Jack the Bodiless

Nope.

The gospels were originally anonymous, there is no particular reason to assume they were written by the traditional authors (they were chosen for theological/political reasons, out of about 30 different "gospels" in circulation).

And in cae you weren't aware of this, "J. P. Holding" (Robert Turkel) is not a Biblical scholar, has no relevant expertise, and actually presents no real argument in that article (which is mostly off-topic waffle about Tacitus: classic smokescreen tactics).

Darklighter

Ummm, no. Even tradition doesn't say that. John supposedly lived to around 100. He supposedly wrote the book of Revelation even before his gospel while under arrest on the isle of Patmos, all after 90 C.E. That is, according to tradition anyway.

arnoldo

Stating historical facts is not smokescreen. This bible scholar uses Josephus to date the Book of Acts to sometime after 90 AD.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=001...OR-enlargePage

Jack the Bodiless

Stating stuff which is not relevant to the issue under discussion is a smokescreen.
Again: Stating stuff which is not relevant to the issue under discussion is a smokescreen!

martini

technically, i think it is called the Red Herring fallacy or something similar.

Sheshonq

It is -- if the historical facts don't relate to the topic at hand. It is a historical fact that the Norman Conquest occurred in 1066 AD. But bringing it up during a discussion about Israel and prophecy would be a smokescreen, since the Norman Conquest has nothing to do with either Israel or prophecy.

No, he doesn't, actually. All you have is one page from JSTOR where the author presents several approaches to trying to explain a discrepancy. But he never finishes his thought, since you only have one page here to show us. His discussion continues for several pages. But all you have is the first page.

Even if he did date Acts to after 90 AD, that hardly helps your argument. You claimed that:

The Gospels were (a) written by the disciples of Yeshua and (b) all lived short lives due to being executed.

What would a claim of Acts being composed after 90 AD help to prove either part (a) or part (b) of your claim?

Answer: NOTHING. :rolling:

Jack the Bodiless

Well, as the author of Acts is traditionally assumed to be the author of Luke...

...The only relevance that I can see is that this would indicate that Arnoldo is WRONG about the author of Luke living "a short life due to being executed"!

Yet another fascinating example of a fundie shooting himself in the foot.

Amaleq13

Christian tradition denies this claim. Only two of the Gospels are alleged to have been written by a disciple of Jesus. Mark is alleged to have been written by Peter's secretary and Luke doesn't even have a traditional connection to any disciple. We've had several threads on this subject if you've suddenly developed a genuine interest in learning.

We've had several threads on this subject as well which show that you have no hope of ever supporting this claim with reliable evidence (Peter is the only one for which you will even approach success) but, of course, that has never stopped you before...

Please use the search function rather than introduce a tangent in this thread.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to prove that God can predict the future? If so, I do not care whether or not God can predict the future. All that I care about is his character. God is immoral.

arnoldo

<edit>