Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Quran might predate Muhammad?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.

    I rest on the academic credentials of those I have cited, and I can easily cite more.
    Nonsense. This is your view that I challenged: "As far as the history of Jesus Christ and NT scripture the evidence is silent, zip, nada, nugatory for the first fifty years of history of Christianity, which engenders justifiable academic skepticism."

    The scholarly consensus does NOT agree with this view of yours, although I see you trying to back track. My view does not disagree with the consensus, although I do account for an important scholar recently arguing for Paul's first letter being about 10 years earlier than the consensus, so for his sake, I extended the range earlier. I date the gospel of Mark roughly between 70-75, which is the later range of the consensus, not earlier. I do not think we can precisely define the date of Jesus' death at 30 CE. The arguments that do so assume too much historical detail from one or another of the gospel accounts than I think is warranted so I also date the death of Jesus with a range, ie, as roughly 30-35 CE, thus the range for the gospel of Mark is about 40 years after that range.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #92
      Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html



      J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):
      It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        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.
        Nonsense. You are the one who first tried to appeal to academic scholarship without correctly representing the scholarly consensus. I have never said anything about dating the gospels prior to 50 CE. You are confusing relative time with absolute time.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        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.
        Wow. You have an incredible inability to understand basic math.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        There is a scholarly consensus for a post 70 AD date for the gospels, and post 50 AD date for Paul's letters.
        Exactly as I've said, and exactly contrary to what you've said.

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        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.
        Then why do you constantly misrepresent it?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Nonsense. This is your view that I challenged: "As far as the history of Jesus Christ and NT scripture the evidence is silent, zip, nada, nugatory for the first fifty years of history of Christianity, which engenders justifiable academic skepticism."

          The scholarly consensus does NOT agree with this view of yours, although I see you trying to back track. My view does not disagree with the consensus, although I do account for an important scholar recently arguing for Paul's first letter being about 10 years earlier than the consensus, so for his sake, I extended the range earlier. I date the gospel of Mark roughly between 70-75, which is the later range of the consensus, not earlier. I do not think we can precisely define the date of Jesus' death at 30 CE. The arguments that do so assume too much historical detail from one or another of the gospel accounts than I think is warranted so I also date the death of Jesus with a range, ie, as roughly 30-35 CE, thus the range for the gospel of Mark is about 40 years after that range.
          There is no back tracking at all on my part. I have documented that my view has a scholarly basis. There is zip, zero, nada, nugatory objective evidence external evidence for the early dates. some scholars propose these early dates based the interpretation of the text alone.

          I did not say that it was the ONLY scholarly view. I did say that there is a scholarly consensus for my view, and I will continue to cite scholars that hold this view.

          Some scholars propose an early date based on textual argument, but the scholars I cite most definitely hold that there is no evidence for these early dates, and their view is most definitely not just a broad range including early dates. There are definitely two scholarly views here, and my view does have a basis in Biblical scholarship.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 07:03 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html



            J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):
            It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

            © Copyright Original Source

            I date the gospel of Mark later, between 70-75, but I generally characterize the consensus as 67-75 because there are still some conservative scholars who try to argue for the earlier part of this range. But even my later dating is well within your prior and still unsubstantiated claim: "As far as the history of Jesus Christ and NT scripture the evidence is silent, zip, nada, nugatory for the first fifty years of history of Christianity, which engenders justifiable academic skepticism."
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              There is no back tracking at all on my part. I have documented that my view has a scholarly basis.

              I did not say that it was the ONLY scholarly view. I did say that there is a scholarly consensus for my view, and I will continue to cite scholars that hold this view.

              Some scholars propose an early date based on textual argument, but the scholars I cite most definitely hold that there is no evidence for these early dates, and their view is most definitely not just a broad range including early dates. There are definitely two scholarly views here, and my view does have a basis in Biblical scholarship.
              You have yet to cite a single scholar that agrees with your view.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Nonsense. You are the one who first tried to appeal to academic scholarship without correctly representing the scholarly consensus. I have never said anything about dating the gospels prior to 50 CE. You are confusing relative time with absolute time.

                Wow. You have an incredible inability to understand basic math.

                Exactly as I've said, and exactly contrary to what you've said.
                I have clearly and consistently correctly cited my sources, which you have clearly failed to do. You have clearly failed to document that my view is not an acceptable and recognized scholarly view.

                Then why do you constantly misrepresent it?
                I do not misrepresent it, I do not believe in it, and gave my reasons and sources.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 06:58 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  You have yet to cite a single scholar that agrees with your view.
                  My view was no convincing evidence text or other evidence before 50 AD, and I stand on that all my references date the gospel later than that, and the letters of Paul later than that.




                  Originally posted by shunyadragon
                  ... As far as the history of Jesus Christ and NT scripture the evidence is silent, zip, nada, nugatory for the first fifty years of history of Christianity, which engenders justifiable academic skepticism. ...
                  Originally posted by Robrecht
                  The letters of Paul are dated at 10-30 years after the death of Jesus. The first gospel is typically dated about 40 years after his death.
                  My sources say no.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 07:09 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    My view was no convincing evidence text or other evidence before 50 AD, and I stand on that all my references date the gospel later than that, and the letters of Paul later than that.
                    There is no argument about 50 AD. Your initial statement had nothing to with 50 AD. It was about "the first fifty years of history of Christianity." Your attempt to backtrack is pathetic.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I have clearly and consistently correctly cited my sources, which you have clearly failed to do. You have clearly failed to document that my view is not an acceptable and recognized scholarly view.
                      You've only cited sources that agree with me.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I do not misrepresent it, I do not believe in it, and gave my reasons and sources.
                      There is no discussion about whether or not you agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. But you misrepresent it as polytheism, which is a misrepresentation of traditional Christians who reject polytheism.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        There is no argument about 50 AD. Your initial statement had nothing to with 50 AD. It was about "the first fifty years of history of Christianity." Your attempt to backtrack is pathetic.
                        The first fifty years of Christianity includes the life of Christ. There may be a situation where your splitting frog hairs on linguistic interpretation, but nonetheless Ano Domini includes the life of Christ.

                        Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini


                        Anno Domini (Latin : "In the year of (our) Lord"),[1] shortened as AD or A.D., is used to refer to the years after the birth of Jesus. AD is also a shortening for Christian Era.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        The first fifty years of Christianity does translate to the first fifty years of the Christian Era.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The first fifty years of Christianity includes the life of Christ. There may be a situation where your splitting frog hairs on linguistic interpretation, but nonetheless Ano Domini includes the life of Christ.

                          Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini


                          Anno Domini (Latin : "In the year of (our) Lord"),[1] shortened as AD or A.D., is used to refer to the years after the birth of Jesus. AD is also a shortening for Christian Era.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          The first fifty years of Christianity does translate to the first fifty years of the Christian Era.
                          But our discussion has, from the beginning, been about the letters of Paul being dated at 10-30 years after the death of Jesus and the first gospel being typically dated about 40 years after his death, which I date roughly to 30-35 CE. You are not fooling anyone.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            But our discussion has, from the beginning, been about the letters of Paul being dated at 10-30 years after the death of Jesus and the first gospel being typically dated about 40 years after his death, which I date roughly to 30-35 CE. You are not fooling anyone.
                            You really know how to carry on a foolish argument based on nothing. My first statement was correct, and my citation of Bart Ehrman was correct.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              You really know how to carry on a foolish argument based on nothing.
                              If you agreed with me all along, why did you disagree? Why did you say that you were perfectly aware of the consensus of critical scholars but simply believed the consensus scholars are overstating the evidence? You are pathetic.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                                @Shuny

                                Holland---He insists he IS a historian and scholar---though he does admit he is a historian of Anitquity---not the Islamic period...
                                Yes he considers himself a historian, but his writing is predominately Fiction based on historical non-fiction, and yes he has a good general foundation in antiquities, but not competent in Islamic history.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 08:17 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X