Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SkepticBoyLee · 05-03-2008, 12:55 PM

Many conservative Christian insists that the Gospels were written before 70AD and that Jesus phrophecied the destruction of the temple.

Are there other difficulties in datihng the gospels that earlier aside from the generally accepted position that, because the gospels allude to the Te,ples destruction then they must have been written after the event.

arnoldo · 05-03-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticBoyLee

Many conservative Christian insists that the Gospels were written before 70AD and that Jesus phrophecied the destruction of the temple.

Are there other difficulties in datihng the gospels that earlier aside from the generally accepted position that, because the gospels allude to the Te,ples destruction then they must have been written after the event.

When Yeshua prophesied about the temple being destroyed and being raised up in three days he was referring to Himself. IIRC there is another scripture which states the Word became flesh and tabernacled with us. . .

Toto · 05-03-2008, 11:27 PM

There are a number of indications that various gospels were written later than 70 CE. Luke-Acts depends on Josephus; I think some also claim that Mark relies on Josephus. There are references that fit the second century better than the first: the use of the title "rabbi," the practice of hand washing, the shape of the stone in front of the tomb.

Are you asking a general question, or do you want more specific information? Most of these issues have been discussed here before.

SkepticBoyLee · 05-05-2008, 09:40 AM

Sure, I know.

A fella on another board is giving me some nonsense about the dating of the gospels being earlier and that it is wrong for skeptics to simply disbelieve that the referance to the temple was prophecy by Jesus.

If he is going to play the prophecy angel them fine, but I wanted to know the various other reasons for the dating of the gospels around 70AD or later.

Toto · 05-05-2008, 11:40 AM

Do some searches in the SecWeb Library:

Some Improbabilities in Mark

Richard Carrier on the Empty Tomb

Quote:

There is another reason to doubt the tomb burial: the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus, yet it was often the case after 70 C.E., just when the gospels were being written.

Or go to this stickied thread at the top of this forum and scroll about half way down the page to

4.2 Issues with the Gospels

4.2.1 Dating the Gospels

and check the threads listed there:

Dating Matthew and Mark, Round tomb blocking stone as evidence for a late dating of Mark?, When were the gospels written, Gospel Author evidence, Did Jesus Really Exist?, Dating the Gospel of Thomas, Date and authorship of the Gospels, Jesus in the Talmud?, Were the Gospels written within the so called 'Eye Witness Period'?, NT writings substantiated before 100 CE, Dating Papias' attestation of GMark, What POSITIVE Evidence is there for a 1st Century dating of the gospels?, Shredding the Gospels, Dating of Mark [before 70 CE?]

John Kesler · 05-05-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticBoyLee

A fella on another board is giving me some nonsense about the dating of the gospels being earlier and that it is wrong for skeptics to simply disbelieve that the referance to the temple was prophecy by Jesus.

If he is going to play the prophecy angel them fine, but I wanted to know the various other reasons for the dating of the gospels around 70AD or later.

The gospels date themselves to an extent, since Matthew and Luke appear to know that the destruction of the temple did not bring about the end of the age. Notice that in Mark 13, the the temple's destruction and the end are linked, while Matthew and Luke treat these as distinct events.

Quote:

Mark 13
2Then Jesus asked him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down."

3 When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, 4" Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?"

Matthew 24
2 Then he asked them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down." 3 When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Luke 21
5 When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, 6"As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down." 7 They asked him, "Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign that this is about to take place?"...9 "When you hear of wars and insurrections, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately."

Additionally, Matthew adds parables with the apparent theme of the Parousia's delay--Matthew 24:44 "Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour." 24:50: "...the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know." 25:5..."As the bridegroom was delayed..." 13 "Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour." 19 "After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them"--and Luke discourages eschatological speculation (Acts 1:6-7).

05-03-2008, 12:55 PM	#1
SkepticBoyLee Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 759	The destruction of the Temple and the dating of the Gospels Many conservative Christian insists that the Gospels were written before 70AD and that Jesus phrophecied the destruction of the temple. Are there other difficulties in datihng the gospels that earlier aside from the generally accepted position that, because the gospels allude to the Te,ples destruction then they must have been written after the event.

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

05-03-2008, 11:27 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There are a number of indications that various gospels were written later than 70 CE. Luke-Acts depends on Josephus; I think some also claim that Mark relies on Josephus. There are references that fit the second century better than the first: the use of the title "rabbi," the practice of hand washing, the shape of the stone in front of the tomb. Are you asking a general question, or do you want more specific information? Most of these issues have been discussed here before.

05-05-2008, 09:40 AM	#4
SkepticBoyLee Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 759	Sure, I know. A fella on another board is giving me some nonsense about the dating of the gospels being earlier and that it is wrong for skeptics to simply disbelieve that the referance to the temple was prophecy by Jesus. If he is going to play the prophecy angel them fine, but I wanted to know the various other reasons for the dating of the gospels around 70AD or later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.