Gospel mark. Was it written after 70 AD or before? What's a hefty argument!!!

[firedragon]

Scholarship today wasn't there 2,000 years ago, at best they are speculating. They have no way of knowing what writings existed immediately after Jesus left or the people involved in the Jesus movement or what may have been added or subtracted from the Gospels when they were in the custody of men.

WEll, there are some people who just reject all kinds of scholars and scholarship just to propagate their personal beliefs. So its your prerogative to dismiss scholars and scholarship. But just saying its all speculation shows you just dont know what they are doing.

Anyway, if you like to discuss if scholarship has any validity or not, please do open a new thread. That also will be an interesting topic to explore.

 

[firedragon]

Luke relied on eye witness accounts and existing records by his own admission. Luke got things wrong such as the timing of the birth of Jesus.

New topic for another thread.

 

[Colt]

WEll, there are some people who just reject all kinds of scholars and scholarship just to propagate their personal beliefs. So its your prerogative to dismiss scholars and scholarship. But just saying its all speculation shows you just dont know what they are doing.

Anyway, if you like to discuss if scholarship has any validity or not, please do open a new thread. That also will be an interesting topic to explore.

Over sensitive much?

Mark wrote about Jesus' prophesies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem which Jesus also mentioned as he was being led to the cross. But this so called scholarship then uses that as some sort of proof that Mark was written after the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD.

Sine the scholars don't or are not allowed to state the belief in the fulfillment of the prophecies they are propagating their personal beliefs.

 

[firedragon]

Over sensitive much?

Mate. If you are looking for opportunities to make some ad hominem and enjoy its your problem, but saying a topic is not relevant is not being sensitive, but relevant.

Mark wrote about Jesus' prophesies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem which Jesus also mentioned as he was being led to the cross. But this so called scholarship then uses that as some sort of proof that Mark was written after the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD.

That shows you have not read the OP properly, and you dont have a proper idea of what you called "this scholarship".

Please respond to the OP and address the points made in that.

Sine the scholars don't or are not allowed to state the belief in the fulfillment of the prophecies they are propagating their personal beliefs.

Anyway again I say, if your aim is to dismiss scholars or/and debate the topic of dishonesty and invalidity of scholars and scholarship, please go ahead and open a new thread. It is not a relevant topic to this one. Please try to understand.

 

[halbhh]

The number one argument is that since Mark mentions the destruction of the temple and since it historically happened in 70, the author must have written after that time.

One quick observation:
This argument quoted above would be a reasonable/ plausible argument if God doesn't exist, or if Jesus isn't from God.

But if Jesus is from God, then He could have correctly prophesied the destruction of the temple before it happened, and then of course Mark could predate the destruction of the temple. And then this argument quoted above in point #1 would not hold.

Ergo, the argument in point 1 is simply assuming Jesus isn't the Christ or from God.

 

[Colt]

Mate. If you are looking for opportunities to make some ad hominem and enjoy its your problem, but saying a topic is not relevant is not being sensitive, but relevant.

That shows you have not read the OP properly, and you dont have a proper idea of what you called "this scholarship".

Please respond to the OP and address the points made in that.



Anyway again I say, if your aim is to dismiss scholars or/and debate the topic of dishonesty and invalidity of scholars and scholarship, please go ahead and open a new thread. It is not a relevant topic to this one. Please try to understand.

Sometimes scholars in religion are just professional Atheists.

I read the OP and have a view that you don’t share. Don’t ask questions if you don’t want answers on public forums.

 

[firedragon]

One quick observation:
This argument quoted above would be a reasonable/ plausible argument if God doesn't exist, or if Jesus isn't from God.

But if Jesus is from God, then He could have correctly prophesied the destruction of the temple before it happened, and then of course Mark could predate the destruction of the temple. And then this argument quoted above in point #1 would not hold.

Ergo, the argument in point 1 is simply assuming Jesus isn't the Christ or from God.

Yes you are right. That is the assumption. Even pastors and priests take that same naturalistic approach. That is why I respect scholars.

Faith in an unseen is not taken into this kind of bible scholarship. That is why a lot of people who make faith claims like some of the Bahai websites who claim that their faith claims of the Bible are "Bahai biblical scholarship" is absolutely unacceptable.

I hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

Sometimes scholars in religion are just professional Atheists.

Yeah. Good topic for another thread.

 

[firedragon]

I read the OP and have a view that you don’t share. Don’t ask questions if you don’t want answers on public forums.

Please do go ahead and inform the admins to create some regulations the way you please or become an admin and impose your regulations. No problem.

Have a great day.

 

[Clara Tea]

Mark was written before 70AD because Luke was written before 70AD and Luke probably got material from Mark.

Unless, of course, Luke was written after 70AD, then the entire argument falls apart.

 

[Clara Tea]

Mark mentions the destruction of the temple and since it historically happened in 70, the author must have written after that time.

Apparently, the bible was written, with contributions from all of the apostles, long after Jesus and all of his apostles were dead.

However, it is asserted that the bible is without error because it has been translated from God by divine ESP (psychic).

However, that would mean that the bible has no flaws, but there are a lot of errors in the bible.

Gen 1:25: Man created before animals
Gen 2:18: Man created after animals

If the bible is flawed, then we can't trust anything that it says.

If the only proof that God exists is contained in the bible, and the bible is flawed, we don't have any proof that God exists.

 

[blü 2]

Some bring in a mythicists argument that Mark copied Jesus's story from Josephus

You're confusing mythicism, which asserts that there was no historical Jesus, with discussion of the gospels on the ordinary practice of historians.

In this case you have the strong argument that the author of Mark used the trial scene of Jesus of Jerusalem (aka Jesus son of Ananias/Ananus) in Josephus' Wars VI.5.3 (75 CE) as his template for the trial scene of Jesus in his gospel, thus giving 75 BCE as a terminus post quem for the writing of Mark.

Whether there was an historical Jesus or not is wholly irrelevant to that argument.

As irrelevant as Josephus' apparent mention of James the brother of Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Apparently, the bible was written, with contributions from all of the apostles, long after Jesus and all of his apostles were dead.

However, it is asserted that the bible is without error because it has been translated from God by divine ESP (psychic).

However, that would mean that the bible has no flaws, but there are a lot of errors in the bible.

Gen 1:25: Man created before animals
Gen 2:18: Man created after animals

If the bible is flawed, then we can't trust anything that it says.

If the only proof that God exists is contained in the bible, and the bible is flawed, we don't have any proof that God exists.

Thats not the topic of the thread Clara.

 

[firedragon]

You're confusing mythicism, which asserts that there was no historical Jesus, with discussion of the gospels on the ordinary practice of historians.

In this case you have the strong argument that the author of Mark used the trial scene of Jesus of Jerusalem (aka Jesus son of Ananias/Ananus) in Josephus' Wars VI.5.3 (75 CE) as his template for the trial scene of Jesus in his gospel, thus giving 75 BCE as a terminus post quem for the writing of Mark.

Whether there was an historical Jesus or not is wholly irrelevant to that argument.

As irrelevant as Josephus' apparent mention of James the brother of Jesus.

The argument is a mythicist argument.

But you are right, one could argue that the author of Mark could have used it as a template. But that is a farfetched could be based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc, and you of course did not address the discrepancies of your theory that even Richard Carrier used.

Maybe Josephus copied from the real story.

So these kind of Maybe's are not a historical approach.

 

[blü 2]

The argument is a mythicist argument.

But you are right, one could argue that the author of Mark could have used it as a template. But that is a farfetched could be based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc, and you of course did not address the discrepancies of your theory that even Richard Carrier used.

Maybe Josephus copied from the real story

So these kind of Maybe's are not a historical approach.

If you ever do any real history, you'll find that it's maybe's for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Regardless of that, the argument is NOT a mythicist argument. It has no mythicist element at all.

 

[firedragon]

If you ever do any real history, you'll find that it's maybe's for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Regardless of that, the argument is NOT a mythicist argument. It has no mythicist element at all.

Present your rebuttal.

 

[blü 2]

Present your rebuttal.

You've heard the argument. You haven't put an historical scratch on it. What's to rebut?

 

[firedragon]

You've heard the argument. You haven't put an historical scratch on it. What's to rebut?

Address the OP holistically mate. Then its a valid discussion. If not, its your prerogative.

Have a great day.

 

[blü 2]

Address the OP holistically mate. Then its a valid discussion. If not, its your prerogative.

Have a great day.

I've said I think Mark was written around 75 CE and I've given my reasons. That seems about sufficient to me.

 

[firedragon]

I've said I think Mark was written around 75 CE and I've given my reasons. That seems about sufficient to me.

Nice. Thanks.