aa5874

You don't make much sense at this point. You respond to my post and still claim I am ignored.

Your statement is both illogical and baseless.

Please, forget the rhetoric. What 1st century event in Galilee are you talking about???

Please, identify a Jesus story that was written in the 1st century.

Please, identify a 1st century non-apologetic source that corroborated any event with Jesus and the disciples in the 1st century.

I will no longer entertain the use of Canonised Myth Fables with Fake authors and dated outside the 1st century as sources of history.

We must move forward on BC&H.

Credible Sources are Mandatory to reconstruct the past.

Grog

You do know, you've commented on it. The apocalyptic comment you refer to could be an anachronism. Sort of like Mark 13:14's reference to "the reader." Jesus is addressing those of Mark's time, not those of his supposed time in the 30's.

sotto voce

It is precisely that concern that makes the word 'we' relative. The Thessalonians were concerned about departed saints, and Paul shares an assumption, for the sake of their tacit immediate perception, for the sake of argument, that they would be alive when Jesus returned. But he goes on to mention their wise familiarity with 'times and events' in this very connexion, so there is no need to suppose that either they or Paul were actually expecting an imminent return. All that Paul specifies is that the return will be sudden and unexpected, when people have supposed that such a return is not going to happen at all. This he does, not to inform, but to remind, warn and encourage, as many thousands of preachers have done since.

If it applies at all, this applies every bit as much now as it did when written. The 'appointed time' was deemed certain by the resurrection, and this view of marriage, along with everything else of the concerns of the world, is repeated without reference to end times:

'The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower.' Jas 1:9-10 NIV

Here James quotes the OT; though if there was need to be unworldly before the ministry of Jesus, there was certainly that need in the light of it.

This is nothing at all to do with end times, but with just the fates of two disciples. All that can be learned from it is that Peter would be martyred, and John would not. In fact a later comment actually presupposes absence of belief in an imminent second coming.

This is egregious manipulation of the canonical gospel text, that indicates that the kingdom is a personal, spiritual one, concerning practical, everyday obedience. It is nothing whatever to do with last times.

Quite the reverse.

Not the apostle Peter?

But anyway, whoever wrote this, it is not in conflict with anything else in the NT, because there is no certain expectation of imminent second coming, anywhere in the NT, to contradict. (And again, it quotes the OT in support, so it doesn't matter much who wrote it.)

ApostateAbe

The gospel of Mark would be addressing Mark's audience in Mark's time, and it is unlikely that Mark would be quoting Jesus for an apocalyptic deadline that had failed at the time of Mark's writing, at least not without considerable spin.

aa5874

Please, when was Mark's time??? You very well know that Mark is a FAKE author of gMark.

In fact, there are TWO gospels according to Mark and it can be seen that at least one is a FORGERY.

No gospel called according to gMark has ever been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE by Paleography or C14.

This also means that that the author of gMark was most likely NOT a contemporary of Pilate, Tiberius and Caiaphas.

Virtually ALL the events with Jesus in gMark is either total fiction or implausible.

Grog

Thus I called it an anachronism. Jesus is directly addressing the audience of "Mark's" time. It is Mark's generation that will not pass, not the generation of the 30's. This follows on the anachronisms littered throughout Mark 13.

aa5874

Please tell us of the deadline in gMark???

What year did the author of gMark claim the apocalypse would happen???

Again, you IMAGINE your own deadline WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Even 1600 years later some Christians today still expect an apocalypse even after reading gMark.

ApostateAbe

OK, sorry I misunderstood you before. I think Mark had in mind (and I think Mark's audience would have in mind) Jesus' own generation, not Mark's generation, and that interpretation would be reinforced by Mark 9:1, where Jesus says that "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." The gospel of John interpreted the "rumour" the same way, because it was a "rumour" concerning the death of one of the disciples.

aa5874

May I remind you that even Scholars claim that there was likely no author called Mark so it may be a bit mis-leading for you to continue to use the name "Mark".

All the authors of the NT Canon are FAKES and NO dated NT Manuscript is from the 1st century.

It is most remarkable that you still use the Fake names provided by the Church.

Unless you can show that the author of gMark was in fact a contemporary of Pilate, Caiaphas and Tiberius c 26-36 CE then you are merely Speculating.

We cannot continue to allow unchecked speculation and imagination.

First ESTABLISH the Credibility and date of composition of gMark.

James The Least

Exactly. Once you remove the massive and unwarranted assumption that Mark is somehow preserving oral traditions from the 30s, you begin to realize that Mark is simply addressing the audience of his day (whenever that was), with the concerns and ideas of that time.