Why did the author of Mark...

[firedragon]

You see nothing supernatural about Mark 1:10-13? Mark 1:30-34; Mark 1:39-42? Mark 2:10-12? Mark3:3-5?

'And so on all the way through, not forgetting the risen Jesus?

Maybe you should try and understand a simple sentence rather than jumping into conclusions. Harry Potter has a lot of stories of people doing magic, but it is not a "miraculous book".

So when I say I dont think there is anything miraculous about the book Harry Potter, that does not mean there is no magic inside the story. Chill.

'And so on all the way through, not forgetting the risen Jesus?

What risen Jesus? Which verse are you referring to?

It is not a mythicist argument.

It is.

That has nothing to do with the dating of Mark, which is what we're discussing ─ or had you forgotten?

You missed the point, and of course you cannot answer this. If you try, you may understand the point that was made. I will cut and paste again so that you could.

Also you have missed to note that Josephus quotes James the brother of Jesus as the fellow who's brother Jesus was called the Messiah. Scholars dont negate this part as a forgery. So in advance you are saying that Josephus has contradicting accounts of the same person in two different books being the same man. If you are making him out to be so inaccurate and contradicting, why trust him at all? Why have you put your trust on Josephus just to date Mark?

Josephus wrote wars in the year 78 if I am not mistaken. This is 45 to 50 years after Jesus. One huge issue you should be considering is, did Josephus also get it absolutely wrong? Why does he contradict himself with two different accounts of this same character Jesus, once as brother of James, the Messiah, and then as a madman who was prophesying the war in the year 66, not 33? A man who was tortured but he kept his mouth shut, then the Romans released him "because he was a mad man" and then he dies because some stone hit his head. But then, Josephus accounts for I think more than 10 messiah characters and all of them killed by the romans for sedition. But this man Jesus he calls the messiah as called by people is sent Scott free, once he is brother of James, the messiah, another time he is son of ananias, once he is a handy man, and all other messiahs are killed, only this messiah is let loose "just because he was a mere prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem". Do you think people will call him the messiah for that only? Nope. This is absurd.

Read Josephus. All the people he quotes as Messiahs etc were rebels, revolutionaries, criminals who Rome killed for sedition.

This is the problem with hell bent mythicists. They miss the historical method, though they boast it.

Anyway, it could be true that Mark was written later. If you are looking at possibilities, there could be many many possibilities.

When do you think Josephus places James, the brother of Jesus? Have you thought about it?

 

[blü 2]

Why did you not address my points though you replied to that post? Is there a reason?

I've reminded you what we're discussing ─ the dating of Mark.

Also you have missed to note that Josephus quotes James

I asked you what that had to do with the dating of Mark.

Thats not historical method. Maybe you should do a little bit of googling to find out what is a historical method.

I see by your silence that you accept you included the supernatural into your reading of history; I assume you know now that this is outside historical method.

when I say I dont think there is anything miraculous about the book Harry Potter, that does not mean there is no magic inside the story.

So, to be clear, you don't accept the supernatural parts of the bible, including 'prophecy', right?

You missed the point,

The point was the dating of Mark. And the relevance of historical method.

So now you know why I think Mark is written 75 CE or later, and why anyone can see it was written after 70 CE.

Which is the point.

Oh, and don't bother telling me to "read Josephus". Should I refer you to something I haven't read, I'll tell you so,

 

[firedragon]

I've reminded you what we're discussing ─ the dating of Mark.

Oh blu. Really? What do you think the discussion was so long mate?

You did not address the point I was making about you banking on Josephus and Jesus the son of Ananaius and the discrepancy you did not address between Jesus the brother of James and his time stipulated by Josephus etc etc.

I think you will ignore it again.

So anyway, there is no point in this discussion. Have a great day.

 

[blü 2]

Oh blu. Really? What do you think the discussion was so long mate?

Because you wandered off-topic.

You did not address the point I was making about you banking on Josephus and Jesus the son of Ananaius

I did indeed, Perhaps you should actually read my replies? ─ just as suggestion. I pointed out that Josephus is a fair historian and Mark is not, but rather a story-teller, for a start.

and the discrepancy you did not address between Jesus the brother of James and his time stipulated by Josephus etc etc.

That was irrelevant to the dating of Mark when you first mentioned it, and it's still irrelevant to the dating of Mark now you mention it for the third time.

So anyway, there is no point in this discussion. Have a great day.

I wouldn't say that. You now know that Mark was written in or after 75 CE, so that's progress. Be of good cheer and go well!

 

[firedragon]

I wouldn't say that. You now know that Mark was written in or after 75 CE, so that's progress. Be of good cheer and go well!

No. But go in peace.

 

[blü 2]

No. But go in peace.

No? Feel free to give it further thought.

All the best.

 

[firedragon]

No? Feel free to give it further thought.

All the best.

Maybe a new thread. What you say?

 

[blü 2]

Maybe a new thread. What you say?

I think I've already said. Or did you have another topic in mind?

 

[firedragon]

I think I've already said. Or did you have another topic in mind?

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

 

[blü 2]

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

I'd just be repeating myself.

 

[firedragon]

I'd just be repeating myself.

Great thanks.

 

[blü 2]

Great thanks.

No problemo!