The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 3)

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Now I will turn my attention to the dating of the Gospels, which is just as equally important as the authorship of the Gospels. I will make a case that all Gospels were written prior to 70AD. I will get right to it.

So why do we conclude that all Gospels (including the Epistles of Paul) were written prior to 70AD? Because that is when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed (not just the temple, but the entire city). This was a significant event in the history of Judaism, as the temple was a religiously sacred place where the high priest would make sacrifices for sins, perform rituals, etc…and the destruction of the temple would have been equivalent to the World Trade Center destruction in the United States.

What makes it even more significant is the fact that nowhere in the Gospels is the destruction of the temple mentioned. Why is this significant? Because Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed, that’s why…in 3 of the 4 Gospels, Jesus predicts it (Matt 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:-6). Now if anyone is familiar with the Gospels, they would know that the authors would not hesitate to let readers know whenever a prophecy was being fulfilled. How many times have we seen “Jesus did X so that prophecy Y was fulfilled”, or “This happened so that the prophecy X was fulfilled”. Those prophecy fulfilments are useful as they would demonstrate the foreknowledge of God. So why wouldn’t the fulfillment of this particular prophecy be mentioned in ANY of the Gospels if the temple had been destroyed after Jesus predicted it would be? Because the event hadn’t happened yet, that is why.

And not only that, but there are areas throughout the NT were the author is speaking as if the temple was still up and in business, which can be discussed later if need be.

So all Gospels cannot be said to post-date 70AD…so 70AD is a starting point, and we can just work backwards from there. We can start from the book of Acts, which is the “part 2” to Luke. If Acts was part 2, and Luke was part 1, that would mean that Luke was written prior to Acts. In the book of Acts, Paul is still alive…he was still waiting for trial and his martyrdom is not mentioned, which is something that the author would want to mention if the book was written AFTER Paul had been martyred, considering the last third of the book was about the trials and tribulations of Paul, so how can you not include his death? Especially when the deaths of Stephen and James are mentioned? Why? Because Paul was still living when the book was written, that is why.

Paul is said to have been martyred about 67AD…so Acts was written prior to 67AD, which would mean that Luke had to have been written prior to 67AD, as the book couldn’t have preceded Acts.

Since Luke allegedly used Mark as a source (as did Matthew), Mark’s Gospel also had to predate 67AD. So at BEST, all Gospels can be said to have been written between 59-66AD. Due to the temple incident not being mentioned in John as well, his Gospel can also be said to have been written prior to 70AD, and it is generally believed that his Gospel was the last of those written.

The Apostle Peter was martyred in 64AD, so the Gospel of Mark cannot exceed that year, since Peter was the source of Mark's information..so again, all Gospels can be said to have been written prior to 70AD.

This doesn't even include the Epistles of Paul, which scholars all agree were written before any of the Gospels...which was between the late 40's to mid 50'sAD (some in the 60's).

So in conclusion, all Gospels and Epistles can be said to have been written prior to 70AD, which would be at best 25-30 years after the cross, which was STILL within the lifetime of the first disciples.

 

[fantome profane]

You say that the destruction of the temple was not "mentioned", but then go on to say that it was "predicted". But if in fact these documents are written after 70 CE then this is not a true "prediction". It is only a prediction if you have already established that they are written before 70 CE. In other words it would literally be a miracle if these documents were written before 70 CE. That might not be a problem for you, but try to put yourself in the position of those you are trying to convince. This is just an absolute non starter.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You say that the destruction of the temple was not "mentioned", but then go on to say that it was "predicted".

Reading comprehension. I am saying that the destruction of the temple was predicted, but the fulfilment of the prophecy is lacking in all four Gospels.

But if in fact these documents are written after 70 CE then this is not a true "prediction".

Foolishness. It doesn't matter how long after 70AD they were written, the fact of the matter is that Jesus predicted that the event would occur, and it occurred. Point blank, period.

It is only a prediction if you have already established that they are written before 70 CE. In other words it would literally be a miracle if these documents were written before 70 CE. That might not be a problem for you, but try to put yourself in the position of those you are trying to convince. This is just an absolute non starter.

What? I've already stated why we are lead to believe that they were written prior to 70AD, and I would like specific refutations of what I said. The point is clear...even if the books were written in 90AD, which would have been 20 years AFTER the temple was destroyed, why wouldn't the authors with haste point out the fact that the prophecy that Jesus made regarding the temple had been fulfilled, ESPECIALLY given the significance of the temple in general, followed by the excessive fulfilments of OTHER prophecies that are mentioned in the books?

As big of a deal that the temple of Jerusalem was, that is not something you would just leave out of a narrative involving the alleged Messiah if you are trying to promote Christianity and Jesus as the Son of God.

 

[Bunyip]

Reading comprehension. I am saying that the destruction of the temple was predicted, but the fulfilment of the prophecy is lacking in all four Gospels.



Foolishness. It doesn't matter how long after 70AD they were written, the fact of the matter is that Jesus predicted that the event would occur, and it occurred. Point blank, period.

Erm.....Buddy, it DOES matter if the prediction comes AFTER the event. Predicting something after it happened is easy.

What? I've already stated why we are lead to believe that they were written prior to 70AD, and I would like specific refutations of what I said. The point is clear...even if the books were written in 90AD, which would have been 20 years AFTER the temple was destroyed, why wouldn't the authors with haste point out the fact that the prophecy that Jesus made regarding the temple had been fulfilled, ESPECIALLY given the significance of the temple in general, followed by the excessive fulfilments of OTHER prophecies that are mentioned in the books?

As big of a deal that the temple of Jerusalem was, that is not something you would just leave out of a narrative involving the alleged Messiah if you are trying to promote Christianity and Jesus as the Son of God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Now I will turn my attention to the dating of the Gospels, which is just as equally important as the authorship of the Gospels. I will make a case that all Gospels were written prior to 70AD. I will get right to it.

So why do we conclude that all Gospels (including the Epistles of Paul) were written prior to 70AD? Because that is when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed (not just the temple, but the entire city). This was a significant event in the history of Judaism, as the temple was a religiously sacred place where the high priest would make sacrifices for sins, perform rituals, etc…and the destruction of the temple would have been equivalent to the World Trade Center destruction in the United States.

What makes it even more significant is the fact that nowhere in the Gospels is the destruction of the temple mentioned. Why is this significant? Because Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed, that’s why…in 3 of the 4 Gospels, Jesus predicts it (Matt 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:-6). Now if anyone is familiar with the Gospels, they would know that the authors would not hesitate to let readers know whenever a prophecy was being fulfilled. How many times have we seen “Jesus did X so that prophecy Y was fulfilled”, or “This happened so that the prophecy X was fulfilled”. Those prophecy fulfilments are useful as they would demonstrate the foreknowledge of God. So why wouldn’t the fulfillment of this particular prophecy be mentioned in ANY of the Gospels if the temple had been destroyed after Jesus predicted it would be? Because the event hadn’t happened yet, that is why.

And not only that, but there are areas throughout the NT were the author is speaking as if the temple was still up and in business, which can be discussed later if need be.

So all Gospels cannot be said to post-date 70AD…so 70AD is a starting point, and we can just work backwards from there. We can start from the book of Acts, which is the “part 2” to Luke. If Acts was part 2, and Luke was part 1, that would mean that Luke was written prior to Acts. In the book of Acts, Paul is still alive…he was still waiting for trial and his martyrdom is not mentioned, which is something that the author would want to mention if the book was written AFTER Paul had been martyred, considering the last third of the book was about the trials and tribulations of Paul, so how can you not include his death? Especially when the deaths of Stephen and James are mentioned? Why? Because Paul was still living when the book was written, that is why.

Paul is said to have been martyred about 67AD…so Acts was written prior to 67AD, which would mean that Luke had to have been written prior to 67AD, as the book couldn’t have preceded Acts.

Since Luke allegedly used Mark as a source (as did Matthew), Mark’s Gospel also had to predate 67AD. So at BEST, all Gospels can be said to have been written between 59-66AD. Due to the temple incident not being mentioned in John as well, his Gospel can also be said to have been written prior to 70AD, and it is generally believed that his Gospel was the last of those written.

The Apostle Peter was martyred in 64AD, so the Gospel of Mark cannot exceed that year, since Peter was the source of Mark's information..so again, all Gospels can be said to have been written prior to 70AD.

This doesn't even include the Epistles of Paul, which scholars all agree were written before any of the Gospels...which was between the late 40's to mid 50'sAD (some in the 60's).

So in conclusion, all Gospels and Epistles can be said to have been written prior to 70AD, which would be at best 25-30 years after the cross, which was STILL within the lifetime of the first disciples.

Before I tear into this on the facts, assuming for the sake of argument that everything claimed above is true (which I do not agree with but will get to that later), what does it matter? Is there a part 4?

 

[Desert Snake]

I think Paul was writing to pre-existing churches, there is no real evidence or reason to believe otherwise, and hence there were prior teachings/writings (Gospels which in essence told the Story of Jesus.
As religious texts, they are..well.. religious, hence the problem with trying to fit them into some proveable historical text. I don't think Paul had any reason at the time to assume anyone would think he wasn't copying earlier text, it was surely common knowledge, but later the 'questions' of authorship arose simply because what "everyone knew" (prior faith i.e. Xianity/Jesus worship) became something that wasn't known, as the church moved elsewhere and into different cultures/languages.
You have Paul, who in my opinion learned of some of the teachings when he was Saul, and for perhaps various reasons decided to 'write about' the religion which he ultimately came to follow. Whether Paul 'humanized' Jesus or tried to 'deify'(not my opinion) is somewhat not known, perhaps there was no explicit agenda, but we are always reading mans word in the NT, regardless, hence the name "Gospels", there is no effort to state that these authors were somehow specially endowed with prophetic powers etc. they are, to me,
writing about their beliefs/religion.aside from the purely historical portrait we have of "Yeshua the Nazarene".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Erm.....Buddy, it DOES matter if the prediction comes AFTER the event. Predicting something after it happened is easy.

Right, but that doesn't answer the question of if the temple had ALREADY been destroyed after the books were written, then WHY WOULDN'T THE FULLFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY BE INCLUDED IN THE NARRATIVE?

No one is answering that question..again; ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the fulfilment of other prophecies are practically crawling out from the pages because the authors were quick to mention every time a prophecy was fulfilled. And how could you not even mention the destruction of the temple at ALL??? Especially in the book of Acts, which is a book that is talking about the daily happenings of the apostles as they traveled and preached...names, locations, daily activities, mentions of rulers, martyrdoms...all of these things were mentioned in Acts, and I'm quite sure if the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed before the books were written, you would throw that tad bit of info in the narrative.

Just sayin'.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Before I tear into this on the facts, assuming for the sake of argument that everything claimed above is true (which I do not agree with but will get to that later), what does it matter? Is there a part 4?

You can't get into a discussion regarding the historicity of the Resurrection without establishing these facts, Monk. You are trying to brush it off as if it is hogwash...I am just setting up a foundation so that by the time we really get into the meat and potato's of the issue, the nonsense will be out of the way.

 

[Bunyip]

Right, but that doesn't answer the question of if the temple had ALREADY been destroyed after the books were written, then WHY WOULDN'T THE FULLFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY BE INCLUDED IN THE NARRATIVE?

Well because nobody thought that prophecies made after the event were very interesting I guess.

No one is answering that question..again; ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the fulfilment of other prophecies are practically crawling out from the pages because the authors were quick to mention every time a prophecy was fulfilled. And how could you not even mention the destruction of the temple at ALL??? Especially in the book of Acts, which is a book that is talking about the daily happenings of the apostles as they traveled and preached...names, locations, daily activities, mentions of rulers, martyrdoms...all of these things were mentioned in Acts, and I'm quite sure if the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed before the books were written, you would throw that tad bit of info in the narrative.

Just sayin'.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You can't get into a discussion regarding the historicity of the Resurrection without establishing these facts, Monk. You are trying to brush it off as if it is hogwash...I am just setting up a foundation so that by the time we really get into the meat and potato's of the issue, the nonsense will be out of the way.

So there is a part 4? Good. I don't want to "jump the gun" again and waste a bunch of my time.

Though the only thing I will critique from this portion (right now anyway) is the dating of the gospels and the acts. One cannot assume that it was prior to the event just because the event is not included. The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110 and Matthew is believed to be the first gospel written. In fact within that figure of 70-110 it is favored among historians to place it between 80-90.

You have stated the only argument for the earlier date which is a minority view held by only a few historians. Other than the absence of the temple what arguments do you have to say that the majority of historians are wrong?

 

[fantome profane]

Reading comprehension. I am saying that the destruction of the temple was predicted, but the fulfilment of the prophecy is lacking in all four Gospels.

Yes, I fully understand that.

Foolishness. It doesn't matter how long after 70AD they were written, the fact of the matter is that Jesus predicted that the event would occur, and it occurred. Point blank, period.

If they were in fact written after 70 CE then this opens up the possibility that the author simply put this prediction into the mouth of Jesus. If they were written after 70CE you have no evidence that Jesus actually made this prediction. I find it extremely unlikely that Jesus actually made this prediction.

You need to remember that you are debating this with people who do not share your presuppositions. I for instance have a completely different set of presuppositions. One of my presuppositions is that a natural explanation is always more likely than a miracle. So one possiblity is that these documents that predict the destruction of the temple were actually written after the destruction of the temple, and the author simply put these words in Jesus's mouth. The other explanation is that Jesus actually made a miraculous prediction. I find the first one much more likely.

What? I've already stated why we are lead to believe that they were written prior to 70AD, and I would like specific refutations of what I said. The point is clear...even if the books were written in 90AD, which would have been 20 years AFTER the temple was destroyed, why wouldn't the authors with haste point out the fact that the prophecy that Jesus made regarding the temple had been fulfilled, ESPECIALLY given the significance of the temple in general, followed by the excessive fulfilments of OTHER prophecies that are mentioned in the books?

As big of a deal that the temple of Jerusalem was, that is not something you would just leave out of a narrative involving the alleged Messiah if you are trying to promote Christianity and Jesus as the Son of God.

At the time that these documents were written, that is that time that most Biblical scholars believe they were written, 70 - 100 CE, the destruction of the temple would be recent history. The authors of the Gospels (anonymous authors btw) would have had no need to tell the people that the gospels were intended for what happened to the temple. There was no need to inform these people of what they already knew so well. It would be like me telling you what happened on September 11, 2001 in New York. I don't need to. They didn't need to tell what happened to the Temple.

It makes perfect sense to me that they would have not told people what happened to the temple, but even if I agreed with you that it was odd that they didn't mention it, your argument would still not be persuasive, certainly nowhere near persuasive enough to get me to think that a miracle is the likely explanation.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well because nobody thought that prophecies made after the event were very interesting I guess.

Is that all you got?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If they were in fact written after 70 CE then this opens up the possibility that the author simply put this prediction into the mouth of Jesus. If they were written after 70CE you have no evidence that Jesus actually made this prediction. I find it extremely unlikely that Jesus actually made this prediction.

I will say it again...if the response to this is "Well, the author put this prediction into the mouth of Jesus"....then the question becomes..."why didn't the author put the fulfillment of the prophecy into the narrative?"

I am still waiting on an answer to this, because right now it is making absolutely no sense.

You need to remember that you are debating this with people who do not share your presuppositions.

I am completely aware that you people dont share my views. However, at this point, the only presupposition I have is that if the authors were pro-Christianity and pro-Jesus Christ...and they have him fulfilling all of these prophecies in their narratives of his life, why wouldn't they include a very significant one regarding a fulfillment of a prediction that Jesus made regarding their HOLY temple??

My presupposition is that they WOULD have included it if it had occurred before they began writing. This presupposition is based on the fact that they are quick to mention the fulfillment of other prophecies..and I find it hard to believe that they would exclude something with the magnitude of the holy temple of Jerusalem.

Not buying it.

I for instance have a completely different set of presuppositions. One of my presuppositions is that a natural explanation is always more likely than a miracle. So one possiblity is that these documents that predict the destruction of the temple were actually written after the destruction of the temple, and the author simply put these words in Jesus's mouth. The other explanation is that Jesus actually made a miraculous prediction. I find the first one much more likely.

Fine, but my point is even if Jesus made a miraculous prediction, OR if the author simply put words in Jesus' mouth...that doesn't explain why the actual fulfillment of the prediction is non-existent in any biblical text.

You can't talk about the history of New York City beginning in the year 1990-present, without mentioning the World Trade Center attacks. You just can't do it. You can't talk about the early Christian movement / Jesus Christ and not mention the destruction of the temple. That is just not something that you would do.

At the time that these documents were written, that is that time that most Biblical scholars believe they were written, 70 - 100 CE, the destruction of the temple would be recent history.

First off, there is no general consensus as to when the documents were written. You have some in favor of later dates, and some in favor of earlier dates. So there is no "most Biblical scholars believing they were written 70-100 CE". Second, I would ask any person who suggests a post 70AD date to explain the whole temple bit..no one can do it. The question is, what are the arguments for both sides of the coin??

The authors of the Gospels (anonymous authors btw) would have had no need to tell the people that the gospels were intended for what happened to the temple.

Reading comprehension. When did I make the case that the "gospels were intended for what happened to the temple"?? So what are you talking about here?? Who in HISTORY has ever made such a case?

There was no need to inform these people of what they already knew so well. It would be like me telling you what happened on September 11, 2001 in New York. I don't need to. They didn't need to tell what happened to the Temple.

What?? Cmon now. It isn't like 3 years after the temple was destroyed, they were sending out letters to everyone saying "Hey guys, the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed"....in that sense of COURSE they wouldn't need to tell them what happened. But if you are writing books based on the Jesus Christ and his fulfillment of prophecies, and he clearly fulfilled that one, it would have been mentioned...not to mentioned the fact that Gospels and the book of Acts are filled with names, dates, cultural details, historical events, customs, and opinions of the time....you cannot have all of those gritty details and not mention something as signficant as the destruction of the temple, especially considering in the book of Acts, Herod's death is mentioned...so you mention in detail the events leading to Herods death, but you don't mention the destruction of the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, which was a fulfillment of a prophecy by Jesus??

Not buying it.

It makes perfect sense to me that they would have not told people what happened to the temple, but even if I agreed with you that it was odd that they didn't mention it, your argument would still not be persuasive, certainly nowhere near persuasive enough to get me to think that a miracle is the likely explanation.

Jumping the gun. This thread is not meant to imply that it was a miracle...it was only meant to date the books...hell, you can conclude that Jesus made a lucky guess for all I care, but that that would not damage my case that the documents were written prior to 70AD not even in the slightest sense.

 

[fantome profane]

I will say it again...if the response to this is "Well, the author put this prediction into the mouth of Jesus"....then the question becomes..."why didn't the author put the fulfillment of the prophecy into the narrative?"

I am still waiting on an answer to this, because right now it is making absolutely no sense.



I am completely aware that you people dont share my views. However, at this point, the only presupposition I have is that if the authors were pro-Christianity and pro-Jesus Christ...and they have him fulfilling all of these prophecies in their narratives of his life, why wouldn't they include a very significant one regarding a fulfillment of a prediction that Jesus made regarding their HOLY temple??

My presupposition is that they WOULD have included it if it had occurred before they began writing. This presupposition is based on the fact that they are quick to mention the fulfillment of other prophecies..and I find it hard to believe that they would exclude something with the magnitude of the holy temple of Jerusalem.

Not buying it.



Fine, but my point is even if Jesus made a miraculous prediction, OR if the author simply put words in Jesus' mouth...that doesn't explain why the actual fulfillment of the prediction is non-existent in any biblical text.

You can't talk about the history of New York City beginning in the year 1990-present, without mentioning the World Trade Center attacks. You just can't do it. You can't talk about the early Christian movement / Jesus Christ and not mention the destruction of the temple. That is just not something that you would do.



First off, there is no general consensus as to when the documents were written. You have some in favor of later dates, and some in favor of earlier dates. So there is no "most Biblical scholars believing they were written 70-100 CE". Second, I would ask any person who suggests a post 70AD date to explain the whole temple bit..no one can do it. The question is, what are the arguments for both sides of the coin??



Reading comprehension. When did I make the case that the "gospels were intended for what happened to the temple"?? So what are you talking about here?? Who in HISTORY has ever made such a case?



What?? Cmon now. It isn't like 3 years after the temple was destroyed, they were sending out letters to everyone saying "Hey guys, the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed"....in that sense of COURSE they wouldn't need to tell them what happened. But if you are writing books based on the Jesus Christ and his fulfillment of prophecies, and he clearly fulfilled that one, it would have been mentioned...not to mentioned the fact that Gospels and the book of Acts are filled with names, dates, cultural details, historical events, customs, and opinions of the time....you cannot have all of those gritty details and not mention something as signficant as the destruction of the temple, especially considering in the book of Acts, Herod's death is mentioned...so you mention in detail the events leading to Herods death, but you don't mention the destruction of the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, which was a fulfillment of a prophecy by Jesus??

Not buying it.



Jumping the gun. This thread is not meant to imply that it was a miracle...it was only meant to date the books...hell, you can conclude that Jesus made a lucky guess for all I care, but that that would not damage my case that the documents were written prior to 70AD not even in the slightest sense.

Ok, just for a minute consider the Gospel of Mark with it's original ending before it was added to. It originally ended at 16:8, and we have good scholarly documentation for this. The Gospel originally ended with the two women going up to the tomb, seeing it already opened, they see a man who tells them that Jesus has risen, and then the two women go away and tell no one. The end.

The original ending doesn't even mention Jesus appearing to anyone after his death, doesn't say anything about what Jesus did after he rose, doesn't mention anything about the ascention. And you find it strange that it doesn't mention the destruction of the temple? In context it doesn't seem strange at all to me. Certainly not a good reason for fixing a date to the gospel.

 

[Bunyip]

Is that all you got?

What else would I need? There are no prophecies with any meaningful details or specifics - they are vague, poetic and essentially pointless.

 

[Quagmire]

Right, but that doesn't answer the question of if the temple had ALREADY been destroyed after the books were written, then WHY WOULDN'T THE FULLFILMENT OF THE PROPHECY BE INCLUDED IN THE NARRATIVE?

Because the narrative only deals with events that happened prior to the destruction of the temple.

The Gospels conclude right after the Crucifixion/Resurrection narrative, which would have taken place some 30+ years before the temple's destruction.

The Book of Acts concludes prior to the death of Paul, which is traditionally set at 65 C.E.

Since the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E., in order to make reference to it the author(s) would have had to have added it as a footnote, since it wouldn't have been part of the actual narrative.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because the narrative only deals with events that happened prior to the destruction of the temple.

Obviously, because they were written prior to the destruction of the temple.

The Gospels conclude right after the Crucifixion/Resurrection narrative, which would have taken place some 30+ years before the temple's destruction.

Right, and 30+ years later is when the Gospels were written anyway, and should a prophecy such as the destruction of the temple had come to pass in this period, how could this not be included in the narrative?

The Book of Acts concludes prior to the death of Paul, which is traditionally set at 65 C.E.

Right, so it had to have been written before the death of Paul. Luke was a friend of Paul, and author of Acts...so why would Luke include the deaths of Stephen, James (brother of John), and King Herod...and NOT include the death of Paul, who was the central figure in the latter part of the book?

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Since the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E., in order to make reference to it the author(s) would have had to have added it as a footnote, since it wouldn't have been part of the actual narrative.

What??? Added as a footnote? Quag, the entire city of Jerusalem, along with the holy temple of Jerusalem was DESTROYED, and hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed or enslaved. There is no way you could write the book of Acts and not include this in the narrative. Especially when there is less significant things like the death of King Herod, which had absolutely nothing to do with anything, mentioned in the book of Acts.

In the Acts narrative, the disciples are going through their daily lives as disciples of Jesus, going through trials and tribulations, traveling, preaching, etc...there is absolutely no hint of a seige of Jerusalem, nor is there any hint of the temple being destroyed, or 1.1 million Jews dying as a result of the Jewish-Roman war.

To think that this would have been added as a footnote is to failure to see the signficance of such an event in Jewish history. You wouldn't add the Holocaust or the World Trade Center attacks as a footnote, would you?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What else would I need? There are no prophecies with any meaningful details or specifics - they are vague, poetic and essentially pointless.

As pointless as you think they are, the question still remains...even if the authors purposely put words in Jesus' mouth to make it appear as if was making such a prediction, why wouldn't the author also put a fulfillment of the prophecy in the narrative if it was written after the event?

Makes no sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ok, just for a minute consider the Gospel of Mark with it's original ending before it was added to. It originally ended at 16:8, and we have good scholarly documentation for this. The Gospel originally ended with the two women going up to the tomb, seeing it already opened, they see a man who tells them that Jesus has risen, and then the two women go away and tell no one. The end.

The original ending doesn't even mention Jesus appearing to anyone after his death, doesn't say anything about what Jesus did after he rose, doesn't mention anything about the ascention. And you find it strange that it doesn't mention the destruction of the temple? In context it doesn't seem strange at all to me. Certainly not a good reason for fixing a date to the gospel.

It is true, the book of Mark ends abruptly and doesn't have the post-mortem appearances, but it does give us the empty tomb narrative and the fact that Jesus had risen.

Second, you can exclude Mark from the two, and that will still leave you with Matthew and Luke. So the question still remains.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Quick question here Call.

In Acts 12:2 it depicts the death of James (Paul's brother and a fellow Apostle) would you agree that this even occurred AFTER Jesus's death? What time would you date this in your personal biblical opinion?