RE: How the black man embraced Christianity
July 5, 2018 at 2:21 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2018 at 2:24 pm by Drich.)
(July 5, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:(July 5, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.
Regardless of the actual date of Mark's composition, prescience on Jesus' part doesn't necessarily amount to supernatural insight or "prophecy" (except in a mundane sense). An apocalyptic religious figure standing in opposition to a compromised priesthood and conversant with a history of his people being punished by their god with various proxies (e.g., Assyrians and Babylonians) . . . it's really not hard to connect the dots, Drich.
I wasn't nessiarly referring to his personal efforts but the fact that they had been recorded elsewhere as well. and the only reason any of the passages have been post dated till after 70 ad was because no one can stand the idea of an actual prophesy comming true.
in this case there are 22 examples of this plus mentions of this in other books that predate the fall of the temple. The most point blank being the book of Acts 6 which directly repeats the line in mark mat and john. The book of ACTS was contextually written between 50 and 60.
(July 5, 2018 at 12:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(July 5, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: The problem arises when one assumes that the book of mark began in 70ad.. As I pointed out Christ was already a well established anti temple advocate long before the idea that christ's predictions were added after the fact. what I'm saying here is because Christ was an anti temple advocate in other gospels like luke and matt (luke and act contextually being the earliest version written) establishes Christ, held or made this proclamation and was already in place when the temple was destroyed. (even if mark was written later.) As a direct result it swelled the ranks of Christianity permanently separate Christianity from Judaism.
The thing is, Drich, either the relevant passages are specific enough to count as prophecy, in which case they are specific enough to count as evidence for a late dating of them, or the passages aren't specific enough to count as prophecy and a late dating. Christians generally have wanted to hold that the passages are specific enough. Holding that the passages are prophetic and not evidence for a late dating of the Gospel is simply being inconsistent. Either they are prophetic, which they would seem to need to be, unless Jesus is not God, or Jesus was simply talking out of his ass. If you want to adopt the latter position, that's fine, but then I'll have to hold you to the opinion that sometimes Jesus talks out of his ass in other debates and questions regarding him. Are you sure that's a position you want to consistently maintain?
I'll always side with what jesus says or is reported to say. fore there is always a "second" to support what is on the initial page. You may not see it but that is the wonderful thing I often do.. the challenged is to break it down so that you do to.
