Ben C Smith

I do not think that much should be clear to you. Many medieval saints were credited with miracles by their contemporaries and indeed by their very companions.

Ben.

ETA: For convenience, I have dug up an old thread of mine on the topic.

aa5874

Roger Pearse, whenever I challenge a position, in this case the date of the writing of the book called Mark, I do so not because I think my position is absolutely right, but to get a feedback on how others view my position.

I also observe the data or arguments given by those of the opposite position and make determinations of their validity, and then either maintain or abandon my position.

Even if the text in Mark 13:1-2 appears to be insignifcant to some for making the passage a post -70 CE writing, I am eagerly waiting for those who claim it to be pre- 70 CE to give some significant data or information to support such a view.

The results of the polls are not cast in stone and are subject to change with the introduction of reliable data, not refutations alone.

Gooch's dad

Yes, I think it is post-70 CE, because Jesus couldn't see into the future.

That isn't circular reasoning, it is simply rational. It *is* circular reasoning if a Christian uses this passage as evidence of the divinity of Jesus, because it does assume the ability to prophecy, in an argument that is trying to show that Jesus was divine (i.e., could prophecy).

Toto

A more complete reference would be appreciated.

Do you mean:

Date Of Mark's Gospel: Insight From The Law In Earliest Christianity (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series) (or via: amazon.co.uk) reviewed by Stephen Carlson here?

James Crossley: His blog - Earliest Christian History

God Fearing Atheist

Uh huh.

rlogan

I alluded to my previous statements about this and need to explain more fully here why you are not addressing the subject.

Your OP there was extremely vague, and when pressed all you could provide was that some have done "healings" just like the modern shysters I suppose - and animals could be seen "listening" to them.

The miracles placed in the hands of Jesus are fundamentally different in a number of respects.

They are specific, falsifiable third party claims of stratospheric magnitude. Bring to me examples that satisfy all those criteria.

Consider the two thousand pigs driven into the sea, for example - not talking to a horse. This would have represented the largest lawsuit in the history of Galilee. If you tell this story around Galilee at the time of the alleged occurrence then it is easily falsified for lack of ability to supply the actual facts of the matter. Like who - for it is not an owner of pigs telling the story, it is Mark alleging a third party owner.

Consider bringing back to life the daughter of a high public official, not "healing". Again, it is not the public official telling this story, or the daughter - but Mark. Something that would be easily falsifiable if told in time and place.

Got some examples of people coming back to life? Heh. Didn't think so. How about feeding thousands of people with a couple of twinkies and a bag of chips? Jesus did that twice.

I cite the miracles of the all-time champion Jesus, and you bring me someone who talks to a horse.

Cheers.

aguy2

This is off topic, but I have been seriously concidering that the Saul/Pauls might have been a "black psy-ops" originially intended to intensify the split between the Pharisee and the Secducees.

Biblical scholars seem to think there where 2 authors of the Epistles of Paul. I think there is a descent possibility that the synthesis between Greek and Judaic thought that is the basis of practical Christianity was developed and written by one Suetonious Paulinius, and his 'onager' front man Catus D.

I think they, along with the emporer to be Titus, formed a semi-privately funded Legionary destabalizing team. They didn't have have drugs to finance them, like the modern CIA, but they did have the contract to supply tents to the army.

The biggest problem I am having with conjecture is that the historical record shows Paulinius and Catus in Britainia in 61 CE, while the new testament says that Saul/Paul disappeared in Rome in 62 CE.
aguy2

Toto

The New Testament doesn't actually say that Saul/Paul or Peter disappeared in Rome in 62 CE. That is a later Christian reconstruction or legend.

But I'm not sure why that would bother you if you think that the whole thing was a fraud.

Doug Shaver

After the Jewish War. A long time after. There is no unambiguous evidence for the existence of any of the canonical gospels before the middle of the second century. We might reasonably suppose that they must have been in circulation for a few years before then, but there is no reason to assign a high probability to the traditional datings.

Ben C Smith

Josephus, Wars 6.5.3 §289-299:

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself, while they did not attend nor give credit to the wonders that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

[A] Thus there was a star resembling a sword which stood over the city, and a comet that continued a whole year.

[B] Thus also before the rebellion of the Jews and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people had come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it appeared to be bright day time, which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

[C] At the same festival also a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

[D] Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of brass and vastly heavy and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it. He then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the sign foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them.

[E] Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared. I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signs. For before sunset chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding cities.

[F] Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court], as was their custom, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying: Let us remove hence.

Augustine of Hippo, City of God 22.8:

In the same place [from context, in Hippo], too, the son of a man, Irenaeus, a tax gatherer among us, took ill and died. And while his body was lying lifeless and the last rites were being prepared, amidst the weeping and mourning of all, one of the friends who were consoling the father suggested that the body should be anointed with the oil of the same martyr [from context, Stephen]. It was done, and he revived.

Likewise Eleusinus, a man of tribunitian rank among us, laid his infant son, who had died, on the shrine of the martyr, which is in the suburb where he lived, and, after prayer, which he poured out there with many tears, he took up his child alive.

Are these better examples?

Ben.