Hey all, suddenly my tbm in laws house has become more... Jesusfied. His portrait (soft focus Caucasian Jesus looking thoughtful 9_9) which had been relegated to a corner of the house is now literally smack in from of your face when you open the front door. Soon thereafter, this http://deseretbook.com/Jesus-Christ-World-New-Testament-LDS-Perspective-Richard-Neitzel-Holzapfel/i/4931232 book is on their barren not-coffee table.

What is this book? I see that it's lds, I dare not open it in front of them - wouldn't want to give them false hope. Also they're smug and I hate that.. Anyways, Has anyone read this? How misleading is it? Because from the looks of it it's an apologists exploration of how to make J.C. of the new testament fit in with the crap on BoM. Did I guess correctly? I would love to know more

I was in Richard holzaphel's class when I went to byu jerusalem in the summer of 98. Can't say I learned much from him, typical byu religion professor trying to prove that everything in Israel proves the morg is true. He was dry, and I usually let myself daydream a lot when he was talking. You won't learn much from it except the apologists view on how everything in Israel proves the morg is true. Wow. Reliving those classes just now made me cringe...

I wonder if it tries to tow the "when they said wine they meant juice" line.

The time of Jesus was about 100 years before the New Testament was written. He lived in a different world than the New Testament writers, if he was a real person, that is.

Not a 100 years. If Jesus died about 30 AD and the earliest epistles of Paul are dated to the 50's and the gospel of Mark to around 70 AD (conventional dates), then we are talking about 20 years and 40 years respectively. In other words, at least some of the NT was written within living memory of Jesus.

And only the gospels purport to deal directly with Jesus' life. The rest of the NT is about the early Christian movement that came after Jesus in middle and late first century.

If, if, if...

dream on with your wishful dating of NT scriptures.

"Conventional" = Xtian dreams...

These aren't 'Christian' dates. Non-Christian scholars accept this dating as well. Does Bart Erhman believe that Galatians or Romans or Mark were written in the 2nd century? He's not a believer last time I checked.

Why should it bother you if they are 1st century documents? It would not make Christianity true, no more than the D&C being a 19th century document makes Mormonism true. What's the big deal?

hobblecreek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These aren't 'Christian' dates. Non-Christian
> scholars accept this dating as well. Does Bart
> Erhman believe that Galatians or Romans or Mark
> were written in the 2nd century? He's not a
> believer last time I checked.
>
> Why should it bother you if they are 1st century
> documents? It would not make Christianity true, no
> more than the D&C being a 19th century document
> makes Mormonism true. What's the big deal?

It's a big deal for the same reason that Mo apologetic lies are a big deal to exmos. It's a big deal because evidence-based fact is an important value in scholarship. It's a big deal because Xtian apologists love to throw around fake dates built upon surmise to support their claims of the "truthfulness of the gospel". It's a big deal because so many people simply accept that because the "majority" of scholars "profess" certain things, they must be true.

And BTW, for a purported "non-Xtian", Ehrman sure hauls a lot of water (albeit poorly) for the Xtian apologists. Based on criticisms found in current reviews published online, his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist?", has damaged his case and his credibility tremendously.

The earliest fragment (a very tiny one) of a NT book is dated approx. 125AD. There isn't much else available of other copies of "scripture" until much later.

So please, by all means, show us the actual evidences for your assertion of a 70AD date for the gospel of Mark.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2012 04:34PM by hello.