rhutchin

OK. You are able to reach the conclusion that they may be false and the key word here is, "may." There is no reason why they are, or must be, necessarily false. Your conclusion that the events in the Bible may be false seems, in the absence of confirmation, to be driven by your desire for them to be false.

The darkness that occurred while Christ was on the cross was not from an eclipse. The Bible does not attribute it to an eclipse and no one should assume that to be the case. So, did darkness cover the land. The historical accounts that we find in the Bible say that it happened. Do you have another historical source saying that it did not happen?

rhutchin

Matthew and John were apostles and would have been eyewitnesses. Luke claims to have talked to people who were eyewitnesses although he may not have been an eyewitness to the events in Luke. Mark seems too young to have been an eyewitness but according to Papias, who wrote around 130 AD, Mark was a companion of Peter, the apostle, and wrote that which he heard Peter preach.

rhutchin

True, it is not exactly a courtroom trial. The analogy is not perfect. Instead of verbal testimony from live witnesses, you have the written testimony of people who have long passed away. The only cross examination possible is through reference to other written testimony disputing the claims that have been made.

xaxxat

What's your evidence that the gospels were written by their namesakes?

Ben C Smith

I have always thought that this phrase in Mark (which is definitely a stand-alone, grammatically speaking) was a reference to the reader either of the so-called little apocalypse or of the gospel of Mark itself, but it seems possible that Matthew, with his direct reference to the book of Daniel in context, might actually be referring to the reader of Daniel (that is, he mistakenly took the reader in Mark, on Marcan priority, to mean the reader of Daniel rather than the reader of the gospel or apocalypse).

But I am more sure that Mark is referring to the reader of Mark than I am that Matthew is referring to the reader of Daniel.

Ben.

makerowner

Your conclusion that the events in the Bible are true seems, in the absence of confirmation, to be driven by your desire for them to be true.

The darkness that occurred while Christ was on the cross was not from an eclipse. The Bible does not attribute it to an eclipse and no one should assume that to be the case. So, did darkness cover the land. The historical accounts that we find in the Bible say that it happened. Do you have another historical source saying that it did not happen?[/QUOTE]

Obviously there's no such source. "Dear diary, today there was no three hour darkness." What we do have is various records from the time, none of which mention this darkness, nor the slaughter of the innocents, the earthquake or zombies in Jerusalem, the census under Augustine, etc.

patcleaver

see http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/mark.htm

Fictional Mark probably had to be substantially revised (or written) after the Bar Kochba uprising of 132-136 CE.

1) In fictional Mark, Jesus has to explain why the Jewish war that ended in 73 and the Bar Kochba uprising that ended in 136 CE did not result in the end times. In Mark 13:7 Fictional Jesus says " when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet."

1) In fictional Mark 13:9, the author has fictional Jesus say "for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten…"

It was not until the 90s that the Jews first introduced a curse upon ‘apostates’ and Jewish hostility to the Jewish/Christian heretics was greatest between 100 - 120 AD.

2) In fictional Mark 13:14-18, the author has fictional Jesus say "The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: …And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter."

The abomination of desolation in Daniel 9.27, 11:31, 12:11 originally referred to Antiochus profaning the Temple of Jerusalem c.165 BC, with an image of Zeus.

In 132 CE Hadrian referring to himself as Antiochus, erected not merely a statue of Zeus/Jupiter, along with his own image, but an entire temple to the god on the former site of the Jewish Temple (destroyed in 70 CE). This was the catalyst for the second Jewish revolt (the Bar Kochba uprising).

The parenthetical phrase, 'Let him that readeth understand' does not make any sense in relation to the first Jewish War ending in 73 CE, but clearly fits the Bar Kochba uprising ending in 136 CE. If the author of Mark called the temple of Jupiter (erected in 132 CE) 'an abomination' it would have been regarded as seditious. He is afraid to say it even through a fictional character, so he hints "let him that readeth understand".

The phrase "let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: …And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter." Does not make any sense in relation to the first Jewish War that ended in 73 CE, but clearly fits an event during the Bar Kochba war that ended in 136 CE, when during the winter, the Roman armies partially withdrew to regroup, making a flight to the mountains possible.

3) In fictional Mark 13:22, the author has fictional Jesus say "false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

The best fit of a false Christ that showed signs and wonders was Simon ben Kosiba (called 'Bar Kochba' or ‘son of the star’ by his followers) who claimed to be the messiah and with the blessing of the High Priest, he led the war against Rome from 132-136. Among the wonders that he performed, he spewed fire from his mouth. "That famed Bar Chochebas, the instigator of the Jewish uprising, kept fanning a lighted blade of straw in his mouth with puffs of breath so as to give the impression that he was spewing out flames." --- Jerome (Against Rufinus, 3.31).

Matthew copies most of Mark so he just copied this to.

Johnny Skeptic

Why is that. Where do Matthew and John say that they were eyewitnesses?

Please be advised that there is a big difference between an alleged eyewitness and an actual eyewitness.

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, that would not tell us why he rose from the dead. What you need is reasonble evidence that what the New Testament says that Jesus said about himself is true.

You ought to know that there is not a necessary correlation between power and good character.

Solitary Man

Patcleaver - why are you still spamming the board with the exact same message when you didn't respond to criticism before?

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...70#post5078170

aa5874

There are no historical records for fiction, it is far easier to have historical records of events that actually occurred. If the 3-hr darkness was not an eclipse, then perhaps that's why no-one ever recorded it.