User talk:NishantXavier

I want to have a pleasant and respectful discussion on the Gospel of Saint Matthew the Apostle, a work very important for Christians, that has a 2000 year history of Church Tradition and Christian Scholarship.

Nishant Xavier NishantXavier (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jesus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Not all Christian denominations worship Jesus as God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi George. Thanks for the message. I'll be careful next time. I wasn't trying to criticize others. I was just trying to continue the passage and complete the thought. It said, Most Christians believe Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son. So, I continued with, therefore Christians worship Jesus as God. I wasn't making a value judgment on liberal Christians or those denominations that don't worship Jesus. But maybe I should have prefaced it with the same "most Christians" to be accurate.

I'll take more care next time. Thanks, Nishant X. NishantXavier (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All right, George. I will. God bless you. NishantXavier (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 March 2021 07:29:15 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read it, and try to abide by it. I'm not here to bash anyone. I look forward to a pleasant dialogue with others of different views. NishantXavier (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources
Please read Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 March 2021 07:29:15 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is
This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted.

Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, why don't we discuss this, either on your talk page or on mine? You want me to produce a scholarly source saying most Christians believe Jesus is the Christ promised in the Scriptures. Is that it? Will a citation from an Encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Brittanica suffice for it? There should be freedom given also for the scholars who represent our viewpoints, not only to those who represent the contrary. NishantXavier (talk)

Also, I have a question about the Gospel of Luke, since you're following that discussion. Would the below count as a scholarly source? It is from Zondervan Academic: "The following post is adapted from Robert H. Gundry’s online course, New Testament Survey." https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-book-of-acts God Bless. NishantXavier (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Gundry is basically a biblical inerrantist, so his views are WP:FRINGE.




 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're just re-defining every non-liberal Christian as fringe. That's itself fringe. Liberal Christians itself, who respect conservative Christians, just like we also respect them even if we disagree, would disagree with you. Gundry makes solid and reasonable historical and critical arguments. NishantXavier (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

From the Article: "Evidence within Acts supports authorship by Luke:

Just as his Gospel opens with a dedication to Theophilus, so also does Acts. Vocabulary and style are very similar in the two books. Though it does not prove that he wrote Luke-Acts, frequent use of medical terms agrees with Luke’s being a physician. By his use of “we” in narrating parts of Paul’s journeys, the author of Acts implies that he was a traveling companion of Paul. Other traveling companions do not fit the data of the text. For example, Timothy and several lesser-known ones are mentioned apart from the “we” and “us” of Acts 20:4–6. According to Paul’s letters, neither Titus nor Silas (still other traveling companions unmentioned in Acts 20:4–6) accompanied him to Rome or stayed with him there. Yet the narrative of his voyage to Rome makes up one of the “we”-sections.

By such processes of elimination Luke remains the only likely candidate for the authorship of Acts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately, that's the very opposite of WP:RS/AC, therefore an academically WP:FRINGE view. Wikipedia sides with the academia, see WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

But, friend, Zondervan Academic IS Academia. Robert Gundry's views may not be majority opinion, but they are an acceptable minority opinion and not fringe. Even the other article on Luke-Acts authorship essentially conceded this. So they should be allowed to be stated, as an acceptable minority view.

Gundry makes good scholarly arguments based on careful analysis of Luke's texts in portions peculiar to him, and in areas where he relates what Peter or Paul said: "Together with the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Hebrews, the book of Acts contains some of the most cultured Greek writing in the New Testament. On the other hand, roughness of Greek style turns up where Luke appears to be following Semitic sources or imitating the Septuagint.

Some scholars regard the speeches and sermons in Acts as literary devices improvised by Luke himself to fill out his stories. That some ancient historians followed such a practice is true, but not to the extent that has sometimes been claimed.

Although Luke need not have given verbatim reports of speeches and sermons, it does seem that he accurately gives the gist of what was said. Support for such accuracy comes from striking parallels of expression between Peter’s sermons in Acts and 1 Peter and between Paul’s sermons in Acts and his letters.

These parallels can hardly have arisen by chance; and no other evidence exists to indicate that Luke imitated or used in any other way the letters, or that Peter and Paul imitated Acts when writing their letters. The only adequate explanation: Luke did not make up the speeches and sermons, but summarized their contents so accurately that the characteristic phraseology of Peter and Paul is evident in Luke’s reporting as well as in their letters." NishantXavier (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, that's a WP:FRINGE view: Peter did not write anything from the Bible, that's the WP:RS/AC. He was an illiterate peon who could not produce highly educated compositions. Wikipedia's allegiance is to the mainstream academia, neither to Christianity, nor to Judaism. In this case that means that the scholarly consensus of mainstream Bible scholars (the WP:CHOPSY views) are presented as fact and as the WP:NPOV view. By the way, your talk page is crammed with blue links, you should read each and every one of them, these explain the rules of this website, which you seem to ignore. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I read the links. I agree with the rules. What I'm questioning is whether they apply here. Please see this portion of 1 Peter that agrees authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. That means some scholars defend Petrine authorship and so that remains an acceptable and not fringe view. What am I missing?

"Alternatively, one theory supporting legitimate Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot disagrees, suggesting that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5] and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[6][7] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[8] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is enough evidence to conclude that Peter did, in fact, write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[9] allusions to several historical sayings of Jesus indicative of eyewitness testimony (e.g., compare Luke 12:35 with 1 Peter 1:13, Matthew 5:16 with 1 Peter 2:12, and Matthew 5:10 with 1 Peter 3:14),[10] and early attestation of Peter's authorship found in 2 Peter (AD 60–160)[11] and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140),[3] all supporting genuine Petrine origin. Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter NishantXavier (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

English Liberal Christian New Testament Scholar John Robinson in Redating the New Testament
I'm reading the works of Liberal New Testament Scholar John Robinson right now and they are excellent. Here's the wiki excerpt on Redating the New Testament from his Wiki page:

"Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly basing his judgement on the sparse textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s, Mark sometime between AD 45 and AD 60, Luke sometime during the AD 50s and 60s and John sometime between AD 40 and AD 65 or later. Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death; that Paul authored all the books attributed to him; and that the "John" who wrote the fourth Gospel was the apostle John. Robinson also suggested that the results of his investigations implied a need to rewrite many theologies of the New Testament.

In a letter to Robinson, the New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd wrote, "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton[;] the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." Robinson's call for redating the New Testament – or, at least, the four gospels – was echoed in subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem and work by Claude Tresmontant, Günther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Jean Carmignac, and Bernard Orchard.

Robinson's early dates for the gospels, especially those for John, have not been taken up among most liberal scholars of Biblical historicity. Some conservative and traditionalist scholars, however, concur with his dating of the synoptic gospels.

WP:TE
I advise you to refrain from WP:RGW in respect to methodological naturalism, such POV-pushing is not tolerated, we are not called to rewrite the ground rules of post-Enlightenment historiography, but merely to obey them. Take such protests to your own blog or Conservapedia, this is not the place to foment revolution in mainstream history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with methodological naturalism. My question was about metaphysical naturalism? Am I bound to hold to it, as a student of history, in order to do history? I thought you would disagree, as you agreed on that topic that many Jews and Christians make very good mainstream historians. NishantXavier (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Metaphysical naturalism is a red herring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One can agree with methodological naturalism without assenting to metaphysical naturalism. Therefore, Jews and Christians can do history well. NishantXavier (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Argue no further about the Christian POV unless you realize that you fail WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Very well. We'll agree to disagree then. I respect the rules and don't think I'm breaking any. I will follow the rules as I can follow methodological naturalism also as a Bible student. I have seminary education and think it's not unreasonable to say I'm fairly well read on Bible matters, having consulted and gone through a large variety of scholars, from liberal and modernist to conservative and traditionalist. I have my own views arrived at after serious study and am prepared to defend them if allowed to. If not, so be it. I respect the historical approach and follow it in my own writings. NishantXavier (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "I have my own views" Nishant, practically every Wikipedian has his/her own views on any number of religious, political, or philosophical matters. The big question is whether we can properly summarize what our sources say without inserting our own POV. So far, you have shown a willingness to search for available sources instead of arbitrarily changing or removing text to match your views. That is a pretty good start. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dimadick. I agree about the importance of referencing sources and not interjecting our own opinions. I'll try to continue as you say. NishantXavier (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's latest report on Christian population worldwide
According to https://www.gordonconwell.edu/center-for-global-christianity/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2020/12/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2021.pdf there are 2.545 billion Christians out of a 7.875 billion world population today, which comes to around 32.3%. As per the same study, the projections are, by 2025, that there will be 2.66 billion Christians while the world population will have grown to about 8.19 billion people. It'll be interested to look at future reports from the same organization as and when they come out.

Poverty in India and expected progress by 2030. A government UBI could help reduce poverty
Unfortunately, "Some 220 million Indians sustained on an expenditure level of less than Rs 32 / day — the poverty line for rural India — going by the last headcount of the poor in India in 2013."https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/economy/how-india-remains-poor-it-will-take-7-generations-for-india-s-poor-to-reach-mean-income--68898 A Q-UBI for 20% of India's population, about 5 Crore families representing 25 Crore people, has been proposed in the past. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/universal-basic-income-congress-rahul-gandhi-lok-sabha-election-poverty-5642541/ It remains to be seen if the government of India will take up the proposal in the future. It could definitely significantly speed up poverty alleviation efforts in India if implemented. NishantXavier (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You might want to add such sources to Poverty in India. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion Dimadick. I asked a question about adding it on the talk page. I'll add the two sources shortly. God Bless. NishantXavier (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke
hello, I would like to know what is your evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written before 55? thanks. Tuxzos22 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Tuxzos! Dear Friend, it was summarized in the below article I wrote for One Peter Five. 1P5 liked my article, so they approved it for publication. God bless you, Dear Tuxzos. I use Capitalization for Emphasis sometimes, lol:


 * "Sir William [Mitchell Ramsay] said about Saint Luke in particular, author of Luke and the Acts to Theophilus (who may have been the high priest Theophilus ben Ananus), “You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian and they meet the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.” Other scholars commenting on his work have agreed: “Ramsay, after a lifetime of research, ranks Luke as the greatest of all historians, ancient or modern. The Gospel stands the same test that the Acts has undergone. It is not only the most beautiful book in the world, but it is written with the utmost care and skill.” The Gospels are early historical records ...


 * External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint Papias, who knew St. John the Apostle; Tertullian in Africa; Saint Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Europe but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the Unanimous Witness of Three Whole Continents and virtually the entire Early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the First of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D ...


 * Saint Irenaeus records:


 * Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome [thus before A.D. 67 when both those Apostles were killed in Rome - Nishant Xavier], and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Adversus Haereses BIII, C1) ...


 * St. Jerome tells us on St. Peter:


 * "Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee … pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius (A.D. 42) to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero (A.D. 67) … then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him[.] ... Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world" [De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), #1, Simon Peter] ...


 * First Syllogism: (1) St. Matthew the Apostle wrote when St. Peter (and St. Paul) were preaching in Rome. (2) But St. Peter began to preach in Rome in 42 A.D., and St. Peter was martyred by 67 A.D. (with St. Paul). (3) Therefore, St. Matthew wrote the First Gospel between the years 42 and 67 A.D.


 * Can we narrow it down further? Yes, since St. Matthew wrote before St. Luke, we have, in addition ..


 * Second Syllogism: (1) St. Matthew the Apostle wrote before St. Luke the disciple (one of the 72) and Evangelist, the disciple of St. Paul the Apostle. (2) But St. Luke wrote Acts before 61 A.D. and the Gospel of St. Luke before 55 A.D. (3) Therefore, St. Matthew wrote well before 55 A.D. as well ...


 * The proof of premise 2 can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Gospel of Saint Luke. Briefly, it may be summarized as follows: (i) St. Luke wrote Acts when St. Paul was still alive (thus before 67 A.D.) and almost certainly during his Roman imprisonment (thus the abrupt ending of Acts) (round A.D. 61), and (ii) the Gospel was certainly written before this time, therefore well before 61 A.D


 * '''Next, can we arrive still further in our consideration of dates? Yes: St. Luke, so the Church Fathers tell us, and it is internally evident, is “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches (2 Cor. 8:18). The secularist Encyclopedia Brittanica admits: “The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (II Corinthians in the New Testament) was written from Macedonia in about 55 CE.”


 * We conclude, therefore, that the Gospel of St. Luke was widely distributed already by this time."

'''
 * Excerpts taken from link: https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/


 * Your thoughts, my dear Brother/Sister (I believe God is Universal Father and all of us are Brothers and Sisters! I'm from India!) Tuxzos22? God Bless.


 * Wow, thank you literally, I already knew the words of the tradition, but not the reference to Paul, there are also the Anti-Marcionite prologues if you are interested, but for me personally they are enough to conclude that there is something wrong with the late dates. Tuxzos22 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, Tuxzos. I agree. Would you disagree with any of the steps in the following Logical Reasoning?


 * I. Saint Irenaeus said Saint Matthew wrote before Saint Peter died, which was in A.D. St. Irenaeus is a Credible Historical Witness. Therefore, St. Matthew wrote before St. Peter died. But when did St. Peter die?


 * II. St. Jerome says St. Peter preached in Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D. But St. Jerome is a Credible Historical Witness. Therefore, St. Peter died before 67 A.D. Therefore, St. Matthew wrote the First Gospel before 67 A.D. But when did Saint Luke write?


 * III. Saint Luke wrote Luke before he wrote Acts, because Acts makes mention to the former treatise to Theophilus. But St. Luke likely wrote Acts before A.D 61, when Saint Paul was still alive in his Imprisonment, as is suggested by the abrupt ending of Acts 28 (otherwise St. Paul's Martyrdom under Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67 would have been mentioned, if it had already happened). Thus the Gospel of Luke, written before Acts, was written before 61 A.D.


 * Can we narrow it down still further? Yes, imho.


 * IV. Saint Paul, in the Epistle of 2 Corinthians, makes mention of the Gospel distributed in all the Churches, and the beloved brother praised in all the Churches because of them. This is a manifest reference to the Gospel of Saint Luke, who was Saint Paul's Beloved Companion, of whom he once testified: "Luke alone is with me. Having taken Mark, bring him with you, for he is useful to me for the ministry." (2 Tim 4:11) in writing to Bishop Timothy. Now, if the Gospel of Saint Luke was already distributed when 2 Corinthians was written, it was probably written some years prior to that.


 * V. So, the Final Question in Dating Saint Luke's Gospel is this: "When was 2 Corinthians" written? I quoted the Encyclopedia Britannica saying it was written in 55 A.D. Thus the Gospel of Saint Luke pre-dates 55 A.D., dear Brother Tux. Do you disagree with any of these Five Steps?


 * Please let me know where you disagree, Mere Bhai (Indian Way of saying "My Brother"). God bless you, Tux.


 * I'm afraid this cannot be established through syllogistic reasoning, but only through publish or perish. Sorry to be so blunt, but as a rule of thumb peers give thumbs down to such claims, they are generally speaking unpublishable in mainstream scholarly journals.
 * Let me restate the broad academic consensus about the writings from the New Testament: 7 (seven) epistles are orthonymous (i.e. certainly written by Paul), the Book of Revelation is homonymous (written by somebody called John who got conflated with John the Apostle by later Christians), all other books from NT are either pseudonymous (i.e. forgeries), or falsely attributed by later Christians, or of uncertain authorship (the Deutero-Pauline epistles).
 * You might not have heard of this consensus inside evangelical colleges and universities or other fundamentalist schools, but it is taught as fact in every major university from US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. Your won't see recent Bible scholarship books published from Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, or Cambridge University Press claiming otherwise. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

difficult question, on an academic level I would only like point IV (Luke is also mentioned in Philemon 24, a letter academically accepted as authentic). on a personal level all the points are helpful but with caution, the tradition of the patristic authors can contradict each other and are somewhat late... I believe that the evidence (for me personally should not be more I don't care, I care if an unbeliever cares) should be more solid, I for one use logic why would Christians be so clumsy to first copy the three gospels, all three anonymously without giving their names or anyone else's, all three 50 years after the death of Jesus along with the recent death of the apostles Peter and Paul, and when they had the fabulous power to falsely attribute the three to authors with little authority and finally in the three gospels they never make Jesus speak forcefully of circumcision, food, Sabbath etc, things that would refute the historical and documented Judaizers enemies of Paul and the church, but decided to complicate their lives even more and did not write that? wow! those christians were useless! :) Tuxzos22 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I heard it, thank you, I was checking Xavier opinion, which is not on the side of the modern academic consensus, and it is difficult to write it in an article. Tuxzos22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi George and Tux. Any thoughts on John Robinson's authority as a historian, and on his arguments (in "Redating the New Testament") for early dates?

he is usually described in his reviews as independent, neither conservative nor liberal, his arguments are either little commented or not in the modern academic consensus, his argument of silence of the year 70 by Christian authors does not please me, I am not a supporter of the arguments of silence and I do not want to be hypocritical, even though it benefits me, it is also surprising how John seems to assume a temple still standing in Revelation 11, and how the authors or author of 1Clement continues to speak of Jerusalem even after its destruction, layers for the Gospels, the Pauline letters, the Petrine letters and the Epistle of Barnarbe [note], Robinsom's arguments do not contribute much at the academic level, because a forger would have the intention of ignoring that important event, but for the other letters both canonical and non-canonical if they can serve many arguments, especially in the Epistle of James. i hope that my opinion, which was neither exhaustive nor complete, will be useful to you, peace. [note]the date of the death of Barnabas is not entirely reliable, but the scholars who discard his authorship usually ignore it, anyway the argument of the silence of Robinson does not serve much to this letter because it is not silence. Tuxzos22 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tux. Agreed. I would not start with the destruction of the Temple. I would start with the death of St. Paul.

(1) St. Matthew wrote when St. Paul was preaching. St. Paul died in 67 A.D. Therefore, Matthew wrote before 67 A.D.

(2) St. Luke wrote Acts before St. Paul died, otherwise Luke would certainly have mentioned Paul's Killing/Martyrdom under Emperor Nero.

(3) Therefore, likewise, Luke wrote Acts before 67 A.D. But Luke was written before Acts was written. Therefore, Luke's Gospel pre-dates 67 A.D.

What do you think of these 3 statements, Tux? I know I'm India, but I should probably try to publish this in some Western Journal. Maybe some day. NishantXavier (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but at an academic level you are not saying anything new, your arguments and conclusion are already known and disapproved by the academic consensus, for it to be published in Wikipedia I don't see a short term future, but for it to be published in the Western Journal it could become a reality. good luck with that ;) Tuxzos22 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

English Liberal Christian New Testament Scholar John Robinson in Redating the New Testament
I'm reading the works of Liberal New Testament Scholar John Robinson right now and they are excellent. Here's the wiki excerpt on Redating the New Testament from his Wiki page:

"Although Robinson was considered a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of like-minded colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the reliability of the New Testament as he believed that it had been the subject of very little original research during the 20th century. He also wrote that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost wilful blindness".

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly basing his judgement on the sparse textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew as being written sometime between AD 40 and the AD 60s, Mark sometime between AD 45 and AD 60, Luke sometime during the AD 50s and 60s and John sometime between AD 40 and AD 65 or later. Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death; that Paul authored all the books attributed to him; and that the "John" who wrote the fourth Gospel was the apostle John. Robinson also suggested that the results of his investigations implied a need to rewrite many theologies of the New Testament.

In a letter to Robinson, the New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd wrote, "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton[;] the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." Robinson's call for redating the New Testament – or, at least, the four gospels – was echoed in subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem and work by Claude Tresmontant, Günther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Jean Carmignac, and Bernard Orchard.

Robinson's early dates for the gospels, especially those for John, have not been taken up among most liberal scholars of Biblical historicity. Some conservative and traditionalist scholars, however, concur with his dating of the synoptic gospels.