Quran might predate Muhammad?

[robrecht]

It is a very broad consensus of critical scholars.

Shuny, do you dispute the consensus of critical scholars on the dating of Paul's letters and the first gospel or not?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, do you dispute the consensus of critical scholars on the dating of Paul's letters and the first gospel or not?

Not conclusive, and not based on actual dating of texts. Earlier Q text possibly existed. Topic for another thread

[robrecht]

Not conclusive, and not based on actual dating of texts. Earlier Q text possibly existed. Topic for another thread

Typical dodge. Go ahead and start another thread if you want to clarify your view.

[shunyadragon]

I wanted to address the comment of "History is written by the winners." This is decidedly true of older academic historical research and writings, but contemporary history academics are definitely trying reevaluate older historical views, and consider more sources and new knowledge to write a better history.

[robrecht]

I wanted to address the comment of "History is written by the winners." This is decidedly true of older academic historical research and writings, but contemporary history academics are definitely trying reevaluate older historical views, and consider more sources and new knowledge to write a better history.

But if you want to have a discussion of academic positions, you should be aware of what the actual consensus of critical scholars is.

[shunyadragon]

But if you want to have a discussion of academic positions, you should be aware of what the actual consensus of critical scholars is.

I am perfectly aware of the consensus of critical scholars. I simply believe they are over stating the evidence.

[robrecht]

I am perfectly aware of the consensus of critical scholars. I simply believe they are over stating the eidence.

And your academic credentials to advance such a critique of the consensus of critical scholars? In other words, is there any reason someone should lend any credibility to your claim?

[shunyadragon]

And your academic credentials to advance such a critique of the consensus of critical scholars? In other words, is there any reason someone should lend any credibility to your claim?

No problem, most critical scholars justify the traditional view of the Trinity, and I do not buy that either. I am not alone on this.



The bottom line is that there is a disagreement between scholars, and appealing to the authority of 'some critical scholars' does not resolve the question.

[Adrift]

No problem, most critical scholars justify the traditional view of the Trinity, and I do not buy that either.

lol, what?

[shunyadragon]

lol, what?

lol what?

[robrecht]

No problem, most critical scholars justify the traditional view of the Trinity, and I do not buy that either. I am not alone on this.



The bottom line is that there is a disagreement between scholars, and appealing to the authority of 'some critical scholars' does not resolve the question.

The consensus of critical scholars is decidedly not an appeal to authority. Scholarship does not recognize any authority in these questions. Nor does the fact that most scholars do not propose a precise date reduce the strength of the scholarly consensus. Bart Ehrman has occasionally offered argumentation for a slightly pre-70 date, but is perhaps being progressively persuaded toward a post-70 date, which is the position I have always maintained. His dating of the letters of Paul also agrees with the scholarly consensus I have outlined above. It seems you have no credentials and have offered no reasons for critiquing the scholarly consensus. Your inability to correctly represent the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unrelated to the work of historico-critical scholars but it might be related to your inability or lack of desire to credibly interact with the work of scholars.

[shunyadragon]

The consensus of critical scholars is decidedly not an appeal to authority. Scholarship does not recognize any authority in these questions. Nor does the fact that most scholars do not propose a precise date reduce the strength of the scholarly consensus. Bart Ehrman has occasionally offered argumentation for a slightly pre-70 date, but is perhaps being progressively persuaded toward a post-70 date, which is the position I have always maintained. His dating of the letters of Paul also agrees with the scholarly consensus I have outlined above. It seems you have no credentials and have offered no reasons for critiquing the scholarly consensus. Your inability to correctly represent the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unrelated to the work of historico-critical scholars but it might be related to your inability or lack of desire to credibly interact with the work of scholars.

From the course curriculum of Boston College.

[shunyadragon]

The consensus of critical scholars is decidedly not an appeal to authority. Scholarship does not recognize any authority in these questions.

It is an appeal to authority when you challenge me that there is no other acceptable scholarly view of the present knowledge of the possible dates of the first gospels as I proposed a post 50 AD date. It is possible that the dates your 'some critical scholars' propose are true, but it by no means represents a dominate consensus of the dating of the gospels.

Nor does the fact that most scholars do not propose a precise date reduce the strength of the scholarly consensus.

The fact that there is no such dominant 'strength of consensus' agreement as cited reduces your claim of 'most critical scholar' support a pre 50 AD date.

Bart Ehrman has occasionally offered argumentation for a slightly pre-70 date, but is perhaps being progressively persuaded toward a post-70 date, which is the position I have always maintained. His dating of the letters of Paul also agrees with the scholarly consensus I have outlined above. It seems you have no credentials and have offered no reasons for critiquing the scholarly consensus.

There is a scholarly consensus for a post 70 AD date for the gospels, and post 50 AD date for Paul's letters.

Your inability to correctly represent the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unrelated to the work of historico-critical scholars but it might be related to your inability or lack of desire to credibly interact with the work of scholars.

It is not a matter of correctly representing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I fully acknowledge and understand the doctrine of the Trinity as traditional Christians believe it. I just believe it is a version of polytheism to believe in a God is 'three distinctly separate persons.' Disagreement is not a matter of correct understanding. It is a difference of belief. For example: I gave the Jewish explanation of the Holy Spirit, which matches the Baha'i view.

You urged me to try to understand the different views of the Trinity. I do and I explained my view of the Trinity, which is compatable with the Jewish, Islamic and Baha'i view of God.

[robrecht]

From the course curriculum of Boston College.

So far all you've done is cite views that agree with my characterization of the broad scholarly consensus.

[shunyadragon]

So far all you've done is cite views that agree with my characterization of the broad scholarly consensus.

The broad scholarly basis you describe, which many scholars consider the later dates as the most realistic, not just broad, for the dating of the gospels and Paul's letters as the one I hold. You challenged my dates, because in 'your opinion' this view was different from the view of your 'some critical scholars' view that propose earlier dates. You may or may not be correct, but your challenge that my dating does not have a scholarly basis is without foundation.

And your academic credentials to advance such a critique of the consensus of critical scholars? In other words, is there any reason someone should lend any credibility to your claim?

I rest on the academic credentials of those I have cited, and I can easily cite more.