JamesBannon

I see no particular reason why we shouldn't admit the possibility of earlier textual sources. It may be that, in recording the gospels, certain event were simply omitted from the record for whatever reason. The question then becomes would the discovery of earlier written material lend any more credence to the accounts. I rather doubt it.

Dyz

If the gospel writers created a fictional Jesus to be the fulfillment of the OT prophecies why did they name him Jesus instead of Immanuel?

If the gospel writers reported on an the actual figure Jesus why is it inconsequential that the messiah's name was prophecied to be Immanuel?

Dreadnought

WEE! A stupid questions thread!
You can consider all your questions above asked by me. Further questions:

1. Why is all the fuzz about Paul and his letters. Are the others (James, John, Peter, Jude etc) considered inferior in any way?

2. Is there a reliable (unbiased) source for the dating of all the books of the NT?

3. Are the letters by John, James and Peter considered by scholars to be written by the disciples of those names? If not, any ideas on who wrote them?

4. I've heard a lot about interpolations in the Gospels, but little about the letters. Are they considered mostly (entirely?) genuine or is it just that they are of secondary interest because they say so little about Jesus?

5. Are the letters entirely without reference to the life and works of Jesus other than the crucifixion? (Couldn't find any myself, but there may be references I've not understood)

6. Why is there so little about Jesus in the letters if they predate the gospels? (Do they?)

7. Why does Paul usually write Christ Jesus while the others use Jesus Christ?

Respectfully yours

pharoah

Why hammer your readers on the head with something that they can already see came true? And besides, only GMark is really relevant here, since GLuke and GMatt slavishly copied his apocalyptic passage. We can't tell anything about the dating of those two from this pericope, other than the fact that they're later than GMark.

The reason that I and many other skeptics assume that Biblical prophecy is a failure is that the gospels themselves are full of failed prophecies of Jesus about his second coming, not because of any preconceived bias against the supernatural. Why would I think that he got so many other prophecies wrong but got the temple prophecy right?

Layman

So the Gospel of Matthew makes a special point of noting that the kind of animal Jesus rode into a particular city was a fulfillment of prophecy but does not care to note that Jesus' prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem was fulfilled?

Is it not more likely that the author of Matthew does not note the fulfillment of that one because 1) it had not been fulfilled yet, or 2) it had been fulfilled so recently that it was an overwhelmingly obvious point to the audience? An audience not as familiar with such events or too far removed from them would be one more likely in need of a side note that it was fulfilled.

Amaleq13

Given the enormous and traumatic impact of the event, I question how quickly it would be forgotten to the point that an explicit reminder would be needed.

Layman

Traumatic for who? The audience of Mark's gospel?

Toto is the one suggesting no one would have cared later in the second century ("too far in the past and too geographically distant"). If that is true, I would expect something more obvious, not less, as Toto seems to think.

Amaleq13

Everyone in the region, I would think, but most especially the Jews who had their families and friends slain and were forced to move.

I tend to agree that geographic distance and that amount of time lapsed should require a more explicit reference.

Layman

Of course, I agree. Do you place such people in Mark's anticipated primary audience?

Not sure if I would use the word require, but it is suggestive.

Toto

The first is fulfillment of the prophesies of the Hebrew Scriptures. There are notes throughout the gospels about this sort of prophetic fulfillment, since there seems to have been a large group of people searching the Hebrew Scriptures for clues about the Messiah. The second could be a made up prophesy - Paul doesn't know anything about it. The ability of someone to prophesy was not necessarily an indication that he was the Messiah.

It is more likely that Jerusalem had been destroyed, and this was so obvious it did not need to be repeated. Jerusalem was not completely destroyed until after the Bar Kochba rebellion, and it remained obviously destroyed for some centuries after that.

But Peter wanted this thread to be about questions, not discussion.