(November 12, 2013 at 4:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Most Atheists believe Mark was written after the burning of the temple in 70AD
And most stupid fucking xtians think he was taking dictation as his godboy walked around.
He wasn't.
BTW, the site was not leveled in 70...which is what your godboy says:
Quote:And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mark 13:2
But it was leveled in 135. That's when this fucking "prophecy" came true.
Hadrian's engineers leveled the site, tamped it down and built Aelia Capitolina on top of it. This is history. Learn some of it.
I think you missed the point. I am not disputing whether or not the temple was leveled or not. Before Hadrian's engineers wiped the slate clean, the Roman Army burned the temple, and alot of the temple ornimintation was made from gold. When the temple burned the gold melted and oozed between the cracks in the stone floors, and between the cracks in the walls fillingthem and the puddled and solidified. The larger slugs of gold were cut and taken back to Rome, and the temple was taken down block by block to claim what had 'slipped through the cracks.'
What I was saying was This is why d-bags like you date the book of mark after this destruction of the temple in 70AD. (Because a non believer asks: how could he have said Jesus called for the temple's destruction if it had not already been destroyed)
Those of you who say Mark was written between 70 and 75 AD have to subscribe to roman solider breaking down the temple to get at the melted gold, because 'Hadrian's engineers' didn't get to work till 130AD.
Either way saying the book of Mark is the oldest gospel is wrong simply because, there is evidence that the book of Luke was the first to be written.
