3 ms·

John, generally thought to be the last of the four canonical gospels, is the only Gospel that potentially dates to 80 years after Jesus's death. Per TFA The sy

John, generally thought to be the last of the four canonical gospels, is the only Gospel that potentially dates to 80 years after Jesus's death. Per TFA The synoptic gospels are thought to have been completed no later than 95 CE, with historical dates for the crucifixion (for those that consider the crucifixion factual) 30-33CE, placing them as no more than 65 years after the crucifixion.

foxglacier 2y ago
Oh, I thought CE started exactly at crucifixion but I guess that wouldn't really be possible if people didn't know when it really was. So it's accepted that those 3 authors may have personally seen Jesus and followed him around collecting stories?
- cameron_b 2y ago
  Q being their lived experience is not out of the question. Finding a written Q would for some detract from the quality of the gospels as a primary source. Lee Strobel has a good take on the authenticity of the Gospel account in his book The Case For Christ [0] and as always the book is better than the movie [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73186.The_Case_for_Christ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73186.The_Case_for_Chris...
- chungy 2y ago
  It's clearer to use the original term and meaning: Anno Domini is "in the year of our Lord", and follows the same year numbering system that has been followed by various kings in history (even Japan still does for their Emperors). The birth of Jesus Christ signified his reign on earth, and that's when AD 1 happened. It's estimated he lived about 33 years until being killed on the cross, but since our current numbering is based on a 16th-centry estimate of how long ago it was, there is room for debate about Jesus's birth being shifted around a few years. Instead of changing our year numbers ("We've decided that 2024 is actually 2030..."), we instead talk about "maybe Jesus was born in 6 BC"

foxglacier 2y ago

Oh, I thought CE started exactly at crucifixion but I guess that wouldn't really be possible if people didn't know when it really was. So it's accepted that those 3 authors may have personally seen Jesus and followed him around collecting stories?

cameron_b 2y ago
Q being their lived experience is not out of the question. Finding a written Q would for some detract from the quality of the gospels as a primary source. Lee Strobel has a good take on the authenticity of the Gospel account in his book The Case For Christ [0] and as always the book is better than the movie [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73186.The_Case_for_Christ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73186.The_Case_for_Chris...
chungy 2y ago
It's clearer to use the original term and meaning: Anno Domini is "in the year of our Lord", and follows the same year numbering system that has been followed by various kings in history (even Japan still does for their Emperors). The birth of Jesus Christ signified his reign on earth, and that's when AD 1 happened. It's estimated he lived about 33 years until being killed on the cross, but since our current numbering is based on a 16th-centry estimate of how long ago it was, there is room for debate about Jesus's birth being shifted around a few years. Instead of changing our year numbers ("We've decided that 2024 is actually 2030..."), we instead talk about "maybe Jesus was born in 6 BC"