Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Questioning Your Way to Faith
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Questioning Your Way to Faith
date
newest »
newest »
message 101:
by
Robert
(new)
-
added it
Sep 16, 2013 11:45PM
Peter - I am having trouble relating evil to "people hardening their own hearts" with "God hardening their hearts". Surely God hardening their hearts is not mortal evil, which then begs for a definition of Divine evil - "expediency" maybe. Then, do people harden their own hearts for evil purposes. Surely, yes, sometimes, but often a sense of helplessness prevails or confusion over course of action. I suppose I don't know anyone truly evil so I only get a glimpse at it. It has occurred to me I can't contribute on this subject because I only see the detritus of evil, but not it's commission. Sorry.
reply
|
flag
Thanks Robert. Your followup comment helped me to see where you're coming from. I appreciate it.
Peter - I thought my comment virtually useless to the discussion, but it occurred to me that I actually know nothing about evil. Sin I know lots about. I even see the effects of evil, but the perperation remains merely in the abstract. I think and talk about many other subjects in the abstract, but evil seems to be too shadowy and have too many overlapping and undefinable layers to even begin to get a grasp upon. Does anyone else have this problem or is evil a tangible, black and white thing to you?
Well, that one made me frown, Robert. I disagree as usual.Evil is easy; if you unnecessarily and purposefully hurt any being with feelings, that's evil. There is no cause for that. For Bible believers, evil is in direct opposition to the description of the age of God's rule, which the prophets promised and Jesus inaugurated.
Sin is confusing and seems tied to the whim of whatever being you worship. For Bible believers, sin is even more complicated, with its myriad of rules to remember or translate into today's society or figure out whether or not they've been superseded by Jesus.
It's far easier to just define sin as giving in to evil--that is, opposing the age of God's rule where all beings are treated with respect and empathy--and leave it at that.
Lee, I'm thinking about your definition of evil. Evil is easy; if you unnecessarily and purposefully hurt any being with feelings, that's evil.
I have a few clarification questions:
(1)Did you intend to cover self-inflicted injury under the definition (it sounds to me like its covered).
(2) What do you mean by "hurt?" Is this restricted to causing pain or could it be something less definite such thwarting the victim's future potential?
(3) Where does this definition or rule about evil come from? Did you make it up yourself or did you get it from somewhere else?
Hopefully these are the good kinds of questions.
I think evil is like porn: you know it when you see it...or, more accurately, feel it. It's my definition, but I think it's just a matter of getting at the heart of the dictionary definition:1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
I'm not sure about self-inflicted injury, and I have a hard time seeing evil in nature. If, however, God causes a flood over the earth, that's definitely evil.
Lee - now I know why I can't quite grasp evil. By your interpretation it's all about feeling. I keep looking for a singular sinister force to appeal to my cognition, and, with the exception of Satan, who has severe restraints placed upon him, all I can identify is madness. It's hard to launch a self-righteous (my perferred MO) campaign against madness. Sorry, I made you frown, Lee, but that leads me to believe I'm on the right track.
You want something supernatural, Robert; some sinister hand reaching up out of hell to twist humankind into dastardly acts. A black-caped enemy you can fight with a silver sword.There ain't nothing like that. We can personify good as God and evil as Satan, but in reality, evil is as human as goodness. Both originate in us, both are ultimately base and unexciting. We fight evil just by lifting ourselves above it.
No Lee - just as we cannot will ourselves to righteousness, but need to be Born Again in Jesus to have victory over sin, so too do we need God's help against evil. Satan and black-caped enemies have little to do with it - I'd settle for a little guidance in how to deal with those so mentally disturbed they're on the verge of another Navy shipyard incident and just happen to be not far from my doorway.
You're searching too hard for spectacular evil, Robert. You and I might do best to simply make sure the next person we meet leaves with a smile and not a tear.
Lee - I take the viewpoint, as ascribed to Christ, that to get a person to accept Him as saviour and subsequently jettison their sins is a good way to alleviate tears. Your method is to tell them there is no sin which might suffice in the short term, but the tears will return in perpetuity.
purposefully hurt any being with feelingsI can think of plenty of times when purposefully hurting a being with feelings is not just not evil, but good. I assume Lee agrees with me and just left his definition un-nuanced (he added a bit more in the next post). A dentist filling a cavity is causing pain but it is for a good purpose.
Since Lee brought up the flood though, I'd ask how you can be so confident such a thing is evil. I am not interested in arguing whether THE flood in the Bible really happened or was worldwide. I am interested Lee in your confidence in declaring such evil.
Imagine a child who wants to eat only sweets. The mean parents purposefully cause, to the child at least, suffering by not allowing him to eat sweets. Instead, the parents insist he eat something healthy rather than cookies. This hurts the kiddo's feelings.
Perhaps a silly example. But what if we are in the same position with God? What if the flood is actually a good, not an evil? Who are we to arrogantly and confidently say it is evil?
David, what Hitler, Stalin, Joshua did was evil. Do we agree? If God does the same thing, why would we even consider giving him a free pass? I'd like to hear your reasoning.Robert, my method is not to tell anyone anything. The kingdom is about doing, not telling.
Lee, I wish all inveterate do-gooders were mute, it would save a lot of eardrums from untold decibels of mindless blather.
Lee, I am always wrestling with the biblical texts. On one hand, I am with you in seeing some actions attributed to God as at least questionable, if not "evil." On the other hand, I can't simply dismiss these sacred texts people have reflected on for millennia as "evil". It makes me think of a group of people sitting around a circle, debating a problem for a long time and me as a newcomer walking in and declaring I have it all figured out.The flood aside, the real question I am getting at is your definition of evil. I have heard others make a practical equivocation of evil = pain. I wonder if you are doing the same? Your use of the word "unnecessary" in your definition hints that you admit some evils may be necessary.
I think it is obvious that a lot of pain is good. We've all experienced good pain - writing a book or essay for a class, getting in physical shape, learning a new skill, surgery, raising a child. We could go on. The simple point is that pain is not automatically bad.
The second question would be, if pain is not automatically bad, how do we judge which pain is good and which pain is bad?
Peter, in regards to your question, I like what you said here:Here's my thinking on this conundrum: when we describe things or beings at the edge of our knowledge (e.g. the properties electrons), we often do so in apparent contradictions (particle and wave). We know these are limitations of our conceptions based on our incomplete models (metaphors), not an inherent contradiction in the subject itself (I presume an electron does not ask will I behave as a wave or particle today? -- it just is)...
I don't feel the need to force Exodus and James to say the same thing. Maybe we misunderstand one? Maybe they give us two different views of things? Maybe different angles?
Your quote from Rod (where was that from) about any Calvinism that makes God the author of evil is flawed...well he must not read the same Calvinists I do because it is unavoidable when God's sovereignty is depicted how they do, God becomes the author of evil.
As I re-read this post, it occurred to me that the sense of the question, assumes God is inside of time (the word "forced" to me implies this is happening within time). Perhaps even how we ask the questions already pushes into an incomplete picture of God.
I know this isn't the direction you are going, but in the incarnation we do see God stepping inside of time. I think Jesus' incarnation confronts our view of God as by default outside of time. Does that definition come more from philosophy then the Bible? Is a God in relationship, self-limiting in love, automatically inside of time?
Good God, David, I'm not saying the Bible is evil! It can be used for evil, of course. I'm saying only that if God sent the flood on purpose, and its purpose was (as the Bible indicates) to kill all the people and animals, then in this instance God did evil. Do we really have such a one-dimensional image of God that we cannot imagine him doing evil?God was quite a fascinating character back in Genesis, before Judaism and Christianity got ahold of him and turned him into an ideal.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was saying you said the Bible is evil. I just am hesitant to equate the God of the flood story with Stalin or Hitler. Though what you said is interesting, because I don't think I can imagine God doing evil. That is why I (and many) struggle with the flood story, Canaanite conquest - how could the God we see in Jesus do this?
Robert: "inveterate do-gooder." Lol. Hard to imagine a nicer compliment.God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good - Acts 10:38
LEE - some might take it as a compliment, others might see it as the opposite of realistic, versatile and well-rounded both intellectually and emotionally.
Lee wrote: "David, what Hitler, Stalin, Joshua did was evil. Do we agree? If God does the same thing, why would we even consider giving him a free pass? I'd like to hear your reasoning."
Leaving aside the incorrect inclusion of "Joshua" in that list, the error you're committing is a category fallacy. No act of God's can logically be called "evil" because His nature constitutes the very definition of "good," which is evil's opposite -- so "God doing evil" is a violation of the definition of God.
The way to recognize how far outside the proper categories you've gone is to ask yourself, "Given 'God,' whose life does God not take?" It becomes obvious immediately, just by asking the question, that since God both gives and takes all lives, that He cannot be judged "evil" for taking a life, or for ordering the taking of a life. All lives came from Him, so they're all His to take.
No man can say this. In fact, the very reason that both Hitler's and Stalin's acts were immoral is the fact that neither of them is God, and neither acted according to God's law. Murder is wrong explicitly because it constitutes a man's making a decision that is properly God's.
A shorter version of the same argument is simply to observe: God is not a man, and cannot be judged like a man -- particularly not by men. You're being anthropomorphic.
Joshua is a more nuanced discussion, and I don't think I can convey the correct point of view to you, Lee. But I had to posit the real reason why God's acts don't get judged by men like men's acts do.
Many confuse evil with justice. God always has the right to distribute justice. If he didn't - he would be a useless unloving deity.
Phil, that's an interesting take, that by definition God cannot do evil. It's a little like the concept of sin: It is impossible for God (Jesus) to sin, because if he does it, it isn't be a sin. If Jesus danced naked in the street, we'd all be sinlessly frolicking in our birthday suits.Let's divorce God from the act, however. It is (by, admittedly, my definition) evil to needlessly hurt another. I find myself oddly arguing on the side of objective truth, here: Evil is evil, regardless of the doer. I cannot grasp why you give God an out simply because he created the beings he then treats with evil. That's not unlike me saying to my girlfriend, "I can break your heart with impunity, because I am the one who made you love me."
The absolutely frightening part of this is when people DO give God an out. This is the cause of such events as 9-11, or the holocaust at the hands of an SS with emblazoned belt-buckles saying "God is with us." Or, yes, Joshua causing genocide because he thinks God asked him to do it.
Here's my view: evil is evil, and if you define God as good (in opposition to evil), then I guess this is proof positive that the Bible does not properly describe God. It's nonsensical religious-talk to work backwards, and say "oh, I believe in the Bible, and I believe God can't do evil, so I believe slaughtering 200,000,000 people when Jesus comes back won't be an act of evil." That's blind belief run amok.
Lee it seems you don't have the slightest understanding of how and why God functions in the Bible. From genesis to Revelation you have to skip over thousands of verses to sustain your beliefs. I would find another religion if I were you. Baha'i faith perhaps!?
Phil wrote: "Lee wrote: "David, what Hitler, Stalin, Joshua did was evil. Do we agree? If God does the same thing, why would we even consider giving him a free pass? I'd like to hear your reasoning."
Leaving..."
No act of God's can logically be called "evil" because His nature constitutes the very definition of "good," which is evil's opposite -- so "God doing evil" is a violation of the definition of God.
Phil, it seems to me there is a paradox at the heart of what you stated in the sentence I quoted. If everything that God does by definition is good, then it seems to me we make God into a tyrant. On the other hand if God is subservient to some higher moral law, then the moral law in effect becomes the true "God" (as Socrates thought).
I think you're right in saying that "His nature constitutes the very definition of good," but then the will of God conforms the actions of God to his nature.
To illustrate this with an example, God could, based on His will and power alone, could kill arbitrarily, without just cause if He chose to, but his character (his nature in your words) prevents him from doing so.
I am very sympathetic to Lee's questions. In my own experience, it's very easy to mouth the words that God is Good, but if I believe in my heart that He's arbitrary and vindictive, then I will never be close to him. He'll be like a father who compel obedience from me and also compels me to tell him every day that I love him. I comply because I fear the consequences, but I can never genuinely love him.
Sure I can't walk in God's shoes and see the decisions He makes from His perspective, but I have to work through these situations to see if He is truly Good. Otherwise my love of God is a sham. In the final analysis, I'm a Christ-Follower because I believe God is truly Good, not because He's powerful.
I agree with Phil that no act of God's can be evil. But I disagree with where that argument takes you and, like Peter, am sympathetic to Lee's points.Anyone who reads the Bible with a heart (and in light of the belief that Jesus is God and thus our clearest picture of God) has trouble with the Canaanite genocide.
God cannot do evil
Massacring innocent people is evil
Some (like Phil and Rod) simply saying massacring innocent people is not evil when God does it. Makes me wonder if you're nominalists (I think that's the one) - there is no real objective morality, things are just what God says they are but God can do whatever he wants. So if God decided rape was good, then it would be. Or, God may tell me not to murder but not because murder is really wrong because, well, God might just murder some people and God can do whatever he wants.
I think that view is clearly flawed.
I think it goes back to the order you take:
1. Do you believe in the Bible because you believe in Jesus?
2. Do you believe in Jesus because you believe in the Bible?
Hmmm, how did we shift gears into BELIEVING? And I wonder exactly what beliefs Rod thinks I have? I have repeated bemoaned my inability to believe, concluding that the only rational stance is agnosticism.Nevertheless, I love Peter's conclusion: "I'm a Christ-Follower because I believe God is truly Good, not because He's powerful." I would restate it to be along the lines of "because I want to be part of something truly Good, not part of something powerful." But I'm there with Peter, because, like Phil, I actually DO find God synonymous with goodness.
For David's question about belief, where I get hung up is what it means to "believe in Jesus." For me, it means I believe that Jesus tapped into the divine and uncovered the truly proper way to live, and explained that by so living we would participate in the age of God's rule. Do I believe that because of the Bible? Of course not. I see Jesus as the epitome of the Bible; the result of a long, confusing, sometimes-good, sometimes-evil Hebrew journey toward understanding God/Goodness.
Lee wrote: "It is impossible for God (Jesus) to sin, because if he does it, it isn't be a sin. If Jesus danced naked in the street, we'd all be sinlessly frolicking in our birthday suits."
No, this is a misapplication of Jesus' deity. Jesus was first of all a man like us, and subject to judgment the way any other person might be. So no, his doing X immoral act would not have made X moral; it would have disqualified him to be the sacrifice for the sins of all men.
Lee also wrote:
I cannot grasp why you give God an out simply because he created the beings he then treats with evil.
Once again, in case you skipped over this part: what life is it that God does not take? And if God gives all life and takes all life, what "evil" is done when God takes a life?
Are you saying that once born, it is morally offensive that we should ever die? On what basis? Are you having difficulty distinguishing between "unwanted" and "evil?" Is that where we're not connecting?
I give God an "out" because I don't see anything He's done as evil.
Finally, Lee wrote:
...evil is evil, and if you define God as good (in opposition to evil), then I guess this is proof positive that the Bible does not properly describe God.
Or it could be proof that you don't understand the Bible very well. Or that your version of morality is distorted.
Just sayin'.
Peter wrote:Phil, it seems to me there is a paradox ...
...and then he stated Euthyphro's Dilemma in his own words.
Peter, I do not find that dilemma at all convincing. God is neither arbitrary nor ruled by something greater. Good is the reflection of His own nature. Everything He does is good, and the goodness of it is self-evident in time. When we have difficulty seeing how His will is good, it's invariably because we have not let time run its course to the end of the matter, or because we simply cannot see the whole picture.
If you don't know that, you don't know God, and I can't help you except to introduce you to Him.
Peter also wrote:
Sure I can't walk in God's shoes and see the decisions He makes from His perspective, but I have to work through these situations to see if He is truly Good.
In my experience, Peter, if you don't begin with at least the notion that what God does is genuinely good, you will not get through the difficult circumstances where your faith in His goodness is tested. We all encounter situations where it looks like what we're experiencing is bad from every possible angle; the death of a spouse or a child, for example. And while you may arrive at the conclusion in time that God genuinely is good despite the circumstance, unless you are willing to hang onto that hope when things look their worst, you will become bitter and angry at God, and will not grow the way you should. I've seen the faith of believers ruined by this sort of thing.
But perhaps we're saying the same thing using different words. Let me know.
Lee quoted Peter thusly:Nevertheless, I love Peter's conclusion: "I'm a Christ-Follower because I believe God is truly Good, not because He's powerful."
This is interesting to me, because it's the second time this week that I've heard this put this way. What I'm picking up on is the distinction between God's goodness and God's power.
The Jewish philosopher Philo apparently also made that distinction; he saw God's sovereignty as making him like a great king. But in Philo's world, kings were not necessarily good. So he saw God's goodness as a separate attribute. And then he said that the connection between God's goodness and His sovereign power was "logos" -- the greek word for reasoned discourse. And he associated this "logos" with what Jewish theologians of his day called "the second YHWH" -- the angel of the Lord that appears as a separate being or figure in so many cryptic passages in the Torah.
For me, I don't see any distinction between them. To me, God has always been all-powerful, and He's always been all-good. I've never seen Him any other way, and I can't conceive of a God who is not thus.
Interesting discussion, and Phil's take intrigues me the most. Phil, I recognize that you are a faithful believer, but the mere fact that you believe your chosen deity is incapable of doing evil does not change the definition of evil. I'm unconvinced that evil can be defined by what God does or not do.It appears you've backed off the argument that God is incapable of evil (though it remains your belief, explaining that we simply are not always capable of recognizing good vs evil) and substituted the argument that since God takes our lives at his discretion, he earns the right to take them how and when he wishes.
I still do not follow the logic. So what if God has taken upon himself the decision of when to put each person to death? If I stand over you with a rifle, and grant myself the power (as does God, in your scenario) to choose how long you live, is it evil or not evil to shoot you in the head?
It is all about the Glory of God. God is indeed glorified in the Israelite violence of the Old Testament.
God is glorified in the death of Annanias and Sapphira.
God is glorified when Elisha has 2 bears tear up 42 youths.
Lee it seems your idea of Glory and God's are very different. You might want to look into that.
_______________________________________________________
Here's a fun thought:
To drag someone to paradise and force them to enjoy it (and it's lack of SIN) for all eternity, while worshiping it's King, could be seen as horribly evil.
If there's NO God - there is NO evil. Just choice. No real justice...just discomfort.
David quote:"Some (like Phil and Rod) simply saying massacring innocent people is not evil when God does it."
But David; there are NO innocent people. Have you read the Bible?
You're a scary guy, Rod. It'll be somebody like you who manages to sneak a bomb into the Dome of the Rock and starts world war 3.
Rod, Yes, I've read the Bible.
If we're playing the "ask pointless questions" game, I'll go next:
Rod, do you worship Jesus or the Bible?
Well, my God is incapable of evil. Of course, no mortal has the capacity to grasp the workings of my God so He's completely mischaracterized. Oh, but the Bible tells us of His evils! The Bible begins with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Really! And what did He use for matter and energy? Right there, humans should have realized they were completely out of their league and no amount of study, insight, or intellectual dibble dabbling would ever put them into an orbital where they could comprehend His works. But we are a stiff-necked, delusional lot who like to amuse ourselves with the scope and depth of our "reason." I suppose there's no real harm in this - He knows all about your innermost values, but when the day is done, and you're finished manipulating the world for your own gains for an instant, try to remember this is a Faith journey.
So God is incomprehensible, yet we boldly make claims about whether or not he is capable of evil?
Arguments are things we can talk about, but ultimately proof is something that happens in your mind," said Al. "In the end, accepting something as proved is a decision of the will. Another person can present all the evidence they want, but you can convince yourself that the evidence isn't enough, that they're not telling you everything, that the argument has a fatal flaw you just haven't seen yet, and so you're unconvinced. Proof happens in the mindKazmaier, Peter (2013-05-14). Questioning Your Way to Faith: Learning to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable (Kindle Locations 1416-1419). Word Alive Press. Kindle Edition.
I love this quote.
I often hear people say things like "every argument for Christianity is worthless". Such comments seem more emotive then anything and say more about the person then the argument. Just because I disagree with an argument, does not mean it is "worthless". That seems a bit arrogant. I think we can be humble and honest enough to admit good arguments for positions we disagree with.
It seems like a tribe mentality - because I am part of group x I need to blindly support anything group x says and does and berate group y, our enemy. Christians are great at this and have defended horrible stuff (like a recent blog post by a well-known Christian leader that was just awful).
Yes, Lee we can. God is incomprehensible and so is Divine good and evil. Human good and evil we can make a stab at, but often get backwards anyway.
David wrote: "Arguments are things we can talk about, but ultimately proof is something that happens in your mind," said Al. "In the end, accepting something as proved is a decision of the will. Another person c..."David, thanks for this message on "ultimately proof is something that happens in your mind." Realizing this has been quite important to me in my interactions with people who just don't seem to see things the same way I do. I used to think they were either being irrational or rebellious. I realized that many of the questions we talk about are very complicated. We decide (act of the will) to value some data and discount other data to fit the pieces together into a coherent whole. I can't really know someone else's motivation for choosing to value one piece of data over another. The best I can do is present evidence and arguments and let them weigh them and decide when they have enough for it to be proven.
Similarly, I need to see the same process happening in me and questioning whether my weighting of the data has enabled me to get it right.
That's the best thing i've heard you say yet Peter. Important stuff! (...not that the other stuff you've chatted hasn't been delightful.) :D
Thanks Rod, your comment was encouraging and I appreciate it.
Peter - that is nice for retrievable data that exists in our conscious mind. Much information, especially that gathered by the senses, goes straight into our unconscious where it wreaks all manner of mayhem we have no control over.
Robert wrote: "Peter - that is nice for retrievable data that exists in our conscious mind. Much information, especially that gathered by the senses, goes straight into our unconscious where it wreaks all manner ..."Robert, I would like to understand more about what you're saying. I think there are influences which bypass my rational faculties. It's not clear what I can do about ... information, especially that gathered by the senses, goes straight into our unconscious where it wreaks all manner of mayhem we have no control over.
Am I not compelled first to deal with the part I have control over? With respect to the subconscious input, perhaps you're saying that I could control the sense input, but not the effect of the input because it occurs in the subconscious.
Am I getting it right?
Peter - of course you can limit overpowering influences by say, not engaging in pornography, that produce unpredictable responses from your unconcious (subconcious) mentality. But, once they're present, the bearer may be presented by the uncomfortable realization that his innermost urges both repel him and prove irresistable.
Rod wrote: "I think faith and true science are 100% complementary. The problem is people take bad faith choices and mix them with junk science and then get upset at the results.Most people I know claim to ha..."
Rod, I was poking through some of our old discussions and I came across your note about faith and true science being completely compatible. I think you are right.
One of the problems I see with how how science is practiced today, is the apparent inability of scientists to say on behalf of science "we really don't know the answer to that question. All of our hypotheses have been shown to be wrong."
Experimentation is all about disproving hypotheses and theories (not proving them). Yet I rarely find that scientists speaking "we really don't know" statement.
Any thoughts?
Lee wrote: "Peter wrote: "Lee, you may surmise or hypothesize that Matthew wrote his gospel with the gospel of Mark open in front of him, but how can you know that? Where does this strong evidence come from?"..."
Hello Lee,
I'm not sure if you poke into our group once in a while anymore, but I thought I would belatedly reply to your note with my own musings.
I've been working to establish my own position on the order in which the gospels were written. I base my current views primarily on the scriptural text themselves and what I know about the history of the church (the early data derived heavily from Acts).
My conclusion: the Gospels were written in the order in which they appear in the Bible, which I think is also the order that the early church concluded was the historical order.
Why do I think Matthew was first?
The very early church consisted of Jewish disciples speaking to their Jewish countrymen and Jews in the diaspora. That Jesus was "the anointed one" i.e. the Messiah and fulfilled O.T. prophecy was of critical importance to them. Hence the emphasis on genealogy, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and the continued reference to the O.T. was the center piece of this biography of Jesus.
As gentiles joined the movement, they would find the Matthew gospel confusing. The concept of "the anointed one" was confusing since it translates poorly into Greek (I think we discussed this with Christopher Gorton). The gentiles also did not care that much about Jewish prophecy. It makes sense that Mark has words 90% in common with Matthew, if Mark is a stripped down version of Matthew intended for gentile Christians.
Luke and Acts provide a comprehensive history of the early first century church and fills in much that was missing in Mark. Luke's writings, to my mind, can readily be dated to before the occupation (66 AD) and fall of Jerusalem (70 AD). Since Luke ends Paul's captivity in Rome, this must have been written before 66 AD. A momentous even such as the Jewish insurrection and seizure of Jerusalem would have been recorded by Luke.
Finally, the gospel of John. In the first generation church, many of the personal aspects of Jesus' character and demeanor must have been transmitted by eye witnesses who had been with him (see Acts chapter 1). As the Apostles were martyred, there was a need for a written version of these testimonies. John gathered this information together on behalf of all the Apostles. The gospel of John is much more personal and gives insights into Jesus' life not found in the others.
Lee, as I said, this is where my convictions have landed on these important questions. I know very little Greek and base my thinking very strongly on the gospel texts themselves. Thanks for raising these points.
I must respond to a very fun comment by Lee:"You're a scary guy, Rod. It'll be somebody like you who manages to sneak a bomb into the Dome of the Rock..."
The opposite actually Lee, The Dome Of The Rock is the best scenario for a Comedic sitcom reality show ever presented by humans. To blow it up would deprive us of so much amusement.
Now if they were sacrificing virgins there (or marrying 4 of them?) or making chocolate chip cookies that resembled Jesus...then I might get a bit upset. (We all know chocolate chip cookies should be perfectly round).
Now back to Peter's important stuff.
