Can you say biblical innacuracy overload?

reply to post by autowrench


That sentence was supposed to have an if lol. Thanks for pointing that out.
And yeah i know what your saying. There's no way to prove what was really said and what is a faux. Do you think the Vatican has records of when and what was changed in the bible?

reply to post by autowrench

Dear autowrench,

Would you mind coming up with some evidence for the position that the Gospels weren't written until 150 and that Justin Martyr was the first to mention them? Those are very unusual positions to take. The more accepted view is:

We know that Acts was written around 62 AD because it's a history of the early church, yet mentions no events that occurred after around 62 AD or so. It says nothing about the death of Paul or the fall of Jerusalem, both of which occurred in the late 60's. Had they taken place before the writing of Acts, Luke surely would have mentioned them. And since we know that the Gospel of Luke preceded the book of Acts, and that Luke borrowed from Mark's Gospel, there's little doubt that at least those two Gospels were written in the first century.

And on top of that, Papias tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and wrote his Gospel based on what Peter told him. Thus Mark couldn't have been writing in the late 2nd century, since he couldn't have known Peter had he not lived in the 1st. Papias also tells us that Matthew wrote the Hebrew version of his Gospel, which translated to Greek and combined with Mark's Gospel, became the Gospel of Matthew that we know, and there is strong suggestion from early church fathers that Matthew did the translating himself. Irenaeus commented that Paul used the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the OT) when writing his Gospel (when referencing OT prophecies, of course). He couldn't have been talking about the Hebrew version, since you wouldn't be using a Greek OT translation when writing in Hebrew.

John's Gospel was certainly the last written, but even anti-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman agree that it was written in the 1st century, and we even have a fragment, the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to about 125 AD, proving that even the latest of the Gospels couldn't have been written in the late 2nd century

I found this at a site called kingdavid8.com

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by openeyeswideshut
reply to post by autowrench

 

That sentence was supposed to have an if lol. Thanks for pointing that out.
And yeah i know what your saying. There's no way to prove what was really said and what is a faux. Do you think the Vatican has records of when and what was changed in the bible?

Well, I recently saw an episode of "Decoded" about the Vatican, and they most certainly do have a lot of secrets in those archives. I would not be shocked by anything I found in there, to tell the truth.

reply to post by charles1952

Sure, friend. I am tired, but with a night's sleep, I could find you lots more, I'll wager.

Justin Martyr does not cite any NT writing by name, but he designates his several NT citations with “it is recorded,” or the “memoirs of the apostles.” He refers to the “Gospels” saying, For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me..." First Apology 66

source

Did Justin Martyr Cite the Gospel of Peter? Some have contended that Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, mentions the Gospel of Peter (GP). If true, this would push the latest possible date for this gospel a few decades earlier. Let’s look closely at the reference in question… Justin frequently discusses material from texts that he identifies as “memoirs of the apostles” (apomnhmoneumata twn apostolwn). At one point he clearly identifies these memoirs as gospels: “The Apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, have handed down what Jesus ordered them to do” (1 Apol. 66).

source

As for the history itself, conservative scholars estimate that the New Testament was written somewhere between 45 A.D. and 95 A.D. Liberal scholars believe it was written between 80 A.D. and 150 A.D. MOST scholars believe it was written between around 60 A.D. and 95 A.D. As you can see, what evidence we do have is convoluted, at best. Here is a site with a good debate on the subject matter, and a timeline.
THE BIBLE'S MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

The fact remains, there are no first person accounts. This is why when someone quotes Jesus directly, I have to dispute. No one knows exactly what he said, or where or when he said it.

reply to post by autowrench

Dear autowrench,

Rest well, the weekend's coming and you need to be in shape for it. Never let a good weekend go to waste.

If the New Testament could have been written as early as 45 (I hadn't heard that before) then a first person account should have been easy. I mean, that was just 10-15 years after Christ's death.

Anyway, thanks a lot for writing, see you around.

With respect,
Charles1952