Fortuna

To answer the OP, yes, Mark 13 is most certainly talking about the seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, and of course there are the parallel passages in Matt and Luke. Luke seems to have a few more specifics.

Plus, the gadara demoniac story seems also to refer to events that happenned during the revolt, though more cleverly devised.(See Flavius Josephus's War and Placidus's pursuit of those Jews that fled Gadara and driving them into the current of the Jordon Book 4 chap 7, para 5)

I also believe them to be ex eventu. I believe this to be so because Jesus's so-called prophecies, like most of the miracle stories, all seem to have tanakh parallels.(i.e The feeding miracles = Elisha, the exorcisms=Solomon, calming the seas harkens back to Jonah). Add to this that there are many other passages that look like they are taken from Tanakh or are parallel. (i.e. The Isaiah/Mica opening of Mark, the casting of lots for the spoils). Then there are other literary devices that parallel. The Jesus-Barrabas parallel to the temple Yom Kippur scapegoat ritual. There are too many to list.

Were these miracles more unique, that is, sans Tanakh parallels, I could perhaps believe differently. But as it is, the literary purpose is just too pervasive and obvious. Jesus is being cast in the role of the Tanakh prophets complete with prophecy, miracles, parallel passages and several literary devices.

yalla

Roger,
I'm surprised, I didn't have you pegged for a Pink Floyd afficianado.
cheers
yalla

Clouseau

Ok. 'And by definition, it's the least likely scenario to be real.' That's not the same as what now follows:

'It's not that the supernatural "cannot occur", only that it is the least probable scenario.'

Outside the religious context.

Sauron

Really? Cite three verifiable examples of people writing down prophecies on the day they were fulfilled. Don't forget to provide proof of fulfillment as well.

Not in 70 CE. Too early.

Unlikely. The timeframe is too early, and your claim of "very significant following" is simply wrong.

Which has never been observed or recorded.

Since "measurement" includes observation as well as before-and-after information, any supernatural event MUST be susceptible to science.

It has never been observed or recorded. Therefore to claim that it *can* occur requires extraordinary evidence. There is no such evidence, and no reason to suspect that you have any to offer us, either.

There *might* be leprechauns - but they have never been observed or recorded. To hold out hope that they might still appear is simply wishful thinking.

Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus performed miracles, then the supernatural is susceptible to scientific experiment if Jesus would be willing to show up and perform miracles.

Johnny Skeptic

Why couldn't the destruction of the Temple have been added after the fact?

Sauron

Strawman. "Ignore" is not the goal. The goal here is to validate Clouseau's claim - basically, a rehash of the NT claim - with external evidence.

And yet, that is apparently what happened -- here we stand with little or no evidence of Jews noticing Christians at that time. How do you explain that, in light of the claim of a "success of the following of Jesus"?

Not tangent. Christians deliberately made themselves noticeable because their approach was viewed as un-Roman and disloyal (refusal to pay homage to the emperor, etc.)

Uh, no. Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. Not the end of the first century.

Johnny Skeptic

Lots? Why do you believe that?

Consider the following:

http://theocoid.blogspot.com/2006/11...stians_07.html

1 - ".......Nero's persecution had less to do with the nature of Christian identity than it did with his need to find some group to implicate in the fire of July
64."

2 - "Christians would have been suspect if only because the Jews seemed to be at unrest whenever a Christian appeared in their midst."

Johnny Skeptic: Item 1 suggests that it was not how many Christians there were in Rome that was important, but that Nero needed a scapegoat. Logically, the less numerous a group is, the easier it is to persecute them.

Regarding item 2, a smaller number of Christians were disturbing a larger number of Jews, so in order for Nero to better control the larger number of Jews, it was necessary for him to control the smaller number of Christians. Surely the Romans did not appreciate social unrest. Today, in many places in the world, a riot at a sporting event can sometimes be caused by only several people.

Roger, ancient Romans were much different than people are today. Today, if a group of people started a strange new religion, that would not cause much of a disturbance. Most people would simply conclude that a stupid new religion had been founded. Ancient Romans were not like that.

There is excellent evidence that in the first century, Christianity was widely rejected in the Middle East, Rome, and Greece.

At http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html, there is sufficient evidence that contradicts much of what you claim about the early Christian church. For instance, consider the following from the article:

On Tacitus
The Christ, by John Remsburg, pp. 39-43

In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:

“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man.” (Annals, Book XV, sec. 4)

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.

2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.

3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century,
made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them. .

4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.

6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.

7. At this time but one copy of the “Annals” existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus.

8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.

9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.

10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.

11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.

12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.

13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, “not even those of condemned criminals.”

14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the “Annals” believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative.

In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence.

Pliny the Younger

This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a pro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a letter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This letter contains the following:

“I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed. . . . . They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath-- not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it. . . . . I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.”

andrewcriddle

Claims 6 and 12 seem in conflict (unless one is making the very improbable claim that the account in Sulpicius is the original and that it was rewritten to sound Tacitaean and hostile to Christianity before being inserted in Tacitus. )

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: Do you believe that during Nero's reign Christians numbered in the thousands? If so, Consider the following:

Roman Perceptions of the Early Christians

1 - ".......Nero's persecution had less to do with the nature of Christian identity than it did with his need to find some group to implicate in the fire of July
64."

2 - "Christians would have been suspect if only because the Jews seemed to be at unrest whenever a Christian appeared in their midst."

Johnny Skeptic: Item 1 suggests that it was not how many Christians there were in Rome that was important, but that Nero needed a scapegoat. Logically, the less numerous a group is, the easier it is to persecute them.

Regarding item 2, a smaller number of Christians were disturbing a larger number of Jews, so in order for Nero to better control the larger number of Jews, it was necessary for him to control the smaller number of Christians. Surely the Romans did not appreciate social unrest. Today, in many places in the world, a riot at a sporting event can sometimes be caused by only several people.

Ancient Romans were much different than people are today. Today, if a group of people started a strange new religion, that would not cause much of a disturbance. Most people would simply conclude that a stupid new religion had been founded. Ancient Romans were not like that.