Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump aims his ire at spouses, children of judges at heart of legal troubles


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Take it up with the scholars. I'm no longer a Christian and have no dog in the fight. The scholars have dated the gospel of Mark to roughly the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in AD 70. Possibly a few years later, but not by many. The other synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) are both dated to the first century AD. Only the Gospel of John has a likely 2nd Century dating, and that is likely only the early part of the second century (edit: to cover myself, the latter dating of Luke might put it into the early years of the second century, but not by much). 

As I said in my last post, it's ok to have a minority view of history. But don't present it like it's the mainstream academic view without acknowledging its flaws and lack of support among scholarly historians. The atheists studying this field are equally agreed on these dates - I'm providing sound academic scholarship dates, not Biblical propaganda. If you want biblical propaganda as argued by extreme biblical apologists, Mark was written by AD 50, and John was finished before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. These dates that I presented represent scholarly consensus. Take it up with them if you disagree, I really don't have the time or energy to put into it. 

This website is a scholarly look at the dating of early Christian writings, it's worth a look if you haven't before. 

Your "mainstream" pov is that of the church.  It uses those dates to try to say the gospels are eye-witness accounts, which they aren't.

Now present something to support your claims or try to refute mine.  Your appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

I've seen your website before.  They don't back up their opinions, either.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Your "mainstream" pov is that of the church.  It uses those dates to try to say the gospels are eye-witness accounts, which they aren't.

Which "church"? I'm presenting the academic perspective. If you want a church perspective, consider gotquestions.org

Quote

 There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.

There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ....

...The bottom line for Christians is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after His death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are: the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

This is what apologetics looks like. The whole of the New Testament was written before AD 70, the Gospels and everything! What you are presenting is an extreme dating just as ridiculous as gotquestions.org! Academic scholarship lives in the margins, both you and gotquestions are outside the margins by a long way. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Now present something to support your claims or try to refute mine.  Your appeal to authority is not a valid argument.

I've seen your website before.  They don't back up their opinions, either.

Doug

I have no dog in the fight, I don't care enough to waste my time countering sound academic scholarship! Talk to them, they're the ones who care about Jesus. Including the atheists studying in the field, not just the Christians. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OIP.HNxhSLNGaHsnAOx-eslerwD6D6.jpg.38ed5eebf043ddf24f32bad7629c6b4f.jpg

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now he's mad because the judge in his documents case was critiqued by the prosecutor. Really?

Trump calls for Jack Smith's punishment for criticizing judge in classified documents case (msn.com)

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday said special counsel Jack Smith should be punished for issuing a scathing critique of a recent request for jury instruction proposals by the judge overseeing the case on Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents.

Smith “should be sanctioned or censured for the way he is attacking a highly respected Judge, Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over his FAKE Documents Hoax case in Florida,” Trump wrote in a post to his Truth Social platform. “He is a lowlife who is nasty, rude, and condescending, and obviously trying to ‘play the ref.’"

Edited by susieice
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Smith Laid a Trap for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Judge. Cannon Didn’t Take It. (yahoo.com)

The MAGA-friendly judge overseeing Donald Trump’s trial for hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago has handed prosecutors a minor victory on Thursday. But she also refused to take the bait on a trap that could have very well led to her removal from the case.

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon on Thursday rejected the former president’s bid to dismiss the entire case on the faulty premise that the Department of Justice had no right to turn a bureaucratic spat over presidential records into a criminal case.

But perhaps more importantly, Cannon refused to go down a legal path that DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith invited her to travel, with Cannon refusing to issue a separate court order on a related issue—a ruling that Smith could have formally appealed and potentially utilized to get Cannon knocked off the case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I have no dog in the fight, I don't care enough to waste my time countering sound academic scholarship! Talk to them, they're the ones who care about Jesus. Including the atheists studying in the field, not just the Christians. 

So you have an opinion that you don't care to support.  Why are you trying to make an argument, then?

Besides, I don't have to have the most-popular opinion on this topic.  It is enough to be right.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

So you have an opinion that you don't care to support.  Why are you trying to make an argument, then?

Besides, I don't have to have the most-popular opinion on this topic.  It is enough to be right.

Doug

As long as you're acknowledging that you are in fact presenting an unpopular opinion not accepted by mainstream academic historical scholarship regardless of religious or non-religious persuasions, that's OK :tu:

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

As long as you're acknowledging that you are in fact presenting an unpopular opinion not accepted by mainstream academic historical scholarship regardless of religious or non-religious persuasions, that's OK :tu:

Do you have a source for these comments??:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Do you have a source for these comments??:unsure:

Bart D Ehrman, prominent atheist/agnostic and New Testament scholar: 

Quote

These are all probability judgments, but it is relatively safe to say that the Gospels could not have been written much before 70 (despite the attempts of some to say so), for reasons I’ve given, and *probably* not much later than the end of the first century.   I wish – everyone wishes – we could be more precise with our dating, but it is always very hard indeed to come up with precise datings for ancient narratives.  Unless they refer to people (Pontius Pilate) or events (the destruction of Jerusalem) that can be reliably dated from other sources, or unless their authors actually tell you when they were writing, then dates have to be guestimated.   But these parameters (between, say 65-100 CE for all four Gospels) are agreed on by most scholars of all persuasions, except fundamentalists and a few others.

 

Source. The article is behind a paywall (I subscribe to Ehrman's blog) so I've only quoted the conclusion, but if you don't want to pay for it I can share more details about his arguments and how he has argued his specific dates (eg, the consensus that John is the latest gospel based partly on being the most theologically advanced of the gospels, but also not theologically advanced enough to address issues raised by theologians such as Ignatius, which suggests dating before Ignatius). The specifics are less important than the conclusions, though - you asked for a source that Doug's views are "an unpopular opinion not accepted by mainstream academic historical scholarship regardless of religious or non-religious persuasions". The part in red is an atheist historian confirming what the academic consensus is! 

If you don't believe what's behind a paywall, you can try less rigorous academic sources like wikipedia, as much as I don't like wikipedia, its basic entry on the historicity of the gospels makes it clear that mainstream academic scholarship places them in roughly the same dates suggested by Ehrman: 

Quote

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars hold that all four are anonymous[note 1] and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8] A few scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons, the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[34][33]

Wiki Source

That goes along with academic websites I presented earlier such as earlychristianwritings.com that present the dating based on sound historical scholarship. This should be more than enough evidence that the majority of scholars, regardless of their religious beliefs, suggest a likely dating of the gospels to the latter part of the 1st Century and the very early part of the second (and that is the latest possible dating based on available evidence accepted by most scholars). 

That's not to say Doug isn't right. It's possible his guess is the right one, if his reasoning is based on historical scholarship. But it represents an extreme minority view not represented in mainstream academic scholarship! Given this, I think the mainstream consensus is more reasonable than Doug's extreme dating. Doug's dating seems to be as extreme as the apologists that Bart Ehrman is equally critical of, the ones who date all four gospels to before the destruction of the Temple (before 70 AD). 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Bart D Ehrman, prominent atheist/agnostic and New Testament scholar: 

Source. The article is behind a paywall (I subscribe to Ehrman's blog) so I've only quoted the conclusion, but if you don't want to pay for it I can share more details about his arguments and how he has argued his specific dates (eg, the consensus that John is the latest gospel based partly on being the most theologically advanced of the gospels, but also not theologically advanced enough to address issues raised by theologians such as Ignatius, which suggests dating before Ignatius). The specifics are less important than the conclusions, though - you asked for a source that Doug's views are "an unpopular opinion not accepted by mainstream academic historical scholarship regardless of religious or non-religious persuasions". The part in red is an atheist historian confirming what the academic consensus is! 

If you don't believe what's behind a paywall, you can try less rigorous academic sources like wikipedia, as much as I don't like wikipedia, its basic entry on the historicity of the gospels makes it clear that mainstream academic scholarship places them in roughly the same dates suggested by Ehrman: 

Wiki Source

That goes along with academic websites I presented earlier such as earlychristianwritings.com that present the dating based on sound historical scholarship. This should be more than enough evidence that the majority of scholars, regardless of their religious beliefs, suggest a likely dating of the gospels to the latter part of the 1st Century and the very early part of the second (and that is the latest possible dating based on available evidence accepted by most scholars). 

That's not to say Doug isn't right. It's possible his guess is the right one, if his reasoning is based on historical scholarship. But it represents an extreme minority view not represented in mainstream academic scholarship! Given this, I think the mainstream consensus is more reasonable than Doug's extreme dating. Doug's dating seems to be as extreme as the apologists that Bart Ehrman is equally critical of, the ones who date all four gospels to before the destruction of the Temple (before 70 AD). 

Thanks very much for trying to provide a source, I believe you that about your source. But Doug is a very very highly educated man so if I were you, I would take that into consideration.

Thanks for your reply!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2024 at 1:05 AM, Tatetopa said:

So someone with enough money to hire the best team of lawyers  cannot fight the charges  based on evidence and the laws?  Like a mobster they must threaten and attack families?  That is your standard?

Not in a kangaroo court. 

On 3/31/2024 at 1:05 AM, Tatetopa said:

How do threats to a family make your cause  just?  Is that really the standard you aspire to for America?  . 
 

Threats?

On 3/31/2024 at 1:05 AM, Tatetopa said:

Do you want that to spread?  Think of the good folks trying to do right in the world by adopting Chinese orphans and bringing them back to the US to raise as Americans.  Now they might be accused of being Chinese agents and  spies. Will they be deported or just face the threat of being beat up by a MAGA mob on the street?

Yeah cause maga mobs are always beating people up in the streets. You are thinking of BLM and antifa. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 3/31/2024 at 1:16 AM, Tatetopa said:

Instead of being grateful and joyful at the gift you are given, MAGA is angry and filled with rage by those who do not accept it?  Everybody gets a choice.  You may not know this, but we were given Free Will.  Maybe omniscience  can see the wisdom in a long path that some humans fail to see. MAGA seems so HAPPY to see us all destroyed.  Everything they love and cherish and respect sacrificed to punish somebody they hate so much, they cannot understand or forgive   Real Christian values there. 

Hu? What evidence do you have that maga folks are happy to see us destroyed? 
 

It’s more like people are trying to warn the war mongering, dollar killing side of impending doom. Trying to get the people causing it to get the hell out of the way. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

As long as you're acknowledging that you are in fact presenting an unpopular opinion not accepted by mainstream academic historical scholarship regardless of religious or non-religious persuasions, that's OK :tu:

I so do.  Yet as far as we are concerned here, you have presented no evidence to support your contention.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Hu? What evidence do you have that maga folks are happy to see us destroyed? 

Only the texts I read.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.