Metacrock is still apologizing...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 3:32 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Metacrock wrote: ... The community was the author. scholars no longer thin of individual authors of Gospels.
I think that is highly likely; & over several generations - cumulative elaborations
there's no evidence for That. the whole idea that the date of MS is the actual date of he writing is not taken seriously by any scholar. The automatically add 20 years to a MS just on the assumption of travel time and copy time. No one takes the second centruy dates seriously now. The trend is earlier dates.

unfortuantley the guy who complied this list is no longer with a website.I have no URL. I did have a link. He complied an increidlbe list of schoalrs and their dating of the Gospels. hte only one I copied was the Matthew list. there are lists for each of he four canonical Gospels showing equal ealry dates. they were all as long as this one:


BOOK

EARLY LATE AVERAGE




Matthew Peter Ainsile, D.D. A.D. 48 to 69
48 69 58.5




Matthew The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Post 70 AD
70 70 70.0




Matthew An Introduction to the New Testament, D.A. Carson Ph.D. & Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D. shortly prior 70 A.D.
69 69 69.0




Matthew Apologetics Study Bible, A.D. 60's is not unreasonable
60 69 64.5




Matthew Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, A.D. 60's1
60 69 64.5




Matthew Believer's Study Bible, W.A.Criswell, Ph.D., Editor, prior 70 A.D.
69 69 69.0




Matthew Biblical Illustrator, N.T. Archbishop Thomson A.D. 58 to 60
58 60 59.0




Matthew Craig L. Blomberg, Ph..D. A.D. 58to 65
58 65 61.5




Matthew Blue Letter Bible, AD 55 to 60
55 60 57.5




Matthew Raymond Brown, Ph.D. AD 80 to 90, give or take a decade
80 90 85.0




Matthew F.F. Bruce, Ph.D. shortly after 70 AD
71 71 71.0




Matthew D.A. Carson, R.T. France, and G.J. Wenham, eds. New Bible Commentary: 21 Century Edition, 80 CE
80 80 80.0




Matthew Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70
71 71 71.0




Matthew W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100
80 100 90.0




Matthew M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Probably between AD 60 or 65
60 65 62.5




Matthew James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 ,Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University
70 80 75.0




Matthew English Standard Version Bible AD 50s or 60s
50 60 55.0




Matthew David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55, yet 40 to 60 is possible.
40 60 50.0




Matthew Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America, Past President of the Society of Biblical Literature Chair of the Synoptic Studies Division of SBL. Author of the 2 Volume Commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible Series. A well-known and leading Critical Scholar in New Testament Origins
75 80 77.5




Matthew Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55 Author of over 60 books and hundreds of articles. Founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary. In 2009 he co-founded Veritas Evangelical Seminary. 50 55 52.5




Matthew Robert H. Gundry, Ph.D. A.D. 65 to 70
65 70 67.5




Matthew Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. New Testament Introduction prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable. President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament, The London Bible College
50 64 57.0



Matthew Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D. A.D. 60
60 60 60.0




Matthew Donald A. Hagner, Ph.D. pre AD 70
69 69 69.0




Matthew William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 63-66
63 66 64.5




Matthew A.E. Hill, Ph.D. AD 70 to 85 Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, author Guide to Bible Data
70 85 77.5




Matthew Nelsen'sStudy Bible H.Wayne House, Th.D. J.D. Editor, A.D. 50 to 60
50 60 55.0




Matthew R. Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and D. Brown, eds. AD 37 to 60, Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible (JFB)
37 60 48.5




Matthew Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85 Professor of New Testament at Drew University
75 85 80.0




Matthew Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 70's , although this date is not certain.
70 80 75.0




Matthew Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 80 to 100 Late Professor of New Testament at Marburg, Germany
80 100 90.0




Matthew John MacArthur, Ph.D .A.D. 50 to 70
50 70 60.0




Matthew G. Maier, Ph.D. pre AD 70
69 69 69.0




Matthew K.E. Malberg, AD 49 to 51 Bible Overview Chart
49 51 50.0




Matthew Bruce Metzger, Ph.D AD 75 to 85 Professor of New Testament at Princeton University, Chair of the Editorial Board for the UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Senior Editor for the New Testament of the NRSV Translation Team. (Considered THE Dean of Textual-Critical studies today [since Aland's death])
75 85 80.0




Matthew J.P.Moreland, Ph.D. A.D. mid 40's to mid 50's
45 55 50.0




Matthew Leon Morris, Ph.D. perhaps the late 50s or early 60s.
58 62 60.0




Matthew S.L. Peterson, AD 75 Timeline Charts of the Western Church
75 75 75.0




Matthew John Nolland, Ph.D. Matthew is to be dated before the beginnings of the buildup to the Jewish war. Buildup started AD 66
65 65 65.0




Matthew The Pulpit Commentary, A.D. 60 to 75
60 75 67.5




Matthew B. Reicke, Ph.D. pre A.D. 70
69 69 69.0




Matthew J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. AD 40 to 60
40 60 50.0




Matthew T. Robinson, AD 85 The Bible Timeline
85 85 85.0




Matthew Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Th.D., Ph.D., Ryrie Study Bible AD 50s or 60s
60 60 60.0




Matthew Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University (Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke show ANY sign of knowing of ANY of the events following 90 AD, hence they were written before 90.)
70 80 75.0




Matthew William Smith, Ph.D. Smith's Bible Dictionary. A.D. 60 to 66
60 66 63.0




Matthew H.D.M. Spenes, D.D. A.D. 60 to 75
60 75 67.5




Matthew Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to the mid 60s Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
60 63 61.5




Matthew Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Retired Professor of Greek and New Testament, Cambridge University
63 63 63.0




Matthew David L. Turner, Ph.D. prior to A.D. 70
69 69 69.0




Matthew Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80 Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Southern Methodist University (Dr. Tyson is one of THE leading scholars in Luke-Acts, and is Chair of the Luke-Acts Division of the Society of Biblical Literature)
80 80 80.0




Matthew Merrill F. Unger, Ph.D., Th.D., Aramaic A.D.40 to 45, Greek A.D. 50
40 45 42.5




Matthew Robert Utley, D.Min. Possibly A.D. 60 or at least before A.D. 70, Retired Professor of Hermeneutics
60 69 64.5




Matthew J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 40
40 40 40.0




Matthew Edwin Yamauchi, Ph.D. shortly after A.D. 70
71 71 71.0




Matthew David Young, Ph.D. 70's
70 79 74.5




Matthew Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Episcopal Theological Seminary
70 80 75.0




Matthew J. Walvoord and R. Zuck AD 50 to c50 The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures
50 50 50.0




Matthew Rev. A. Lukyn Williams, M.A. A.D. 60 to 75
60 75 67.5
















Date 8/30/2010
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 3:40 am

MrMacSon wrote:
The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later)
you are over correcting. that's the opposite extreme form those who date them in the second century.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by stevencarrwork » Fri May 09, 2014 3:44 am

So Metacrock produces a list of Christians who agree with him.

Remember, we must believe everything a Christian says, so all Metacrock has to do is name Christians and everything is settled. Who needs evidence when you can list the names of Christians?

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 3:45 am

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:Because the crucifixion ended between 3:00 and 6:00 on the eve of Passover
According to the Synoptics, the Passover had started the night before. They are crystal clear about it. Are they lying?

The Romans would not have cared about getting the body down, nor would they have cared about touching a dead body, and the Romans are the one who would have taken the bodies down if anybody did.

the problem with that kind of arguement is we don't know enough about Jesus family or heterodox Judaism. The Saduceeds did it on a different day fro the Pharisees:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roo ... er/History
(scroll down to "Pharisaical tradition")

We know the Heterodox groups such as the one at Qumran had a total different calnder from other two. WE don't know what calender Jesus used.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 3:48 am

stevencarrwork wrote:So Metacrock produces a list of Christians who agree with him.

Remember, we must believe everything a Christian says, so all Metacrock has to do is name Christians and everything is settled. Who needs evidence when you can list the names of Christians?
do you know what a liberal is? Hmmmm? probably not because you think I'm a fundie. You don't you? It's real easy for non thinkers to dismiss their opponents with little labels like that. That's what you are doing. you are not goign by the evidence you are going by weather or not I'm in agreement with your prejudices.

Look at that list you see many of them are liberals. Liberals tend to be dismissing of historical arguments for faith. So when you find liberals that support such arguments it's pretty good proof that arguemnt is a good one.

IF no evidence can ever count against one's position then on evidence can prove it either. If it does that's just proof that the evidence is written by a Christian. Chrsitains are evil and stupid they have to always be wrong.

If that's your game here I'm not interesting. I've had all the pissing contests I need need on carm.
Last edited by Metacrock on Fri May 09, 2014 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 3:58 am

What does the argument that Mark is subsumed into Matthew get us? I think it's a lame arguemnt (no offense). The particular reasoning is what matters, that tells us more than the assertions in the evidence. In other words that fact that Diatesseron in written late second century means nothing compared to the fact that readings in it are clearly very early and preserved with their Jewish flavor intact. That's a good source that proves the Gospel material was in circulation before our version of Mark existed.

It also makes sense if Q is really true. Then would have to be sources about the Gospel material circulating before Mark to have a whole saying source arleady to go that was used in addition to Mark.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by stevencarrwork » Fri May 09, 2014 4:00 am

Metacrock wrote: this is typical of the way carr argues. no evidence can ever count against him. If it does that's just proof that the evidence is written by a Christian. Chrsitains are evil and stupid they have to always be wrong.
Metacrock produced a list of books. He claims this is evidence.

It isn't. It is just a list of books written by Christians.

The fact that he cannot tell the difference between a book catalogue and evidence is not my fault.

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 4:14 am

stevencarrwork wrote:
Metacrock wrote: this is typical of the way carr argues. no evidence can ever count against him. If it does that's just proof that the evidence is written by a Christian. Chrsitains are evil and stupid they have to always be wrong.
Metacrock produced a list of books. He claims this is evidence.

It isn't. It is just a list of books written by Christians.

The fact that he cannot tell the difference between a book catalogue and evidence is not my fault.
first of all you reading skills are so bad you can't even see what you are reading. The list of books is a list of schoalrs who support early dates for the Gospel of Matthew. the dates are there. those are those number after the words. like 60,70. those are dates in the firs century.

Now is what we call "expert testimony." these guys are experts. that's how dating of New documents has always been done. the atheist who date them 200 years after the events are using their own list of scholars. The difference is their list if really much older so mine reflects the newer information and better methods.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 09, 2014 4:19 am

Genesis 2-3 was discovered to have influenced a Sumerian tablet dating to 2100 BC (making Genesis older and at that time authoritative)
MFL can you document that for me?
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

theterminator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:07 am

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by theterminator » Fri May 09, 2014 4:45 am

Because the crucifixion ended between 3:00 and 6:00 on the eve of Passover and none of them would have wanted to touch a dead body (and be barred from the temple).

All four gospels are specific: the crucifixion took place on Nisan 14, and the garden near Golgotha was used simply because it was close. There was no time to dilly dally with anything more complex than:
--get the body down
--prep it
--carry it to the cave
--seal the cave
[/quote]

how do you know it was close when no one knows where the tomb is? how did the jews know that jesus' battered body would've been recognized by cowards who ran away? why do you christians want the jews to become sticklers for the rules when it comes to the funeral of your god, but when jesus breaks rules, you people find exceptions?
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Charles Wilson, Iphigeneia, JoeWallack, Kapyong, lsayre, MrMacSon, Peter Kirby, Steven Avery, Thor, Yahoo [Bot] and 66 guests