Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't set up my arguments in order to compel others to 'acknowledge' anything that is obviously open to various perspectives and can't be reduced to a deductive necessity. But a goalpost is simply what it is, a goalpost, not a proof.
I heard the term recently. It's part of the Gospels, right?
Oh, yes, that post-diction. It's a very odd name for a sacking.
I don't think the Gospels were written as late as the the end of Hadrian. Mark is probably just before or at the beginning of Hadrian's reign. The others not too long afterward.
I decided I needed to know what this was, so I looked up this "discourse" and read it (Mark 13, no copy cats for me). I am familiar with much of it (apparently). Didn't realize all of that was jammed together. (I may have to go back and read it again.) I don't know what Mark was trying to do (other than put a prediction into the words of Jesus), but even without that there is enough in that chapter to think it isn't true. (Who needs to reject miracles?)
Oh, boy. You're not one of those people...
Right.
Maybe it is, but one has to understand the overall history of the Jewish people, whether you believe the prophetic hype or not.
Positing that the Gospels were written closer to Emperor Hadrian's time is a minority view, even among skeptics.
Yep, it's all nicely stacked together for the consideration of future ears and eyes. As for "copies," I consider Matthew and Luke as forms of revision of what Mark wrote. They're not copies; they're interpretive amplifications of what might have been the alleged "Q" documents or something like that. As a historian, one doesn't discount later revisions, because sometimes they revise based on additional, maybe better information. That's how the craft of history works, or can work.
I actually respect that you took the time to look it up and read one of the Gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse for yourself. I'm wondering though, which part or parts of it pertaining to the Destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem you think aren't true?
The only historical reference I see is a foot note to the Hasmonean apocalyptic literature using that what of what thing. (I still don't know what it is. It sometimes reads like a person of some kind, but that doesn't make any sense to me.) There is also the earlier destruction of the temple.
Sorry, I skimmed the Hadrian article too quickly. He was *born* in 76 CE. I mistook that for the start of his reign.
That is the advantage of written works.
I didn't say "copies", but "copy cats". Imitators.
Can't say I buy the Q hypothesis.
What about text that gets inserted a couple centuries later?
Thanks.
It reads like an eyewitness account. That's part of the problem.
Some one who thinks the gospels were written prior to 70 CE. I thought it was pretty clear. It is the things that had yet to come to pass when "Mark" wrote it that damage the truthfulness of the text the most for me.
I implied nothing of the negation of miraculous claims. The post 70 CE authorship position *is* the majority position of biblical scholars, a category of academics that are overwhelmingly religious and mostly Christians. From my understanding the "academics" claiming earlier authorship are largely at "colleges" with statements of faith faculty must adhere to.
Partinobodycular, please tell me that you didn't use A.I. to draft this answer and that you haven't simply been listening too much to Mythvision.
The Abomination of Desolation is a prophetic blurb that originally appears in the book of Daniel, and Jesus apparently recycled it and applied it to His current day. ("Let the reader understand")
Ok. That makes sense, because my first go to here, before even pulling additional books off my shelf, is this article about the Gospel of Mark from Joshua Schachterle, which is posted on Bart Ehrman's website. My next go to sources would then be those that aver for a more traditionally minded time spread for the Gospels, but I'm not going to post that at the moment. We'll just ride for the moment with the link below:
www.bartehrman.com
Not only that.
I don't consider Matthew and Luke as "imitators," but rather revisors.
Historically speaking, I buy into the idea that there was some sort of body of literature pertaining to Jesus, maybe a list of some of His "sayings," rolling around among early 1st century Christians. Apparently, Paul knew of at least some of it. Whether or not it was specifically what some scholars surmise was the "Q documents" is another matter.
Textual Insertions are a different critical phenomenon within the Biblical texts than short term revisions and need to be studied and analyzed separately.
No, it doesn't have to be seen as reading as an eyewitness account. It can read as someone who has access to the memories, whether written or orally, of things that Jesus is remembered to have said. In fact, I don't stand firmly by the notion that the Gospels are by all necessity "eyewitness accounts." The humdinger here, though, is that historically speaking, they don't need to be in order to be cogent. Eyewitness status itself is no guarantee of much of anything and doesn't actually offer some prior or higher quality of actuality over and above what later but related 'researchers' might write. Eyewitness accounts just offer a smattering of plausibility, not ontological or historical guarantees.
I just wanted to make sure you weren't stigmatizing me and assuming that I'm coming at this from a "I belong to a Bible only reading type of church." 'Cuz I don't.
Partinobodycular, please tell me that you didn't use A.I. to draft this answer and that you haven't simply been listening too much to Mythvision.
Nah. Because without a metaphysical idea like the God of the Bible to support it, chances are, there's little or nothing actually or clearly grounding the concept of love, other than that people like to act out some notion of "love," in all sorts of ways.
Partinobodycular, please tell me that you didn't use A.I. to draft this answer and that you haven't simply been listening too much to Mythvision.
..... from all I've studied about World History and World Philosophy, I don't recall any clear example where a centerpiece of an ethical ideology among, say, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks or Romans, or various Asian peoples, demands that people love "even their enemies." Do you know of any?
There are a number of people today who do expect that we subscribe to the notion of Human Rights as it is currently defined and has been defined for the past several decades since the end of World War 2.
The quality of Love that Christians find in Jesus is also found within those of other spiritual paths. It's interesting, at least to me, in the way that Divine Compassionate Love can not be limited. Myth stores as they are retold are a way of pointing us to things like the Divine experience that Christians find in Jesus. Or any other religion where God is brought to this Earth.
Resisting the temptation for a sarcastic 'Gosh. Really?' I would suggest that you take each ethical suggestion, from whatever source, on its merits. As you personally see fit. As you say, you have to run everything through the wash. If a couple of views are found to be incompatible, then it's up to you to decide which you think is the more correct.
I don't think so. That war and the myth that grew around it was not about the Divine experience or of the bringing the experience of God to earth.
