John W. Loftus gets PAWNED

John W. Loftus posted a question on his blog about how certain are his reader that Jesus rose from the dead on a scale of 0 - 100%? Of course the comments section is heated with folks trying to claim they don't believe because the Bible is unreliable. District Supt. Harvey Burnett from one of the Jurisdictions of the Church of God in Christ posted the following information.

Since your Q and late dating theory FAILS as real scholarship and succeeds as the trash that it is, better dates for the NT narratives are as follows based on much better sources than you use:

*Jude ~ Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel

*James ~Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel

*Galatians ~ A.D. 48 Philippi, Greece

*Gospel of Luke ~ A.D. 50 Corinth, Achaia

*I Thessalonians, February - July, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia

*I Corinthians July - November, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia

* Revelation Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 Patmos, Aegean

* Romans October - November, A.D. 53 Corinth, Achaia

* Titus ~ February, A.D. 54 Troas, Aegean Sea

*Colossians ~May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel

*I Timothy May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel

* II Thessalonians August - December, A.D. 54 Ephesus, Asia

* Gospel of Matthew May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 Jerusalem, Israel

* Philemon ~A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* II Timothy ~ October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* Ephesians October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* Philippians February - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* I Peter March - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Gospel of Mark June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* II Peter June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Acts of the Apostles July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Hebrews July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* I John (severed intro) August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia

* Gospel of John August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia

* 2,3 John A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 Ephesus, Asia

There's more...

For those who don't know :"Q" is a hypothetical source that some think Mark, Matthew, and Luke are copied from. I disagree, but Harvey's comments still stand. I agree with his dating of the New Testament. However, Loftus disagrees. Big surprise. He offered the following "rebuttal":

Hey District Harvey, when do you date John 8:1-11, or the ending chapter?

When do you date Mark 16:9ff?

And have you read any introduction to the New Testament published by Anchor Books, Cambridge, Yale, or Fortress Press? How about Bart Ehrman's Introduction, or those written by Ralph Martin, or L. Michael White?

Have you read Burton Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament?"

I know you haven't. I just know you haven't. Read them and then compare the data and do more thorough research on this, okay?

Loftus makes several assumptions. How does he know that Harvey is unaware of any of their opinions? Loftus and many atheists obviously assume that Christians are ignorant to other viewpoints. I mean we couldn't possibly have seen their evidences and found them wanting, right? Wrong. Loftus asks about those specific scriptures because he knows that they are deemed to no be part or the original texts. Any one who knows anything about textual criticism of the New Testament knows that the dating that Harvey presented will not be covered by those texts he brought up. So how did District Supt. Harvey Burnett answer?

John,

you accept the latest and weakest brand of scholarship on the issue...I don't!

There is no need to accept both late dating or the chronology that you accept to support your critical thoughts on the narratives.

As proof, the scholars you name are mostly apostates...(I didn't get past Ehrman...BUT...) Apostates can't tell me a THING!

Liberal scholars such as the ones that you and Carrier rely on are JUNK! there are adequate and supportable arguments for early dating...

I've been watching Loftus for a several weeks. And my interactions with him haven't been really nice. He doesn't take or give criticism nicely. Some might say that Bennet's response was not "nice" but I disagree. It was apt. And I think he more than answered the way it needed to be answered. I agree an apostate's viewpoint is tainted because they are biased against the text. I know they will say that early daters are biased for the text, but we have strong evidence for earlier dates than later ones.

Here is the original post.