Where Did the 4 Gospels and Acts Come From?

[doubtingmerle]

I think that OP has some interesting points however I would argue that the supposition of a late date may be ideologically motivated rather than particularly honest historiography.

Ah, the problem is with my motives?

Wait, why didn't you ask me about my motives instead of telling me what my motives are? All you would have had to do was ask.

My motives are to find the truth. There are reasons to believe the gospels and Acts were written later. The epistles of Paul make it appear he never knew of them, hence they mostly like did not exist when Paul wrote.

The references to the fall of Jerusalem betrays a late date. Could it just be accurate prediction ahead? Not really, for Mark 13 is accurate about the fall of Jerusalem, but totally misses the mark when it says the Son of Man would return soon after the fall. If the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem was so prescient, why does the author so completely fail to see that the end did not come as predicted? It seems clear he knew of the fall of Jerusalem because it was history, but missed the timing of the coming of the Son of Man because he was not a good predictor.

Also Luke betrays a knowledge of Josephus, putting his gospel late.

At any rate the gospels aren't well attested until the second century, so any attempt to date them earlier cannot be confirmed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The church was in broad agreement about the authorship and dating of the 4 gospels as being within a generation after Christs Ascension.

OK, you are referring to the church after about 180 AD, yes? Because before that we don't really hear anything significant about the authorship and dating of the gospels. How do you know the people who said this are telling the truth?

Lukes gospel is based in part on the testimony of Mary hence the extra detail around the birth narratives.

What is your source that Luke used Mary's testimony? How do you know he didn't make it up?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Ah, the problem is with my motives?

Wait, why didn't you ask me about my motives instead of telling me what my motives are? All you would have had to do was ask.

My motives are to find the truth. There are reasons to believe the gospels and Acts were written later. The epistles of Paul make it appear he never knew of them, hence they mostly like did not exist when Paul wrote.

It's great that your motives are "truth", I don't doubt that these are your motives.

My points were that the motivation within academia to date the gospels late derives partly from a dubious romanticism inherent in the form/source criticism of the German higher criticism approach. Your motivation is truth, theirs was in a sense to remove the historical Jesus and the earliest Christian religion from its Judaistic framework. In a sense, it was a Hegelian historiography which placed Jesus within a revival of Hebraismus over against the corrupted Judaismus.

The references to the fall of Jerusalem betrays a late date. Could it just be accurate prediction ahead? Not really, for Mark 13 is accurate about the fall of Jerusalem, but totally misses the mark when it says the Son of Man would return soon after the fall. If the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem was so prescient, why does the author so completely fail to see that the end did not come as predicted? It seems clear he knew of the fall of Jerusalem because it was history, but missed the timing of the coming of the Son of Man because he was not a good predictor.

While it's obvious that Mark 13 makes considerable sense in the light of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, I also said that it makes sense in the light of Caligula attempting to erect a statue of himself in the Jerusalem Temple. Texts can pertain to various things and in terms of a texts Wirkungsgeschichte a text like Mark 13 can make sense in the context of both Caligula and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Some of the details in Mark 13 do not match the fall of Jerusalem, although this does not mean that Mark 13, nor indeed Matthew 24 and Luke 21 no not reflect the events of 66-70 CE (or the Caligula crisis c. 40 CE). It could be argued with some plausibility that this is a passage originating before 70 which was reworked in light of the fall of Jerusalem thus accounting for the discrepancies between the texts and the historical events. Given the apocalyptic language though we shouldn't be too surprised if there is no precise correspondence.

There are numerous reasons to think that Mark was early, it contains the assumption that Jesus kept Jewish dietary regulations which only became contentious in the later parts of the first century. It can, with some justification, be argued that all three Synoptic gospels portray Jesus as a Torah observant Jew in conflict with Jews wanting to expand and develop biblical laws. The early church would not have had so much internal controversy over the observance of the biblical Torah if Jesus had deliberately challenged it in any way or if he had told others to do so, so it can be assumed that this reflects the views of the historical Jesus.

Also Luke betrays a knowledge of Josephus, putting his gospel late.

I have heard this argument before. I think it comes from Richard Carrier. I remember when I read some of the parallels Carrier made between Luke and Josephus that I considered it possible that both were writing from the same tradition and it didn't really need to be assumed that they knew one another. It's important to remember that the jury is very much out on this question in terms of academia. The parallels Carrier posits are that both Luke and Josephus write histories to support general theses, that they both mention bad Jews and good Jews, that they both have two parts to their stories. Some of these parallels appear inconsequential to say the least.

At any rate the gospels aren't well attested until the second century, so any attempt to date them earlier cannot be confirmed.

Yes, this is true. What this means is that we have a latest possible date and an earliest possible date and all theories which suggest more specific dates should exist within the goal posts: 33CE and the second century quotations.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's great that your motives are "truth", I don't doubt that these are your motives.

My points were that the motivation within academia to date the gospels late derives partly from a dubious romanticism inherent in the form/source criticism of the German higher criticism approach.

Ah, my motives might be pure, but their motives are not.

Do you understand that attacking the motive is a logical fallacy?
Shouldn't you be dealing with their arguments, not their motives?

I have heard this argument before. I think it comes from Richard Carrier. I remember when I read some of the parallels Carrier made between Luke and Josephus that I considered it possible that both were writing from the same tradition and it didn't really need to be assumed that they knew one another. It's important to remember that the jury is very much out on this question in terms of academia. The parallels Carrier posits are that both Luke and Josephus write histories to support general theses, that they both mention bad Jews and good Jews, that they both have two parts to their stories. Some of these parallels appear inconsequential to say the least.

Actually Carrier has strong reasons that Acts might have copied from Josephus. For instance, Josephus says there were many Jewish rebel leaders, but he picks out three for his own particular reasons as samples. Interestingly Luke names the same three. Josephus does not see these as significantly more well known, so how is it that Luke picked them as his examples also? Could it be he pulled this from Josephus?

 

[civilwarbuff]

The references to the fall of Jerusalem betrays a late date. Could it just be accurate prediction ahead? Not really, for Mark 13 is accurate about the fall of Jerusalem,

So what you are trying to say is that
Mar 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
Mar 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
now becomes an historical look-back used as a prediction to "pad the resume" of Jesus?
If this is what you are trying to say, where is your evidence?
From Wiki.....figured you would question a religious site.
Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus[32]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Check the footnotes. So much for that theory.

Where do you see this

but totally misses the mark when it says the Son of Man would return soon after the fall.

in this:
Mar 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
Mar 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mar 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
Mar 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?"
Mar 13:5 And Jesus began to say to them, "See that no one leads you astray.
Mar 13:6 Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.
Mar 13:7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet.
Mar 13:8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.
Mar 13:9 "But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.
Mar 13:10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.
Mar 13:11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Mar 13:12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death.
Mar 13:13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Mar 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Mar 13:15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out,
Mar 13:16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
Mar 13:17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
Mar 13:18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mar 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Mar 13:27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Mar 13:28 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mar 13:29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Mar 13:30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mar 13:33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.
Mar 13:34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake.
Mar 13:35 Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning—
Mar 13:36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
Mar 13:37 And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake."

Paul says that scripture is foolishness to the natural man for scripture is spiritually discerned....

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Ah, my motives might be pure, but their motives are not.

Do you understand that attacking the motive is a logical fallacy?

Looking at the assumptions behind particular intellectual trends is a valid method of research in the humanities. Don't get me wrong, I didn't suggest it singularly as a reason to dispute the tendencies for late dating. I gave other reasons why I am inclined towards early dates.

Shouldn't you be dealing with their arguments, not their motives?

I did that. Remember when I suggested that Mark 13 makes sense in light of Caligula as well as the Jewish-Roman war?

Actually Carrier has strong reasons that Acts might have copied from Josephus. For instance, Josephus says there were many Jewish rebel leaders, but he picks out three for his own particular reasons as samples. Interestingly Luke names the same three. Josephus does not see these as significantly more well known, so how is it that Luke picked them as his examples also? Could it be he pulled this from Josephus?

Again, this is a very interesting line of thought, it may be the case that Luke used Josephus, I'm not inclined to think so. I think that they were arguing from within part of the same Jewish tradition and that their arguments were general arguments used by others contemporaneous to them. Luke isn't original, neither is Josephus though, so I don't think it's altogether necessary to postulate from this shared argumentative style to a specific date for Luke.

 

[Winken]

The overwhelming evidence is that the synoptic gospels were "early," that is, written prior to 70 a.d.. The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 21:43, Matthew 24, and Mark 13, Luke 21:1-38, well before that year. (Scripture references edited).

In the case of Matthew, written between 41 and 48 a.d., its purpose was to make clear to the Jews that Jesus was their promised Messiah. 70 a.d. was approaching; their eternal security in the Kingdom of God on earth rested upon their confession/recognition that Jesus was, indeed, the One promised throughout the Hebrew Bible. Matthew was an imperative for them. Only those Jews who recognized Jesus as Messiah would enter the Kingdom of God on earth after the Great Tribulation.

In the case of Luke, written between 52 and 58 a.d., his purpose was to inform the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews of the very nature of Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah, in terms they could understand. The Greeks and Hellenists had only vague insight into the nature of the Hebrew religion; Luke explained Jesus to them.

In the case of Mark, written between 60 and 66 a.d., its purpose was to make clear to Gentiles and isolated Jews in Rome the very nature of Jesus and the purpose of His coming, in terms they could understand.

The Spiritual revelation found so dramatically and inspiring in the case of John is there for Jews, seekers and believing Christians, as Paul points out in Galatians 3:28 --- and He wrote that early-on in His ministry. John is the blessed gospel that every person on the face of the earth needs to read. No doubt it was written before 70 a.d., probably in about 62-63. Why giant bibles are handed out to the uninformed around the world is a mystery, when the gospel of John is so readily available. Find a "lost tribe" in Africa or Australia and hand them a complete Bible? Expect them to tune right in to 1 Chronicles 1? Expect them to rush out in joy using Luke 9:1, Luke 10:19?

The Jewish Pharisee, Saul, sorts it all out for everyone, Jew and non-Jew, after Jesus anoints Saul (Paul) as the Apostle, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). Now everyone is enabled to acknowledge and receive Jesus as Savior by Grace through Faith, rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15-16, KJV). The scripture that seekers (and lost tribes) need to understand are John 14:6, John 3:16-17, John 3:3, John 5:24, Romans 10:8-13, then they can rejoice in Ephesians 2:8-9. Now they can find THE path for Christians in the Pauline Epistles. It is all there, not in 1 Chronicles 1, Luke 9:1, or Luke 10:19.

Paul's letters were written or delivered as follows:
Galatians: 48-49 a.d.; 1 & 2 Thessalonians: 49-51 a.d.; 1 Timothy and 1 & 2 Corinthians: 55-56 a.d.; Titus: 56 a.d.; Romans: 57 a.d.; Colossians and Ephesians: 60-61 a.d.; Philippians and Philemon: 62-63 a.d.; (Hebrews 66 a.d.*); 2 Timothy 67 a.d..

(*The writer has no doubt that Paul wrote Hebrews to Jewish folk who almost received Jesus by Grace through Faith).

So-called "modern" theologians have simply lost their measuring stick in determining when the Bible was written, especially with regard to our New Testament / Christian Covenant per Paul.

Then there are the atheists and agnostics......

 

[Winken]

@civilwarbuff.......

Did you know that you can type Mark 13:1-37, point your mouse at it, click, and the entire reference will appear on everyone's screen?

Winken

 

[civilwarbuff]

I know that...not sure he does....not willing to give him another reason to not respond.....

 

[doubtingmerle]

From Wiki.....figured you would question a religious site.
Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus[32]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Check the footnotes. So much for that theory.

The dates you give for Matthew and Mark are very close to the dates I give, so there is no issue there.

The dates here for Luke (80-100) overlap my dates (95-120). The reason for going post 95 AD is because of the likely connection to Josephus. So can you accept that Luke may have written 95-100 AD? I extend the range to 120 AD because there is no way I can prove Luke was written before then. So if Luke was written after Josephus and before it is known to be commonly used, then my range seems reasonable. If we discount the Josephus connection, then the range is probably closer to 80 to 120.

Regardless, since your source says Luke was probably written after 80 AD, it confirms my main assertion, that Luke probably wrote late. Those who were 20 years old in 30 AD would have been at least 70 when Luke wrote, 15 years beyond the average lifespan of 55 in those days. Add in the immense destruction in 70 AD, in which many Jews were killed, and it is doubtful if any witnesses were even available to talk to Luke when he wrote.

The dates for John are before mine, but I said perhaps 100 -130 AD. That's based on John probably using Luke, and we can't prove when Luke was written.

Where do you see this

in this:

OK, I will echo back the passage you quoted and highlight the words that show that the writer of this book makes it look like Jesus was saying the Son of Man would come soon after the fall of Jerusalem. Please note that in this passage, Jesus is reportedly talking to the disciples alone. Therefore everyplace in this passage where we read "you" it means "you disciples that I am talking to", not "you Christians that will read this many years later." This is addressed to the disciples and says their generation will see these things. See red text below:

Mar 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
Mar 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mar 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
Mar 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?"
Mar 13:5 And Jesus began to say to them, "See that no one leads you astray.
Mar 13:6 Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.
Mar 13:7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet.
Mar 13:8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.
Mar 13:9 "But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.
Mar 13:10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.
Mar 13:11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Mar 13:12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death.
Mar 13:13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Mar 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Mar 13:15 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out,
Mar 13:16 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
Mar 13:17 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
Mar 13:18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mar 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Mar 13:27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Mar 13:28 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mar 13:29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Mar 13:30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mar 13:33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.
Mar 13:34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake.
Mar 13:35 Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning—
Mar 13:36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
Mar 13:37 And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake."

It is very clear to me. He repeatedly says you disciples will see these things. He specifically says you disciples will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. He specifically says this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. That generation passed away, but not all of those things took place.

So it seems to me, that when it comes to predictive prophecy, Mark goofed.

 

[Hawkins]

In a previous thread there was some discussion on where the gospels came from. Who wrote them? When? What sources did they use?

I'll start with my views. I think Mark was first, writing about 70 AD. We don't know who he was or what his sources were. We don't know if we can trust him.

That applies to any history written by any humans 2000 years ago.

It is the nature of what history is. It boils down to where you put your faith on.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The dates you give for Matthew and Mark are very close to the dates I give, so there is no issue there.

The dates here for Luke (80-100) overlap my dates (95-120). The reason for going post 95 AD is because of the likely connection to Josephus. So can you accept that Luke may have written 95-100 AD? I extend the range to 120 AD because there is no way I can prove Luke was written before then. So if Luke was written after Josephus and before it is known to be commonly used, then my range seems reasonable. If we discount the Josephus connection, then the range is probably closer to 80 to 120.

Regardless, since your source says Luke was probably written after 80 AD, it confirms my main assertion, that Luke probably wrote late. Those who were 20 years old in 30 AD would have been at least 70 when Luke wrote, 15 years beyond the average lifespan of 55 in those days. Add in the immense destruction in 70 AD, in which many Jews were killed, and it is doubtful if any witnesses were even available to talk to Luke when he wrote.

The dates for John are before mine, but I said perhaps 100 -130 AD. That's based on John probably using Luke, and we can't prove when Luke was written.

The last we know of John in about 95 AD on the Island of Patmos, a very old man. If Luke were written after 100 AD, it is highly unlikely that John was around to read it and use it, so if that is one of your premises Luke must be written be well before 100 AD if John is based on it.
So basically it is your opinion since you have not provided any sources?

And unless we slept thru it this has not happened:

Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mar 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

And before you say the fall of Jerusalem is the tribulation talked about it hardly qualifies as "has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be." There have been far more cataclysmic events since then and obviously even they have not qualified.
So, no your interpretation of these verses do not support your assertion that Jesus was telling this disciples that he was coming back soon; least ways not as man understands soon.

 

[HitchSlap]

Whether Matthews account is more primitive or not is of no issue.
From what I have learned is that Luke was a historian...dug out the details...probably in a later in life interview with Mary obtaining some of the finer details. Is this not allowed?

Sure, anything that can be demonstrated with evidence, is allowed.

 

[Winken]

It is very clear to me. He repeatedly says you disciples will see these things. He specifically says you disciples will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. He specifically says this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. That generation passed away, but not all of those things took place.

So it seems to me, that when it comes to predictive prophecy, Mark goofed.

The Apostles / disciples of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah will see these things just seconds prior to Peter unlocking the gates to the Kingdom of God on earth. Also seeing these things will be all those who acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah. Obviously, the dead in Messiah will rise .... no Tribulation to endure. They will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to review those noble things they did as Messianics, then WHOOSH! straight into the Kingdom (the 1,000 year reign on earth, centered in Jerusalem).

All of this is post-date to the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the 2nd Coming, and Armageddon.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The Apostles / disciples of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah will see these things just seconds prior to Peter unlocking the gates to the Kingdom of God on earth. Also seeing these things will be all those who acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah. Obviously, the dead in Messiah will rise .... no Tribulation to endure. They will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to review those noble things they did as Messianics, then WHOOSH! straight into the Kingdom (the 1,000 year reign on earth, centered in Jerusalem).

All of this is post-date to the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the 2nd Coming, and Armageddon.

That sounds like interesting fan fiction based on the bible...

 

[doubtingmerle]

That applies to any history written by any humans 2000 years ago.

It is the nature of what history is. It boils down to where you put your faith on.

Uh no that is not the nature of history. Good historians documented their sources.

But even if it was true that no ancient historians ever wrote with sufficient reliability, that would not mean we should just trust them anyway. If all ancient writings were unreliable, it would mean we don't know much about history.

But thankfully, many ancient historians actually wrote in reliable ways we can trust.

 

[AV1611VET]

But thankfully, many ancient historians actually wrote in reliable ways we can trust.

Did Socrates exist? did King Arthur exist? did Prester John exist?

 

[Goonie]

Did Socrates exist? did King Arthur exist? did Prester John exist?

Maybe, probably not, no?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The last we know of John in about 95 AD on the Island of Patmos, a very old man.

Uh, yes there was a man whose went by John who wrote Revelations, but we have no evidence this was the same John as the disciple.

If Luke were written after 100 AD, it is highly unlikely that John was around to read it and use it, so if that is one of your premises Luke must be written be well before 100 AD if John is based on it.

As I said in the OP, we commonly use the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to identify what book we are talking about, even though we have no knowledge of who wrote these books. We do not know if the author of the fourth gospel was named John.

So basically it is your opinion since you have not provided any sources?

It is my opinion, but I have had many sources I have consulted. My opinion is based on evidence. Would you like to discuss the evidence?

And unless we slept thru it this has not happened:

And before you say the fall of Jerusalem is the tribulation talked about it hardly qualifies as "has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be." There have been far more cataclysmic events since then and obviously even they have not qualified.
So, no your interpretation of these verses do not support your assertion that Jesus was telling this disciples that he was coming back soon; least ways not as man understands soon.

Huh? There is a prophecy in Mark 13 that these things would happen in that generation. It did not come to pass as written. Therefore the prophecy was never made? What kind of reasoning is that?

Read Mark 13. It clearly say you disciples (Peter, James, John and Andrew) will see all these things. That prophecy failed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Did Socrates exist?

Probably yes, but some question if he did.

did King Arthur exist?

Probably not.

did Prester John exist?

Probably not.