Originally Posted by Johnny

While God wouldn’t have anything whatsoever to lose by clearing revealing himself to everyone, skeptics who would accept him if he CLEARLY revealed himself to everyone would have everything to gain if he did so. If no God exists, then it is to be expected that none would ever show up. If a loving God exists, and if he is willing to CLEARLY reveal himself to some people, then it is to be expected that he would be willing to CLEARLY reveal himself to everyone.

Originally Posted by sharon45

Or more correctly, you reveal you haven't read the bible long enough to understand these presented points.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

For some strange reason you mostly take issue with the writings of skeptics. Why is that? What I would like to see is your own refutation of Christianity. How about it? What are your main reasons for opposing Christianity?

Originally Posted by me

The accepted authentic Pauline Epistles (those being. Romans, 1 &. 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, possibly Colossians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon), which are dated to c. 50-60 CE, make no mention of the Gospels. It is, therefore, almost certain that the Synoptics were written down after this time period.

Let's take a moment to address the age of the Apostles at this point. Since Christians believe Jesus died during Pilate's term in office, that means it must have occurred between 26 and 36 CE. The Apostles, since they followed Jesus, were not likely to have been much older than him. Supposing, then, that the Apostles were adults, and that they were no more than five years older than Jesus (who Christians believe was 33 when crucified), this puts their own births between 12 BCE and 20 CE. In 60 CE, therefore, the Apostles' ages would probably be between 40 and 72. By 90 CE, they would have been between 70 and 102--though even the oldest is not likely to have made it past 90 or so.

No clear references to the Gospels occur until c. 130 CE, by Papias, which seems strange given the references to the Pauline Epistles by 1 Clement (c. 95), and Ignatius (c. 110). However, the subject matter of 1 Clement and the unusual circumstances under which Ignatius wrote may explain the silence. Unfortunately, even Papias' testimony is somewhat suspect, as it survives only in a fourth-century quotation.

The Didache quotes the Gospel of Matthew, but calls it the "Gospel of Jesus." Several problems with this reference render it essentially worthless in establishing the date of the Synoptics, but it is a fascinating point of evidence otherwise, because it suggests Matthean authorship was attributed later--and thus erroneously.

In c. 150 CE, Justin of Rome quotes all three Synoptics, calling them the "memoirs of the Apostles." This reference is actually a retelling of a debate supposedly held in c. 135 CE. This suggests that the Synoptics had been written no later than c. 135, and authorship ascribed no later than c. 150 CE. The Apostles, however, would have been long dead by this time, so Justin is unhelpful in confirming tradition.

Internal evidence, namely the reference to the temple's destruction (70 CE), suggests the Gospels were either written or edited after 70 CE. However, it is possible that the reference is only an accident, and that it was included prior to 70 CE. So here we have a probable dating of c. 70-135 CE, and a plausible dating of c. 60-135 CE. How can we narrow this down any further?

Let's now take a look at the order in which the Synoptics were written. Clearly, they drew on one another in some way. The most logical hypothesis is that Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke some time later. This is based on complex textual analysis I won't reproduce here. In any case, they were probably written years apart, allowing time for each to circulate before the next was written. Mark, therefore, was probably written between 70 and 125 CE, and the latest Synoptic--be it Matthew or Luke--between 80 and 135 CE. As far as I know, any further narrowing is impossible given the evidence.

Unfortunately, the claims of authorship are even more spurious. The Didache, along with the age restrictions of the Apostles, suggests authorship was incorrectly assigned after the Synoptics had been written. No convincing evidence exists to support the traditional Apostolic authorship, leaving the Synoptic Gospels anonymous.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

Nonsense. The Bible claims that “God� ordered the children of Israel to kill every man, woman, and child in the promise land/Palestine because the children of Israel apparently admit to having killed every man, woman, and child in the promise land/Palestine…. AND they apparently sought to justify this behavior by writing about it and claiming that what they’ve written was inspired by “God�.

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

God ordered the children of Israel to kill every man, woman, and child in the promise land/Palestine.

Whatever God does or says is righteous.

Do you know why He did this ?

(I do)

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

IOW, His invisible attributes are clearly reflected in physical reality/creation.

Can't see Him ?

Verse 21 tells you why.

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

His points are extreme subjective rhetoric.

Since you agree and I don't your disapproval supports my rightness. Glad I didn't get it.

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Johnny is used to debating lightweights like Holding. We theologians don't think we are correct, rather we know we are correct.

Originally Posted by hatsoff

It seems that way because this is a forum dominated by skeptics. Most of my bone-picking here is therefore with them, not the relatively few Christians.