on this forum...

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Jeffrey Gibson

So you say.

Whoa! All Kee is speaking of here is Jesus as an exorcist -- which even Jewish sources testify to. Where does he say anything about Jesus being lord of lords. Nice of you to make your point by putting words in Kee's mouth.

In any case, that Jesus had "unusal powers" -- i.e., was a healer -- is something that Jewish and atheists scholars have also said.

Jeffrey

Mythra

I've read both of those articles, burningflames. I thought they were very well done and had lots of interesting info.

Including the fact that NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN.



Sorry Jeffrey. Just messin with ya.


Michael

Mythra

Now it's my turn to say whoa. What "Jewish sources" are you speaking of?