sotto voce

They won't make sense if Jesus' statements are snipped until they don't make sense. They won't make sense if John's statements are simply snipped.

ApostateAbe

I agree.

sotto voce

Will Wiley

Where do you see Luke then?

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

aeebee50

I assume this was the second recorded use of Jesus.

aa5874

Your argument is a Bait and Switch argument. You ADVERTISE that one will NOT have to read between the lines and use imagination but you SELL us your imagination by reading between the lines.

Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost in the Canon so you MUST have imagined that Jesus was a mere man.

There could NOT be any historical evidence that Jesus was a human being and a mere doomsday apocalyptic preacher in the Canon because if that was so the people of antiquity would have known that the Jesus story and the claims by Paul were Total Fiction.

If there was actual historical evidence in the Canon that Jesus was a mere man then Jesus could NOT have been a UNIVERSAL Savior of Mankind and claimed to be the Creator of heaven and earth.

The Canon was composed with supposed evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Holy Ghost, the Logos and God the Creator, that exhibited his God like attributes by carrying out Implausible miracles, Walking on water, Transfiguring, resurrection and ascension.

The Canon MUST NOT, NOT, NOT contain any evidence that Jesus was a mere man because such evidence would have destroyed the Christian Faith.

The Jesus cult was NOT likely to have been initiated by Known Blatant Lies.

Jesus as a KNOWN mere man who did NOTHING but preached doom and gloom in Galilee does NOT explain the Pauline writings.

How is it possible that the Pauline writer could have LIED about the doom and gloom man ALL over the Roman Empire for over 17 years UNDETECTED???

It is just TOTAL Nonsense that the Pauline writer could have convinced people of the Roman Empire that a doom and gloom Jewish man was the END of the LAW and the dead Jewish man had a NAME above every name in the Roman Empire, in Heaven and under the earth.

It is MOST absurd that a Pauline character preached that a mere dead Jewish man was the Son of God during the reign of Gaius who himself believed he was a GOD.

A known doomsday man is UTTER BS.

No book of the NT Canon has NOT ever been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

No book of the NT Canon is historically reliable.

We already know how the Jesus cult was most likely started.

We HAVE the DATED evidence.

The Jesus stories were FIRST composed sometime in the 2nd century and people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories that Jesus was the Son of God.

The Canon is just a collection of Myth Fables Composed sometime NO earlier than the 2nd century.

I am done with your IMAGINARY evidence.

Grog

I agree that when you line up the evidence in the way that you have, it appears that the case is strong. However, you make assumptions regarding the dates that need to be supported. For example, what makes 2 Peter necessarily later than gMark? I think the literary dependence of Mark on Josephus is evident. Dating gMark to before 90 is therefore difficult (in my view). So if gMark is written 50 to 60 years after the death of Jesus, wouldn't there already be a need to explain the problem?

I don't see a clear reason to make gMark earlier than 2 Peter.


This is not necessarily a weakness. To me, the greatest weakness is the assumptions you have made about the relative dating of the texts.

ApostateAbe

I certainly think Luke has one foot in that territory! In addition to that passage in Luke you cited, we have Luke 9:27.

But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.’

The peculiar thing about this passage is that it was sourced from Mark 9:1, which reads:

And he said to them, 'Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'

Notice the omission of "with power." Luke was muting the physical destruction of the promised apocalypse. By Luke's time, the apocalypse had reached its expiration date, and it was embarrassing. So, Luke starts a trend that was followed by the gospel of John and the gospel of Thomas. He makes the coming of the kingdom of God to be something spiritual, not physical.

aa5874

ApostateAbe claimed that we will not have to make any assumptions when from the very start he has ASSUMED that the Gospels are historically accurate and have ASSUMED the dates of composisition for the Canon.

The Gospels are NOT historically reliable and there have NOT been found any New Testament writings that have been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

What this means is that we have NO evidence whatsoever that any claims about Jesus is historically accurate and no evidence whatsoever that any author of the Canon was a contemporary of Tiberius, Pilate and Caiaphas.

And even in the same Canon, Jesus was NOT a doom and gloom preacher. He NEVER did preach doom and gloom, he preached GOOD NEWS in the Canon.

Sinaiticus gMark There is NO doom and gloom Jesus in the Canon.

ApostateAbe

The two passages of Mark that I cited in the OP indicate the maximum date of Mark. They reveal the author's opinion that the apocalypse would happen before "this generation" of Jesus passes away and before "some standing here" taste death. Since Jesus preached at about 30 CE, we can be generous and add 60 years, to give a maximum date of 90 CE. That is the decade when the gospel of John was written, which completely respins the apocalypse and makes an excuse for the deadline. The minimum date is the destruction of Jerusalem, which is 70 CE.

The passage I cited in 2 Peter indicates its minimum date. The "scoffers" would not exist until well after the deadline, which would give it a minimum date of 90 CE.

I don't know about the arguments that Mark was dependent on Josephus. Bold claim!