• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When

RGacky3 said:
All you've done is link to a website that lists conservative scholars, I can link to a bunch of liberal scholars and it would be just as valid...
Click to expand...

As the author of the list notes, there are liberal scholars who weighed in. However, the problem with many liberal scholars is that, like those of the Jesus Seminar, they often have an 'a priori', anti-supernatural bias that muddles their effectiveness as credible authorities on Biblical issues. As an example, they diss the idea of prophecy (as Jesus gave in Matthew and Luke) so that any mention of the future destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (which occurred in 70 AD) is thus viewed as having to be mentioned after 70 AD. That's why those types of liberal "scholars" suck. They're spiritual dwarfs.

RGacky3 said:
.... but the fact remains, in scholarship those are out of the mainstream, the scholarly consensus, i.e. the majority view is 80-85 for Matthew and Luke.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. See above.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
As the author of the list notes, there are liberal scholars who weighed in. However, the problem with many liberal scholars is that, like those of the Jesus Seminar, they often have an 'a priori', anti-supernatural bias that muddles their effectiveness as credible authorities on Biblical issues. As an example, they diss the idea of prophecy (as Jesus gave in Matthew and Luke) so that any mention of the future destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (which occurred in 70 AD) is thus viewed as having to be mentioned after 70 AD. That's why those types of liberal "scholars" suck. They're spiritual dwarfs.

See above.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the Jesus Seminar .... NO ONE takes the Jesus Seminar seriously, not liberals, not conservatives, not mainstream scholars ... No one.

Again I'm talking about the Consensus, you go to any university or mainstream seminary and you'll learn that the vast majority of scholars, mainstream, conservative and liberal, date Matthew and Luke to the 80s, and it has nothing to do With apriori naturalism, something which is bible scholarship is called out very quickly when found, the same With apriori orthodoxy, you have to defend the positions.

Mark mentions the temple destruction prophesy, yet the consensus puts it from 65-70 CE ... pre temple destruction, naturalists have other explinations for the prophesy, and christians have their explinations. the dating of Luke and Matthew to the 80s has nothing to do With apriori naturalism, given that the consensus is not just With liberal scholarship, but mainstream and conservative scholarship too ... of coarse you'll find exceptions, but go to any mainstream university or seminary and you'll get the 80s date as the consensus.
 
RGacky3 said:
I'm not talking about the Jesus Seminar .... NO ONE takes the Jesus Seminar seriously, not liberals, not conservatives, not mainstream scholars ... No one.

Again I'm talking about the Consensus, you go to any university or mainstream seminary and you'll learn that the vast majority of scholars, mainstream, conservative and liberal, date Matthew and Luke to the 80s, and it has nothing to do With apriori naturalism, something which is bible scholarship is called out very quickly when found, the same With apriori orthodoxy, you have to defend the positions.

Mark mentions the temple destruction prophesy, yet the consensus puts it from 65-70 CE ... pre temple destruction, naturalists have other explinations for the prophesy, and christians have their explinations. the dating of Luke and Matthew to the 80s has nothing to do With apriori naturalism, given that the consensus is not just With liberal scholarship, but mainstream and conservative scholarship too ... of coarse you'll find exceptions, but go to any mainstream university or seminary and you'll get the 80s date as the consensus.
Click to expand...

Not buying it, Racky. For instance, Dallas Theology Seminary is hardly a liberal bastion for scholars. It's mainstream and largely conservative.

Liberal scholarship is the pits in my opinion. That's why you're so off base in your theology - denying the deity of Jesus, as liberal "scholars" often do, etc. It's only mainstream like when people think MSNBC is mainstream.
 
Logicman said:
Not buying it, Racky. For instance, Dallas Theology Seminary is hardly a liberal bastion for scholars. It's mainstream and largely conservative.

Liberal scholarship is the pits in my opinion. That's why you're so off base in your theology - denying the deity of Jesus, as liberal "scholars" often do, etc. It's only mainstream like when people think MSNBC is mainstream.
Click to expand...

What ... ? No one is talking about the diety of Jesus but if yo uwant you can go back to the thread we made about it ..... I'm not talking about liberal scholarship, I'm talking about minstream scholarship, meaning the vast majority of acredited divinity Schools, seminaries and Universities ... the vast majority of them will teach the 80s dating as the mainstream consensus, the same alway the VAST MAJORITY of sholars believe in Source theory, Q theory, and Markain priority .... you can find one or 2 evangelicals who dissagree.

Raymond Brown dud surveys of scholars and thats where the consensus comes from, Matthew and luke post 80 .... John post 90, and Mark from 65-70 .... This is the scholarly consensus.

I'm not talking liberal scholarship, I'm talking all scholarship, the majority of all scholars.
 
RGacky3 said:
What ... ? No one is talking about the diety of Jesus but if yo uwant you can go back to the thread we made about it ..... I'm not talking about liberal scholarship, I'm talking about minstream scholarship, meaning the vast majority of acredited divinity Schools, seminaries and Universities ... the vast majority of them will teach the 80s dating as the mainstream consensus, the same alway the VAST MAJORITY of sholars believe in Source theory, Q theory, and Markain priority .... you can find one or 2 evangelicals who dissagree.

Raymond Brown dud surveys of scholars and thats where the consensus comes from, Matthew and luke post 80 .... John post 90, and Mark from 65-70 .... This is the scholarly consensus.

I'm not talking liberal scholarship, I'm talking all scholarship, the majority of all scholars.
Click to expand...

Believe whatever you want, Racky. I've posted the opinions of dozens of scholars, and you don't like it. Too bad.
 
rhinefire said:
Question: In what year was Jesus born?
Answer: It is good that we want to know about Jesus. One can never learn too much about the greatest man to have ever walked on earth. The exact day of Jesus' birth is difficult to establish beyond all doubt. The fact of Jesus' birth, the place, the nature, and the purpose are clearly taught in the scriptures (Matt. 1; 2). However, God did not see fit to explicitly reveal the date. We do know that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King (Matt. 2: 1). History informs us that this Herod died in 4 B. C. Hence, Jesus would have been born no later than 4 B. C. We also learn from the Bible that a census was being taken at the time of Jesus' birth, in fact, Joseph and Mary were at Bethlehem to enroll when Jesus was born (Luke 2: 1-7). Quirinius, the Governor of Syria, conducted this census. Based on the believed date of this census, some place Jesus' birth at 6 B. C. Some scholars believe Jesus was born in 5 B. C. In the center column reference of some versions of the King James Translation, we read regarding the time of Matthew 2, "The fourth year before the common account called Anno Domini (A. D., dm)." This date, I believe, is the product of the work of Dionysius Exiguus, a sixth century monk.

So to paraphrase Christians claim to many FACTS about this person thought to be the son of god but they don't know perhaps the single most miraculous thing about him, the precise moment of the Immaculate Conception birth? Odd, don't you think? Also on the miracle birth, if it was without sex why did it take nine months? Odd, don't you think? So and so said this and whoever did that but when he was born is somehow lost in all the material that has been published, not a single clue stands out. The catholic priest Father Johnathan Morris said the latest "guess" is between 2 and 7 AD. I guess some folks will believe anything.​
Click to expand...


Who cares? It doesn't matter when. Dates aren't always exact anyway with people of that type of birth (regarding socioeconomic status). They weren't exactly into perfect record keeping then.

Anyway. On top of that...Christians aren't concerned with the birth date anyway. Christianity is more about the miracles of his life, and overturning the traditional Judaism and bringing a human side to life. Preaching love and tolerance.​
 
Logicman said:
Believe whatever you want, Racky. I've posted the opinions of dozens of scholars, and you don't like it. Too bad.
Click to expand...

some of those scholars take the post 80 ad line, but either way, the majority of scholars in new testament studies date matthew and luke to the 80s Ad, and enough of a majority to make it a consensus ....

That line you're taking, "Believe whatever you want" is exactly you're go to line when you can't actually debate the issues, which is most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom