DCP, living in the past.

[consiglieri]

I have to admit it’s funny he chose today to make the argument again that the forum is nothing but threads about him.

I count 1 thread directly about him. 2 threads indirectly about him (1 about Interpreter, and 1 about Six Days in August.)

It feels like Dan may soon get his wish, and be free from a board which is obsessed with him.

It’s possible he’s including the thread about the “Ghost Committee”…

[Markk]

My latest entry.... in his latest blog entry where Dan injects Joseph Smith into the New Testament.

Markk: "So when "Evangelical Christian anti-Mormons" tell you what you believe, in this case, that you appear to worship Joseph Smith, you might want to think twice before you disagree with them. I suppose that your blog post, is the way you choose to worship Christ on the last Sunday before Christmas, by lifting up Joseph Smith over John the Baptist. "

Merry Smithmas!

[Kishkumen]

Attention in regard to identity. He lost that. Do you disagree?

Can you clarify what you mean by "in regard to identity"?

[Kishkumen]

My latest entry.... in his latest blog entry where Dan injects Joseph Smith into the New Testament.

Markk: "So when "Evangelical Christian anti-Mormons" tell you what you believe, in this case, that you appear to worship Joseph Smith, you might want to think twice before you disagree with them. I suppose that your blog post, is the way you choose to worship Christ on the last Sunday before Christmas, by lifting up Joseph Smith over John the Baptist. "

Merry Smithmas!

What do you mean when you say, "by lifting up Joseph Smith over John the Baptist"?

[sock puppet]

I have to admit it’s funny he chose today to make the argument again that the forum is nothing but threads about him.

I count 1 thread directly about him. 2 threads indirectly about him (1 about Interpreter, and 1 about Six Days in August.)

It feels like Dan may soon get his wish, and be free from a board which is obsessed with him.

It’s possible he’s including the thread about the “Ghost Committee”...

How soon do you think Dan will join that committee? Or, put another way, how many more donuts to go? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowin' in the wind.

[sock puppet]

[[DELETED DUPLICATE]

[sock puppet]

[Deleted Duplicate]

[ceeboo]

Very much like the Muslim approach (Muslims quote Ehrman often when debating Christians), Ehrman uses the "every word in that exact order" fallacy - Meaning, show me where Jesus says that "I am God."

Jesus forgives sins - Yes.
Jesus receives worship from people - Yes,
Is Jesus called a blasphemer (I wonder why?) - Yes.
Does Jesus take that glorious Daniel 7 title and apply it on himself - Yes.
Did Jesus die and rise again as he told us he would - Yes.

But - Jesus did not look into the camera and say "I am God."

A Superman analogy for your consideration (feel free to reject it or ignore it)

Was he able to leap tall buildings in a single bound - Yes
Is he more powerful than a locomotive - Yes
Is he faster than a speeding bullet - Yes
Is he from the planet Crypton - Yes

But, did he ever look into the camera and say that people call me Clark Kent, but I am really Superman - No, so I guess this dude isn't Superman.

People (including critical scholars) typically place more weight on things that are pleasing to their individual taste buds (To be fair, I would include believers, like me in this as well)

While I agree with you that Ehrman's argument, in this case as in others, is problematic, how do we know what Jesus actually said, at the end of the day? This is a problem I have always had with scholarship on the Gospels. We have no idea who wrote these Gospels. They probably emerge starting in around 70 CE, maybe in the 50s if we take a very optimistic and apologetic perspective.

Hey Kish,

Perhaps, but I think the reason for late dating, at least in part, is to explain away prophesy (Jesus would die and raise himself from the dead and the destruction of the Temple) as things written about after events happened, rather than the writings being written before said events. Critical/liberal scholarship, clearly in my mind, force late dating to remove/eliminate the possibility of prophecy/miracles - from their naturalistic worldview, miracles aren't a thing, so the late dating proves to be the only answer on the table given this worldview.

In my mind, a fairly strong case can be made for Mark, Matthew, Luke, and acts all being written before 70AD. Consider the following short version of such a case: In Acts 28, Luke ends his discussion with Paul (Who is under house arrest in Rome waiting his trial before Ceaser) but he ends the story there - Never tells us what happened in the trial. Luke has two main characters that he speaks about in the book of Acts (Peter and Paul) - the first 9 chapters are about Peter and the rest is about Paul - He also mentions Stephen being killed and James (brother of John) being killed by Herod, but not a single mention of the deaths of the two main characters he writes about (Peter or Paul).

We know that Peter and Paul were killed in the 60'sAD - So if Acts is late date (70's - 80's) why wouldn't Luke mention the deaths of the two main characters he wrote about but did mention the death of Stephen and James (brother of John - death dates at 62AD)? Additionally, Luke records Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of the Temple (70AD), yet Luke never even mentions the fulfillment of the prophecy in Acts. James (brother of Jesus) was killed in 62AD but Luke doesn't mention this event either. None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Temple (a very significant event) - To me, this is strong evidence that all the gospels were written prior to the destruction (70AD)

Clearly, in my opinion, a case can be made that Acts was written before 62AD - Before James, Peter, and Paul were martyred - Before the Temple was destroyed - Luke was written before 62AD, and the Gospels were written before Acts. So now you push Luke and Acts to 60ishAD - Matthew and Mark, written before Acts, pushing them back to the 50's AD (conservatively).

Early dating doesn't require a "very optimistic and apologetic perspective". as you say, I think it is a fairly strong position worthy of consideration.

One believes Jesus is God, or one does not. The Gospels will not make the case

Perhaps my personal bias will be seasoned throughout my response, but I wanted to give you a response all the same.

In short, I will be responding to the following idea: In John's gospel, we see the divine Jesus while we don't see this in Mathew, Mark, and Luke - Suggesting the idea of later development/embellishment.

First - You must understand context/time/audience. You must read these books as though you were a Jew with the first century mindset. If you were to do that, you would find Jesus claims to be divine all over the place in all four gospels. A few examples below - Thos who were seeing/hearing were devout Jews; they knew the Old Testament scriptures.

The calming of the storm (found in Matthew. Mark, and Luke) - Psalm 107:9 "He stilled the storm to a whisper;
the waves of the sea were hushed." - Psalm 107 using the divine name "YHWH" as the one who stills the storm to a whisper and made the waves hush. So, when Jesus did this on the Sea of Galilee, good Jewish readers (those who recited and memorized the Psalms) would instantly relate what Jesus did to "JWHW" (God) is Psalm 107.

Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5: We read of the Jesus correcting Moses (either the interpretation of the Law of Moses and/or the Law of Moses itself) - To the Jews at time, Moses was regarded a divine man of sorts - In the Jewish world, there is nobody higher than Moses other than God himself - So when Jesus corrects Moses in these passages, he is claiming divinity.

Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man (A divine title) - In Daniel chapter 7: The Son of Man comes riding on the clouds - Psalm 18 says that the Lord rides on the clouds. The title "Son of Man" is one of the most frequently used self-designations by Jesus in the Gospels (dozens of times in the New Testament)). One of the most explicit moments where Jesus claims the title "Son of Man" is during His trial before the Sanhedrin. In Matthew 26:63-64, the high priest asks Him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus replies, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Rather than going on and on, I will stop there.

As I already said, I am a believer and much of what I find to be fairly strong evidence would most likely not be seen as fairly strong evidence to a skeptic/agnostic/atheist. All I am suggesting is that the development of Jesus being divine starting in the Gospel of John is not as solid as some might believe it to be, in my opinion.

[Markk]

Attention in regard to identity. He lost that. Do you disagree?

Can you clarify what you mean by "in regard to identity"?

As one of the founding members or FARM's and recognized as the leading Mopologist of what we might call the "Golden Age" of LDS vs Evangelical- anti Mormon apologetic. Right or wrong I believe he relished that persona. If you were to take a poll from this community and ask who the leading LDS apologists of this era were, I doubt that few would say anyone other than Dan, even if by perception only.

I googled leading US scholars/university professors of Islam . And then the same for near eastern studies....Dan's name never came up. HIs main "professional" identity was in apologetics from what I can see. This board would most likely not exist if it weren't for Dan being a apologist. Do you disagree?

[Markk]

My latest entry.... in his latest blog entry where Dan injects Joseph Smith into the New Testament.

What do you mean when you say, "by lifting up Joseph Smith over John the Baptist"?

From his most recent blog...

In order to illustrate my attitude of respect toward Joseph Smith, I offer a slightly altered text of the opening verses of the New Testament gospel of John, as rendered in the English Standard Version of the Bible. I feel and intend no disrespect to John the Baptist in doing so; I want merely to point to the analogous role played by the Prophet of the Latter-days:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was [Joseph]. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.15 ([Joseph] bore witness about him.)

The festive lights at Joseph Smith’s birthplace in Vermont point not to his birthday but to the birthday of the Savior, to whom he himself also pointed. Joseph was not the light, but he came to bear witness about the light. And here, as an example of his witness, are his words and those of Sidney Rigdon regarding the magnificent revelation that they received on 16 February 1832 at Hiram, Ohio: