Did You Chew the Head off of the Bunny?

[AV1611VET]

Something written in AD 1611 "prophecized" something that happened in AD 70?

AD 70?

Don't you mean AD 33?

 

[TLK Valentine]

AD 70?

Don't you mean AD 33?

No, I said prophecised --the event being prophecized happened in AD 70.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I said prophecised --the event being prophecized happened in AD 70.

Sorry ... you're going to have to start making sense, please.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry ... you're going to have to start making sense, please.

It's quite simple -- let me slow it down for you.

You mentioned that Jesus (allegedly speaking around AD 33) prophecized an event which happened in AD 70 -- the destruction of the temple.

I pointed out that scholars debate when this particular prophecy was written down -- some of them believe that it was written close to (if not after) the time it actually came to pass.

Now, here's where you got lost in your own musings -- my point was that a "prophecy" tends to lose some of its impact if it's all but unknown to us until after the prophecized event happens -- I trust I don't have to explain why; even you should be able to get it at this point.

Apparently you didn't, however, since you replied by saying that the text you quoted wasn't written until AD 1611 -- centuries after the events of prophecy came to pass. What you thought you was going to accomplish by this is unclear.

All caught up now?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Indeed -- if that particular theory is true, then it would be unlikely. Other theories which suggest that Theophilius is not Theophilius ben Ananus include one that says the term is a mistranslation -- rather that being addressed to a person with that particular name, the name's translation -- "Lover of God" was suggested instead.

With that in mind the possibility that it was written around AD 70 is less unlikely.

Theophilius aside, we would still have to explain why such huge events - like the destruction of the Jewish temple and the persecution of Christians by Nero - were left out of Acts if it was written around or after 70 AD.

You mentioned that Jesus (allegedly speaking around AD 33) prophecized an event which happened in AD 70 -- the destruction of the temple.

I pointed out that scholars debate when this particular prophecy was written down -- some of them believe that it was written close to (if not after) the time it actually came to pass.

Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple is mentioned in Matthew 24 - Matthew being either the oldest or second oldest of the gospels (thought to be written around 50 AD), before either the gospel of Luke or Acts.

Furthermore even if Jesus' prophecy was simply "made up" after the temple was destroyed to make him look better, then presumably the author would have added something along the lines of "And then the temple was destroyed, just like Jesus said it would be." After all, it would be ridiculous to make up a prophecy and then forget to validate it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Theophilius aside, we would still have to explain why such huge events - like the destruction of the Jewish temple and the persecution of Christians by Nero - were left out of Acts if it was written around or after 70 AD.

Agreed -- it would be unusual, but not necessarily a dealbreaker.

Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple is mentioned in Matthew 24 - Matthew being either the oldest or second oldest of the gospels (thought to be written around 50 AD), before either the gospel of Luke or Acts.

Matthew is definitely at least the second oldest, judging by the amount of material he lifts from Mark. Third, if we include Paul's letters.

As I said before, there's a pretty wide margin as to when the Gosepls were written -- your estimate come along the early side of what I've heard. The ballpark figure I've heard puts Mark anywhere between AD 60-70 -- and Matthew comes after that.

Furthermore even if Jesus' prophecy was simply "made up" after the temple was destroyed to make him look better, then presumably the author would have added something along the lines of "And then the temple was destroyed, just like Jesus said it would be." After all, it would be ridiculous to make up a prophecy and then forget to validate it.

Unless they saw no need to validate it. Remember, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." If the Gospel writers believed that the Kingdom was imminent, then they would not see the need to write for future generations -- their audience was already painfully aware of the destruction of the Temple.

Think about it in modern terms -- how many years will it be before Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, or 9/11 need to be validated?

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said before, there's a pretty wide margin as to when the Gosepls were written -- your estimate come along the early side of what I've heard. The ballpark figure I've heard puts Mark anywhere between AD 60-70 -- and Matthew comes after that.

Except Luke points out that people had already been writing about the life of Christ, well before he did.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

In addition, some were even scribes.

Matthew 8:19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except Luke points out that people had already been writing about the life of Christ, well before he did.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

I don't see anything in there about writing. The most likely place for Jesus' deeds to be remembered would be in the Synagogue, where it would become part of the Hebrew oral tradition.

In addition, some were even scribes.

Matthew 8:19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

Great! Who was he, and did he write anything down?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see anything in there about writing.

I don't doubt that one tiny bit.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't doubt that one tiny bit.

...and ever if there were, Luke has already confessed that it's not his own. By his own words, he's compiling second, third, fourth, etc. -hand sources.

 

[Joshua0]

Something written in AD 1611 "prophecized" something that happened in AD 70?

Cute, but still an oxymoron. Something that happened in AD 70 was made relevant for the people living in AD 1611 and is still being made relevant for you and the people alive today in this day and age. Despite your attempts to try and claim that recorded history is not relevant to us today. For example this quote comes to mind: "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them."

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Agreed -- it would be unusual, but not necessarily a dealbreaker.

Not quite, but pretty close. Leaving out such huge events as these would be like writing a book on native American history and leaving out colonialism.

As I said before, there's a pretty wide margin as to when the Gosepls were written -- your estimate come along the early side of what I've heard. The ballpark figure I've heard puts Mark anywhere between AD 60-70 -- and Matthew comes after that.

That really would be a miracle, considering Mark the Evangelist died in 68 AD, or possibly even as early as 62 AD.

Think about it in modern terms -- how many years will it be before Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, or 9/11 need to be validated?

That ... doesn't make sense. What I mean is, is that if Jesus' prophecy was added after the destruction of the temple, then why not add the destruction of the temple itself to prove the so-called prophecy had been fulfilled? Nobody prophecised Pearl harbour or 9/11 and they have already been heavily documented many times, so I don't really see what comparison you're trying to make.

(I also doubt the Apostle's thought the end fo the world was coming, considering Jesus himself said he had no idea when the world was ending.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Cute, but still an oxymoron.

Yeah, that was more or less my entire point.

Something that happened in AD 70 was made relevant for the people living in AD 1611 and is still being made relevant for you and the people alive today in this day and age.

How so? Hebrews tried to to revolt against Romans; Hebrews got spanked.

Paul tried to warn them that would happen if they tried it -- one could argue that Jesus did too -- and it doesn't take divine insight to see it coming.

Despite your attempts to try and claim that recorded history is not relevant to us today. For example this quote comes to mind: "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them."

You truly don't know/don't care what's being discussed here, do you?

Go back to your OP bunnies, JohnR7.

 

[AV1611VET]

...and ever if there were, Luke has already confessed that it's not his own. By his own words, he's compiling second, third, fourth, etc. -hand sources.

Let me get this straight.

1) Jesus, in AD 33, says the Temple is going to be destroyed.

2) A scribe writes His words down and delivers them to Luke.

3) Luke includes them in his Gospel.

4) You claim it is a secondhand source?

Have I got that right?

Didn't Moses do the exact same thing with the book of Genesis? only in his case the authors of the documents had already died?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cute, but still an oxymoron. Something that happened in AD 70 was made relevant for the people living in AD 1611 and is still being made relevant for you and the people alive today in this day and age. Despite your attempts to try and claim that recorded history is not relevant to us today. For example this quote comes to mind: "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them."

I think he's talking himself out of fully-understanding what happened.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not quite, but pretty close. Leaving out such huge events as these would be like writing a book on native American history and leaving out colonialism.

Depends on the topic of the book, wouldn't it?

That really would be a miracle, considering Mark the Evangelist died in 68 AD, or possibly even as early as 62 AD.

Well then, given the wide range for the man's death, a wide range for his work isn't so implausible, is it?

That ... doesn't make sense. What I mean is, is that if Jesus' prophecy was added after the destruction of the temple, then why not add the destruction of the temple itself to prove the so-called prophecy had been fulfilled?

Because anyone even remotely connected to the Jewish world at the time would've known it -- since these writers were probably not writing for posterity, why include the excruciatingly obvious?

Nobody prophecised Pearl harbour or 9/11 and they have already been heavily documented many times, so I don't really see what comparison you're trying to make.

But if they had been prophecized, would it really have been necessary to point out, oh, yeah, and then it happened?

Think of it this way -- how many New Yorkers had to be told on 9/12/01 that something bad happened at the World Trade Center?

(I also doubt the Apostle's thought the end fo the world was coming, considering Jesus himself said he had no idea when the world was ending.)

Jesus said he was unsure of the exact time, but he did specifically say it would happen within "that" generation. We, with the benefit of hindsight, creatively interpreted him to mean the "generation" of mankind, but the people who were actually there and heard it with their own ears might have taken it somewhat more literally.

In other words, he couldn't tell them it was going to happen next Tuesday afternoon, if that's what you're asking, but he did tell them it was soon.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let me get this straight.

1) Jesus, in AD 33, says the Temple is going to be destroyed.

Correction #1 -- According to authors writing decades after the fact, Jesus, in AD 33, says the Temple is going to be destroyed.

OK, let's continue.

2) A scribe writes His words down and delivers them to Luke.

Correction #2 -- What scribe? Now you're making things up. Luke says he got the information from... somewhere.

Just because he's vague on the details doesn't give you the right to manufacture them.

3) Luke includes them in his Gospel.

Indeed -- you're batting 1 for 3 here.

4) You claim it is a secondhand source?

Have I got that right?

Indeed -- Luke included information that he freely admits he did not personally witness... that's the very definition of second-hand.

Seriously, AV, you need to have this explained to you?

Didn't Moses do the exact same thing with the book of Genesis? only in his case the authors of the documents had already died?

I don't know -- did Moses do that?

In the interest of humoring you, let's assume Moses did -- he took documents that he did not write concerning events he did not witness, and compiled them.

Of course, since we know nothing about what those documents were or who wrote them (actually, we can speculate, but your pride won't allow that) -- they're not exactly what we can call "primary sources."

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think he's talking himself out of fully-understanding what happened.

I think you and "Joshua" are trying to talk yourselves into it.

Just because you sound clever to yourselves doesn't mean you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you and "Joshua" are trying to talk yourselves into it.

Just because you sound clever to yourselves doesn't mean you are.

Fair enough -- I'll leave you to your own level of understanding as to what happened.

Just don't expect me to lower myself down to it as well.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Well then, given the wide range for the man's death, a wide range for his work isn't so implausible, is it?

Somehow I still doubt he could have written his Gospel after he died. I know the Bible talks about miracles but still.

Because anyone even remotely connected to the Jewish world at the time would've known it -- since these writers were probably not writing for posterity, why include the excruciatingly obvious?
...
Think of it this way -- how many New Yorkers had to be told on 9/12/01 that something bad happened at the World Trade Center?

The argument that the Jews intentionally wouldn't have bothered writing about the destruction of the temple is incorrect because one of the eyewitness accounts we have comes from Titus Flavius Josephus - a Roman Jew and a soldier in the Jewish revolt. Or to use the 9/11 comparison, nobody needed to be told, but did that stop the newspapers running it as their cover story the next day?

You're also incorrectly assuming the New Testament writers were writing exclusively for other Jews - they weren't. One of the reason they caused such a stir was because they were inviting gentiles into their religion. The Galatians for example were celts, not semites.

But if they had been prophecized, would it really have been necessary to point out, oh, yeah, and then it happened?

Well yes, that is the entire point of a prophecy. A prophecy which doesn't happen isn't a prophecy.