Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[37818]

“There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce. If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce. John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.”

https://vridar.org/2009/05/07/how-th...dated-and-why/

Of course there are reasons. The fact there are reasons does not make the reasons in and of themselves correct. Now if you know of a definitive case we can discuss it. [There were reasons Hebrews had for long time been attributed to Paul, yet it is understood today based on Hebrews 2:3 that Paul did not write it.]

[shunyadragon]

Of course there are reasons. The fact there are reasons does not make the reasons in and of themselves correct. Now if you know of a definitive case we can discuss it. [There were reasons Hebrews had for long time been attributed to Paul, yet it is understood today based on Hebrews 2:3 that Paul did not write it.]

The definitive case is documented by the majority of the Biblical scholars and recognized without controversy today.

[37818]

The definitive case is documented by the majority of the Biblical scholars and recognized without controversy today.

Unbelieving Bible scholars are typically wrong. And your general statement is not definitive and does not present any specifics to justify anything. The historic evidence for the four gospel accounts is that they were written by whose names are associated with them.

[shunyadragon]

Unbelieving Bible scholars are typically wrong. And your general statement is not definitive and does not present any specifics to justify anything. The historic evidence for the four gospel accounts is that they were written by whose names are associated with them.

The Bible scholars are not just unbelievers unless you are considering only the Bible scholars that agree with you as believers.

What historical evidence outside the gospels supports the original authorship of the gospels?

The International Bible Society supports the academic view of the order of the synoptic gospels.

Source: https://www.biblica.com/resources/scholar-notes/niv-study-bible/the-synoptic-gospels/

A careful comparison of the four Gospels reveals that Matthew, Mark and Luke are noticeably similar, while John is quite different. The first three Gospels agree extensively in language, in the material they include, and in the order in which events and sayings from the life of Christ are recorded. (Chronological order does not appear to have been rigidly followed in any of the Gospels, however.) Because of this agreement, these three books are called the Synoptic Gospels (syn, “together with”; optic, “seeing”; thus “seeing together”). For an example of agreement in content see Mt 9:2–8; Mk 2:3–12; Lk 5:18–26. An instance of verbatim agreement is found in Mt 10:22a; Mk 13:13a; Lk 21:17. A mathematical comparison shows that 91 percent of Mark’s gospel is contained in Matthew, while 53 percent of Mark is found in Luke. Such agreement raises questions as to the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. Did the authors rely on a common source? Were they interdependent? Questions such as these constitute what is known as the Synoptic Problem. Several suggested solutions have been advanced:

The use of oral tradition. Some have thought that oral tradition had become so stereotyped that it provided a common source from which all the Synoptic writers drew.

The use of an early Gospel. Some have postulated that the Synoptic authors all had access to an earlier Gospel, now lost.

The use of written fragments. Some have assumed that written fragments had been composed concerning various events from the life of Christ and that these were used by the Synoptic authors.

Mutual dependence. Some have suggested that the Synoptic writers drew from each other with the result that what they wrote was often very similar.
The use of two major sources. The most common view currently is that the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document, called Quelle (German for “source”) or Q, were used by Matthew and Luke as sources for most of the materials included in their Gospels.

The priority and use of Matthew. Another view suggests that the other two Synoptics drew from Matthew as their main source. The priority and use of Luke. A similar view suggests that the other two Synoptics drew from Luke as their main source.

A combination of the above. This theory assumes that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels made use of oral tradition, written fragments, mutual dependence on other Synoptic writers or on their Gospels, and the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Complete independence. Some hold that the Synoptic writers worked independently of each other. According to this view, the similar—sometimes even verbatim—choice and order of words and events are best explained by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit on the authors.

DATING THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Assumption A
Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source
View No. 1:
Mark written in the 50s or early 60s a.d.
(1) Matthew written in late 50s or the 60s
(2) Luke written 59–63
View No. 2:
Mark written 65–70
(1) Matthew written in the 70s or later
(2) Luke written in the 70s or later

Assumption B
Matthew and Luke did not use Mark as a source
View No. 1:
Mark could have been written anytime between 50 and 70
View No. 2:
Mark written 65–70
(1) Matthew written in the 50s (see Introduction to Matthew: Date and Place of Writing)
(2) Luke written 59–63 (see Introduction to Luke: Date and Place of Writing)

© Copyright Original Source

[37818]

The Bible scholars are not just unbelievers unless you are considering only the Bible scholars that agree with you as believers.

What historical evidence outside the gospels supports the original authorship of the gospels?

The International Bible Society supports the academic view of the order of the synoptic gospels.

Source: https://www.biblica.com/resources/scholar-notes/niv-study-bible/the-synoptic-gospels/

A careful comparison of the four Gospels reveals that Matthew, Mark and Luke are noticeably similar, while John is quite different. The first three Gospels agree extensively in language, in the material they include, and in the order in which events and sayings from the life of Christ are recorded. (Chronological order does not appear to have been rigidly followed in any of the Gospels, however.) Because of this agreement, these three books are called the Synoptic Gospels (syn, “together with”; optic, “seeing”; thus “seeing together”). For an example of agreement in content see Mt 9:2–8; Mk 2:3–12; Lk 5:18–26. An instance of verbatim agreement is found in Mt 10:22a; Mk 13:13a; Lk 21:17. A mathematical comparison shows that 91 percent of Mark’s gospel is contained in Matthew, while 53 percent of Mark is found in Luke. Such agreement raises questions as to the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. Did the authors rely on a common source? Were they interdependent? Questions such as these constitute what is known as the Synoptic Problem. Several suggested solutions have been advanced:

The use of oral tradition. Some have thought that oral tradition had become so stereotyped that it provided a common source from which all the Synoptic writers drew.

The use of an early Gospel. Some have postulated that the Synoptic authors all had access to an earlier Gospel, now lost.

The use of written fragments. Some have assumed that written fragments had been composed concerning various events from the life of Christ and that these were used by the Synoptic authors.

Mutual dependence. Some have suggested that the Synoptic writers drew from each other with the result that what they wrote was often very similar.
The use of two major sources. The most common view currently is that the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document, called Quelle (German for “source”) or Q, were used by Matthew and Luke as sources for most of the materials included in their Gospels.

The priority and use of Matthew. Another view suggests that the other two Synoptics drew from Matthew as their main source. The priority and use of Luke. A similar view suggests that the other two Synoptics drew from Luke as their main source.

A combination of the above. This theory assumes that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels made use of oral tradition, written fragments, mutual dependence on other Synoptic writers or on their Gospels, and the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Complete independence. Some hold that the Synoptic writers worked independently of each other. According to this view, the similar—sometimes even verbatim—choice and order of words and events are best explained by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit on the authors.

DATING THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Assumption A
Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source
View No. 1:
Mark written in the 50s or early 60s a.d.
(1) Matthew written in late 50s or the 60s
(2) Luke written 59–63
View No. 2:
Mark written 65–70
(1) Matthew written in the 70s or later
(2) Luke written in the 70s or later

Assumption B
Matthew and Luke did not use Mark as a source
View No. 1:
Mark could have been written anytime between 50 and 70
View No. 2:
Mark written 65–70
(1) Matthew written in the 50s (see Introduction to Matthew: Date and Place of Writing)
(2) Luke written 59–63 (see Introduction to Luke: Date and Place of Writing)

© Copyright Original Source

From the view point that Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture, it was Holy Scripture when it was written. Theories of those who do not believe those scriptures are Holy Scripture has not change that perspective.

[shunyadragon]

From the view point that Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture, it was Holy Scripture when it was written. Theories of those who do not believe those scriptures are Holy Scripture has not change that perspective.

You did not answer the question nor address the source that involves believers, which is the International Bible Society.

[37818]

You did not answer the question nor address the source that involves believers, which is the International Bible Society.

The following link is to a pdf which addresses your question:
• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: CP

This is called 'argument by weblink', though the link contains a PDF - you can't just post a link without at least giving a summary of what it is going to address or prove. You might want to give a summary, then include your link.

And PLEASE take note of the notice below about arguing moderation in the thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

The following link is to a pdf which addresses your question:
• Edited by a Moderator •

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

[Tassman]

The following link is to a pdf which addresses your question:
• Edited by a Moderator •

Nevertheless, the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant places, after a substantial time lapse, by unknown persons who compiled redacted, and embellished various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Jesus that would confirm and enhance the faith of their communities. In short, the Gospels are works of oral tradition, i.e. collections of anonymous traditions passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the Gospels.

[37818]

Nevertheless, the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant places, after a substantial time lapse, by unknown persons who compiled redacted, and embellished various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Jesus that would confirm and enhance the faith of their communities. In short, the Gospels are works of oral tradition, i.e. collections of anonymous traditions passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the Gospels.

The argument of anonymous is based on the fact that the known associated human author did not sign his name, as such, in the document. There is no other evidence of being anonymous beyond that omission in regard to the four gospel accounts. The writer of Acts refers to himself as a participant in some of its events. The manuscript evidence, is the fact, that titles are known to accompany the copies of gospel accounts. The pdf presents the manuscripts and the titles which came with them.

[37818]

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

The evidence is cited in the pdf.

[shunyadragon]

The evidence is cited in the pdf.

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

[Tassman]

The argument of anonymous is based on the fact that the known associated human author did not sign his name, as such, in the document. There is no other evidence of being anonymous beyond that omission in regard to the four gospel accounts. The writer of Acts refers to himself as a participant in some of its events. The manuscript evidence, is the fact, that titles are known to accompany the copies of gospel accounts. The pdf presents the manuscripts and the titles which came with them.

It's the argument you want to hear, i.e. 'confirmation bias', but this does not reflect the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works based upon oral tradition passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the gospels.

[37818]

It's the argument you want to hear, i.e. 'confirmation bias', but this does not reflect the mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works based upon oral tradition passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the unknown writers of the gospels.

Oral tradition? What is physical evidence and dating of this oral tradition? Says who?

[37818]

The reference relies only on internal evidence and circular selfish reason to justify an agenda, and totally reject the more reliable historical external evidence.

There are real NT documents with author idenity attached to them. No real evidence to the contrary.