Sojourner553

David, can you please put a halt to the name-dropping thing..???

I can show you lots of scholarly authors that claim they can prove Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, you name it.

I don't think you would be pursuaded by anyone touting this would you? Why should the same not apply in reverse?

How about drilling into some details, please.

I realize I am asking you to do something harder, because it means you actually have to UNDERSTAND what your sources are saying. But I think you will find the effort rewarding, and I can tell you have the intelligence to do this...

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

David Conklin

That because he's not even close to reality.

Only if one is desperate.

The point is that some can date the book earlier than "after" 80.

Actually, Millard Erickson noted that Robinson's dates "represent quite a change from his earlier writings, such as Jesus and His Coming".

There are other scholars who date the Gosples earlier than those of Robinson. I was just showing the Doherty didn't know what he was talking about.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]</p>

David Conklin

I was simply naming scholars who disagree with what Doherty said. It shows that he doesn't know the field and is unqualified to claim the "no serious scholar" dated either Mark or Matthew "before the year 80."

I have; at the moment I'm editing my quick study on this very topic to put in hmtl format.

David Conklin

It is now up at <a href="http://members.tcq.net/dconklin/Date_of_the_Gospels.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tcq.net/dconklin/Date_of_the_Gospels.htm</a>

Iasion

David said :

I did.

I adduced the first century of Christian writings, showing that :[*] NO Christian writer showed any knowledge of the virgin birth stories till mid 2nd century[*] No Christian writer showed any knowledge of the miracles of Jesus until early 2nd century.

This evidence clearly argues that these elements were late additions.

If YOU claim they were original elements of the myth, then please produce some evidence of these details being known before 2nd century.


QuentinJ

David Conklin

I haven't seen it.

Which writings are these and what did you leave out?

Iasion

David said :

What does that mean?
You didn't see what I wrote?
You didn't understand it?
You disagree?


I beg your pardon?
I LISTED by name all the ealy Christian writings - are you not even aware of what early Christian writings exist?
What on earth are you trying to say?


.. I beg your pardon?
I am not aware that I left any out.
Are you claiming I did leave some out?


Your posts have totally avoided the issues I have raised, so I repeat :[*] there is no evidence for knowledge of the virgin birth stories before 2nd century[*] there is no evidence for knowledge of the miracles of Jesus before 2nd century.


What is your case for arguing these elements were part of the original Jesus myth?


QuentinJ

Sojourner553

The first half - VERY wrong: Many of the EARLIEST Christians were converted pagans!!

The second half of this was true. Ever stopped to think if Christianity is a continuation of Judaism--why does the former have NO tradition of a trinity, a heaven in the sky, virgin births with gods. Answer: All these come from a pagan tradition.

Sojourner