LOUIS Here you loose me. Supernatural is synonymous with superstition. Since mine is a naturalistic world view, I reject superstition of any kind. So, we have nothing to talk about here.
GRAEME
>Scripture claims miracles, foretelling prophecies (the label
>*prophecy* in Scripture does not always mean fore-telling, it
>often means forth-telling as well, i.e. preaching).
LOUIS I don't get it. Isn't "prophecy" in the same category as fortune telling?
GRAEME
>Your second assumption is that Mark is the first gospel. This
>is a much disputed fact.
LOUIS If it's a fact, how could it be disputed?
GRAEME
>. . .the assumptions of textual and redaction criticism about
>the priority of Mark is based on internal evidence only.
LOUIS Now I'm really amazed learn that the Judao/Roman war which began in 67 CE and culminated in 70 CE with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, is "internal evidence only."
GRAEME
>Your final assumption about Ignatius (a good bit of external
>evidence), is flawed. Why could Ignatius not be referring to
>the Gospels, instead of vice versa?
LOUIS Ignatius was referring to the gospels. That's my point. I don't understand what you mean by *instead of vice versa.* My statement was, "The first (oldest) reference to information exclusive to the gospels is found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch dated about 110 CE." Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament?, page 248) puts them at 108 CE. According to Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, Part 1, Humanist in Canada, Autumn 1995) in his letter to the Trallians Ignatius for the first time on record refers to Mary, the mother of Jesus and to Pontius Pilate. Outside of the gospels there is only one reference to Mary in the entire Bible and that occurs in Acts 1:14. Pilate is referred to only four times outside of the gospels, three in Acts (3:13,4:27,13:28) and once in 1 Timothy (6:13). Since both Acts and 1 Timothy postdate his letters, Ignatius had to have been aware of the gospels because that is the only place he could have learned about Mary and Pilate.
My point is that on the bases of almost all scholarly research I have read, the gospels were being circulated by the end of the first decade of the second century. However, because the (authentic) letters of Paul as well as those of other early (prior to the Judao/Roman war) Christian writers show no knowledge what so ever of the alleged earthly life of Jesus, the gospels had not yet been written. So, simple logic tells us that they had to have been written sometime between 70 CE and 110 CE.
GRAEME
>Again, I find it difficult to debate when presuppositions are
>brought, such as, not all Paul's letters are authentic (to be
>honest, I think text criticism has found none of Paul's letters
>to be truly authentic).
>I am not sure of the details you mention concerning King Aretas,
>but assuming their truth, why must Paul be writing after the
>death of this king.
LOUIS Here are most my sources. There are more.
Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament? Page 126: First and Second Corinthians are authentic but are actually collections of portions of six different letters. Page 137: Romans is authentic. It provides a comprehensive elaboration of Paul's gospel and is the earliest systematic treatise of a rational for the Christian myth.
Remsberg, John E., The Christ Page 41: Four Epistles, - Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians - are generally admitted to be the genuine writings of Paul. They are believed to have been written about a quarter of a century after the alleged death of Jesus. In fact, they are the only documents *in the entire Bible* whose authenticity can be maintained and whose author is known.
Robertson, A., The Origins of Christianity Page 105:First Corinthians is for the most part authentic but appears to have been altered probably after Paul's death (10:1-22.) Page 109: Second Corinthians affords conclusive evidence that the Jesus of Pauline Christianity was not the same as the Jesus portrayed in the gospels. The Pauline Christ is "the Spirit" (3:17-18) and "the image of God" (4:4) not a real person. Page 144: Philippians is authentic but it is actually composed of three letter fragments crudely joined together.
Teeple, Howard M., Personal communication The Pauline Epistles considered to be authentic include Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, 1st Thessalonians, Philippians, and possibly Philemon. However they do contain some late Christian interpolations. These include Phil 2:6-11; 1st Cor. 11:23-26; 12:31; 14:1a; 15:3-11. Observe that when the interpolations are removed, the texts immediately above and below the insertion fit together naturally.
Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus Page 21: Romans, 1& 2 Corinthians and Galatians are universally accepted as authentic. The computer techniques tried on them by Morton and McLeman have confirmed that they have a common author. Internal evidence indicates that this author wrote before 70, for the references to his contacts with a Christian community at Jerusalem show that the catastrophic destruction of that city in the Judeo/Roman War had not yet occurred. Indeed, he must have been a Christian before 40 CE for he tells that King Aretas of the Nabateans, who is known to have died in that year, had sought to have him arrested because of his Christian activities (2 Cor. 11:32). He probably wrote somewhere between 55 and 60 for he tells the Galatians that he had been a Christian for at least fourteen years at the time of writing.
Louis W. Cable dom@tcac.com