Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 09-30-2007, 08:36 PM

It's very important to keep a strict line of demarcation when discussing the "gospels" - they're not a unified source, but three different documents. Prithee, which "villain" died "on stage" in the earliest gospel?

I was merely responding to your statement that Mark was a drama. Nomenclature is everything.

aa5874 · 09-30-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

I don't know if this is a question that has been discussed before.

Mark 13:30 says "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away before these things take place", with "these things" referring to the end days and the return of the Son of Man.

Considering that most people date Mark to be post 70CE, this sounds like a very odd thing for a MJ to say. Since Mark placed the crucifixion around 30CE, then "this generation" would have mostly gone by 70CE. Mark would be attributing an unfulfilled prophecy to a MJ, when in fact Mark could have invented something completely different. He did not have to be specific in his timing.

If on the other hand, Mark had an HJ in mind, then he could be quoting what he believed to be an actual prophecy made by the HJ (even if it turned out to be wrong). It's not clear why he would include it, though.

Either way, it's not clear why Mark would write this if he was writing post 70CE, but it seems to make a little more sense if he had an HJ in mind.

Or could this be explained some other way with the MJ hypothesis?

It is the HJ hypothesis that has all the problems and does not make sense. In 'Church History' book 2.15 by Eusebius, this prominent Church father claims that gMark was written while Philo of Alexandria was still alive, that is, sometime at or before 50CE.

'Church History' bk2.15, "And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written and first establish Churches in Alexandria.
And the multitudes of believers, both men and women............were so great, that Philo thought it worhwhile to describe their pursuits......"

Philo is thought to have died circa 50CE.
The history of gMark is highly speculative, and it is one of the reasons I reject the historical Jesus, the son of a Ghost.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-30-2007, 08:36 PM	#51
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	It's very important to keep a strict line of demarcation when discussing the "gospels" - they're not a unified source, but three different documents. Prithee, which "villain" died "on stage" in the earliest gospel? I was merely responding to your statement that Mark was a drama. Nomenclature is everything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.