Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Tassman]

It has everything to do with knowing or not knowing God. And the gospel of grace not being understood.

That has nothing to do with the rigorous scholarship required to properly understand historical documents.

OK. Prove you are not biased against the truth. Explain the gospel of grace and why it is not true in your view.

The "gospel of grace" has nothing to do with the impartial research necessary to establish the dating and authorship of the gospels. The vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70, with the other gospels dating later. None were supported by eye-witness reportage.

[37818]

That has nothing to do with the rigorous scholarship required to properly understand historical documents.

That does not change the difference between knowing God and not knowing God. Nor ignorance of facts which even rigorous scholarship is not exempt from.

The "gospel of grace" has nothing to do with the impartial research necessary to establish the dating and authorship of the gospels. The vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70, with the other gospels dating later. None were supported by eye-witness reportage.

Yes, ignorance of the gospel of grace may have no bearing on dating of the gospel accounts. But if true it certainly can have a real relevance.

You cite "sometime around the year 70." Do you know the basis of that? What assumptions are being made? Why scholars say a thing is more relevant than them just saying so. Otherwise a fallacy of authority.

[Tassman]

That does not change the difference between knowing God and not knowing God. Nor ignorance of facts which even rigorous scholarship is not exempt from.

Claiming to “know God” has no bearing on the rigorous scholarship required to properly understand historical documents.

Yes, ignorance of the gospel of grace may have no bearing on dating of the gospel accounts. But if true it certainly can have a real relevance.

So you believe, but this belief should have no bearing on dating of the gospel accounts.

You cite "sometime around the year 70." Do you know the basis of that? What assumptions are being made? Why scholars say a thing is more relevant than them just saying so. Otherwise a fallacy of authority

The basis of dating the first gospel after 70 CE is because of the destruction of the temple in 70, as prophesied by the anonymous author of the first gospel. Of course it could be genuine prophesy, but most scholars see it as a “prophecy” made after the event. The latter is the most probable explanation.

[37818]

Claiming to “know God” has no bearing on the rigorous scholarship required to properly understand historical documents.

Yes, they are two different issues. But a text given by God is the purview of those who know God.

So you believe, but this belief should have no bearing on dating of the gospel accounts.

Well, not if unbelief poisons their understanding and hearing the truth. [See your own example below regarding the date of 70 of the Christian Era.]

The basis of dating the first gospel after 70 CE is because of the destruction of the temple in 70, as prophesied by the anonymous author of the first gospel.

Oh. What is the basis that it is known to be by Matthew [Levi]?

Of course it could be genuine prophesy, but most scholars see it as a “prophecy” made after the event. The latter is the most probable explanation.

Yeah, by those who do not know God.

Genuine Christians know God.

[Tassman]

Yes, they are two different issues. But a text given by God is the purview of those who know God.

Only in matters of faith, not scholarship!

Well, not if unbelief poisons their understanding and hearing the truth. [See your own example below regarding the date of 70 of the Christian Era.]

No! Under no circumstances can biblical scholarship be based on religious presuppositions.

Oh. What is the basis that it is known to be by Matthew [Levi]?

THe first gospel was Mark. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous..

Yeah, by those who do not know God.

Genuine Christians know God.

“Knowing God” has nothing to do with unbiased, objective biblical scholarship.

[Roy]

Oh. What is the basis that it is known to be by Matthew [Levi]?

That's a question for you to answer, not Tassman.

[37818]

Only in matters of faith, not scholarship!

Hmm. . . . So according to you there is no such thing as "Christian" scholarship.

No! Under no circumstances can biblical scholarship be based on religious presuppositions.

Says what Christian scholar?

THe first gospel was Mark. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous..

Again, what Christian scholarship says that?

“Knowing God” has nothing to do with unbiased, objective biblical scholarship.

There is no such thing as actually being "unbiased."

[37818]

That's a question for you to answer, not Tassman.

All the full copies of the gospel according Matthew identify them as Matthew's account.

[Doug Shaver]

All the full copies of the gospel according Matthew identify them as Matthew's account.

All copies of "The Man Without a Country" identify the author as a man acquainted with Philip Nolan, the story's main character.

[Tassman]

Hmm. . . . So according to you there is no such thing as "Christian" scholarship.

There are scholars who may be Christian...or Hindu or atheist, but personal beliefs cannot impinge upon objective scholarship.

Says what Christian scholar?

See above.

Again, what Christian scholarship says that?

See above.

There is no such thing as actually being "unbiased."

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including archaeology, to research and then to write accounts of past events. As for biblical scholarship, personal bias must be put aside; otherwise “historians” are engaging in apologetics, not historical research.

[37818]

All copies of "The Man Without a Country" identify the author as a man acquainted with Philip Nolan, the story's main character.

A modern novel published in 1863 written by Edward Everett Hale.

[Doug Shaver]

A modern novel published in 1863 written by Edward Everett Hale.

The text of the story doesn't say that. You got that information from external sources. And it's not a novel. It's a short story.

[37818]

The text of the story doesn't say that. You got that information from external sources. And it's not a novel. It's a short story.

If you use "short story" to mean that a story is a fiction, then a novel is the long fictional story. One does not need to qualify a short story novel. And the novel being book length and so a short story is not a book.

[Doug Shaver]

If you use "short story" to mean that a story is a fiction, then a novel is the long fictional story.

I was making a pedantic side comment having nothing to do with the point of my response, which was: "The text of the story doesn't say that. You got that information from external sources." Would you care to comment on that?

[37818]

I was making a pedantic side comment having nothing to do with the point of my response, which was: "The text of the story doesn't say that. You got that information from external sources." Would you care to comment on that?

Yes. I did not know about the short story. So yes, I had to read some external sources. And yes they explicitly called that story a short story and did not use the term "novel." I used the term "novel" on the sole basis that it was a short story fiction.