Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[Phatt Matt s]

I didn't say I believed the Gospels were written before 70AD

It was another poster on the thread that asked you questions and you ignored:
"I was quoting him"

No Marian cunt I won't. The words in the gospel were INVENTED to make it appear that a "pesher" had been "fulfilled". In fact Mary was not a "virgin" and Jebus did NOTHING to fulfill the predictions of what a "messiah" was to do. The Kingdom of David was NEVER re-established. IN fact the Romans utterly destroyed the temple, and it has NEVER been rebuilt. No reasonable person can claim Jebus did ANYTHING a messiah was to do. Jebus never existed.

Oh please, barely anything you said has support from any critical historians, let alone modern Christian scholarship.

Let me break it down: 1. the words in the gospel were invented: this is well outside scholarly thought, thus to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence. You also need to tell us who invented it and why. 2. The virgin birth is in both Matthew and Luke and their accounts differ to the point that it's clear that they are recording separate accounts. 3. You're not qualified to tell us what the OT scriptures say. 4. Jesus correctly prophecies the fall of Jerusalem not once, but twice and it's recorded multiple times - this is very important and I'll explain why.

If you can prove to me that the prophecy that Jesus made as to the fall of Jerusalem is not an original part of the gospels, or that the synoptic gospels were written after 70AD then you have proof that you're right. However, here's my evidence - and it's very strong:

1. Luke-Acts is written by the same author this is the consensus view among all groups of NT scholars including critical scholars.
   
2. Here is the prophecy, made not just once but twice:
   
   1. Luke 19:41-44: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
   2. Luke 21:5-6: And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
3. Half of Acts attests to the author's eyewitness account (this is also consensus even among critical scholars), and the account ends c. 60-61AD (agreed upon by a clear majority of scholars).
   
4. No mention is ever made in Luke-Acts or the other gospels of the siege having taken place.
   
5. There are three possible explanations: 1. genuine prophecy, 2. textual corruption (ie prophecy inserted into text later) and 3. that the text was written after the siege of Jerusalem had taken place. Thus, critical scholars (ie sceptics) are forced to believe option 2 or 3.
   
6. There is no credible evidence that these passages are not original to the text of Luke and the other Gospels, and thus most critical scholars do not claim it is from textual corruption.
   
7. I've just given you clear evidence that Luke-Acts was completed well before 70AD, however critical scholars generally believe it was written after 70AD, their evidence being that the prophecy is too specific to be coincidence (circular logic). If this is really the case then why don't any of the Gospels or for that matter Acts mention the siege of Jerusalem taking place? Why doesn't Paul mention it? Critical scholars will agree that Paul wrote his epistles up to the 60's AD, and the only reason they have for dating the synoptic gospels and Acts to after 70AD is that it contains a prophecy to the fall of Jerusalem!

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24860-page-9.html