I would note that according to English rules of grammar, one would write, "I believe that such is an assumption by Biblical scholars based upon the age of early manuscripts..."
Like it or not, this entire forum is based upon language (unless you've discovered a way to have a computer spit out water so we can all have a fun romp with water baptism...)
Like it or not, the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth and by the scripture.
Grammar aside, we don't know how old any of the monographs might be. We have no information when any author had written anything. Nobody thought to write a date or include information that would link to a dated event. The earliest manuscripts (which are merely fragments) are copies of copies of copies, with only a few having been dated to the first half of the second century (cf. Wallace), but yes, I am aware of more recent fragments that are under study.
I would encourage you to read this article:
There has been a flurry of announcements and comments on the internet about the “First-Century Mark Fragment” (FCM) ever since Elijah Hixson posted a blog on Evangelical Textual Criticism this morn…
danielbwallace.com
Again, relying on science rather than what is written is not how we should ascertain when the gospels were written.
That is not an indication... that is a conjecture.
Not with the Holy Spirit informing you who Paul was talking about. Who else can he be talking about that no man dares to speak those unspeakable words except from the Book of Revelation where there is a thread for adding or taking away from those words?
2 Corinthians 12:1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Revelation 1:I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;.....
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Know of any other epistles or writings that Paul could be talking about and who that would fit 2 Corinthians 12:1-4? So not a conjecture when you consider the truth in those written words as the Lord confirms to you thru the Holy Spirit.
A stronger case for this can be found in Acts chapter 2.
(Acts 2:42 KJV) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
One can surmise that something important enough to be identified as "the apostles' doctrine" would have been set down in writing to avoid disputes, but you and I are from a culture where writing is highly valued. That might not be the case with the early church, where the poor and unlearned were welcomed into the fellowship without stigma. The elite Jews would have been able to read the Hebrew scriptures, and then have "Lorded it over" the "lowly." But this was not to be the case with the disciples of Jesus (ye are all brethren).
One can ascertain that and it could be equally ascertain just the oral version at first as well.
You do realize that such an assertion would indicate that the history was written well after the fact... yes?
And I think it's important to note that Luke himself was not a direct witness, not being one of the twelve, but only an editor of the testimonies of others, having copied large swaths of the book of Mark word for word. One of these days I should go find out the percentage.
True. Luke could very well gathered enough witnesses' account and written the gospel after Acts but since the theme seem to run from Mary's lineage and Mary was there in the upper room, with the 120 other disciples, Luke could very well be one of them and had the gospel of Luke done before Acts.
The actual conflict is rather involved for any of it to be adequately addressed in this thread.
We ponder why not more was written of those 40 days after His resurrection but it may very well be that ... that was when the four gospels were written as Matthew was written from Joseph's lineage. What better time to gather family information than in that upper room?
In truth, do the math. That's one witness three times = one witness. Not three. Sorry. I find that verse to be sleight of hand and disingenuous on the part of Paul.
Since Paul was writing this second epistle to the church at Corinth, those receiving it as read to the whole church, 2 or 3 witnesses if not the whole church, would be able to confirm that when Paul comes again, that will be the third time he had come to them.
Who cares? Truly, who was contesting that this was Paul's third trip? And for what? To what end? Three times? Only twice? Nine times he visited? So what?
That is how any one establishes a testimony or a true witness when you have 2 or 3 other witnesses to confirm what that person is saying.
The requirement of having "two or three witnesses shall every word be established" was for a legal proceeding where the outcome of a dispute had significant effect. The number of times that Paul visited Corinth could hardly be some issue of contention. But yes, I realize that in Paul's view his third visit would allow him to be "three witnesses" for whatever judgment he wanted to enact.
Not what is meant. One does not witness three times for a witness to be true because the three times a person witness, each time still requires 2 or 3 other witnesses to confirm each time for whatever he is witnessing about.
Hopefully, you're catching on.
(Acts 21:20 KJV) And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Rhema
As long as there are 2 or 3 witnesses, then the witness is true and that number can increase to thousands witnesses but essentially as the Lord commands of men, minimally, 2 witnesses are required for a testimony to be true.
John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
So for the Father's witness from Heaven regarding His Son to be true, the added witness of the holy Ghost alighting on the Son at His water baptism makes the Father's witness of the Son as true, thus keeping to His words in John 8:17.
