BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 6,181
- 3,150
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
That's the first we have heard of it in this thread. I don't know what Kylie will make of it--the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Your suggestion is at least an attempt at discussion instead. Kylie has been accused of arguing dishonestly. It is beginning to seem that the dishonesty lies with others.You mean by Historians or on this thread.
There are earlier sources, Q according to scholars
Q is based on research into the similarities between the Gospels, hinting at an earlier written souce.
As he Gosples date from 55, that would mean Q would have existed in written form within 20 +/- the Resurrection.
This is not my field of expertise.
There are men, Christians, Agnostics and Atheist who are Biblical Scholars who examine every jot and tittle of every scrap that exists.
Corinthians and Q are the result of their research.
I don't go much beyond reading about it than as an interested fan.
I just take it on faith.
Upvote
0