The conclusion I've reached...

[hakeem]

What you say doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. If Jesus lived and actually stated at around c 30 CE "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God" then by c 150 CE he would be known as a very false prophet and a liar since everyone who lived around c 30 CE would be dead.

I don't endorse (and never did) 150 CE for when the Synoptic gospels were written, but the 1st century (71 to around 85-90).
Did you read what I wrote?

I read what you wrote and it still doesn't make sense. You assume the Synoptics were written around c 71-90 CE because NT Jesus would not be known as a false prophet until a generation had passed.

But a "generation" is regarded as 20-30 years.

If NT Jesus made a prophecy c 30 CE then by 60 CE a generation would have already passed. If the Synoptics Gospels were written 71-90 CE then Jesus would already be known as a false prophet and a liar.

However, there are other failed prophecies in the Synoptics which were made at c 30 CE and expected to happen in less than 72 hours after the supposed prophecy was uttered. If NT Jesus was not to be regarded as a false prophet and a liar then the Synoptics would have to be written before three days had passed.

NT Jesus claimed in the Synoptics, c 30 CE, that he would be killed and raised after three days/on the third day.

After 72 hours, at some time in c 30 CE, NT Jesus would have been known as a false prophet and liar for at least 40 years if the Synoptic Gospels were written 71-90 CE.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

There is zero evidence of that. The first collection of Paul's letters was made public by Marcion.

But if Marcion could do it, then others could have done it before.

Tertullian and Epiphanius were writing 3 or 4 generations after Marcion.

Yes, but they had Marcion's epistles (and gospel).

The point is that its not unusual use the term God to mean "The Most High God".

It is unusual in the NT, because "The Most High God" never appears.

In general, #1 Ancient writers used a number of techniques to make their works appear older than they really were. This was common.

In that case, if the Synoptic were written around 150, I would expect the authors to put a time marker saying their gospel was written in the 40's to early 60's. On the contrary, gMark 13 has many elements suggesting the gospel was written soon after the events of 70.

#2 In the case of Mark, almost everything said in the work work is derived from source documents. The words of Jesus are almost all derived from source documents. In Mark 13 is practically every word comes from source documents. The relationship of the words to events comes from the source documents, not from the time of the writer. Jesus is a character that says the things the source documents say.

And how do you know that? I think the mini apocalypse is totally fiction, by someone who was very concerned about Christians in his flock joining false prophets and false Christs (13:5-6 and 13:21-23).

Why? You can't suppose their motives, intentions, methods, etc. If Marcion avoided it, he did so because he didn't believe that there would any recent end at all. And anyway, I'm sure that many interpreted the events of the First Jewish-Roman War as fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus, so why wouldn't Matthew and Luke include it?

Because Marcion knew all in Jesus' generation had died when he wrote his gospel. That's the simplest solution. Marcion also did not have any references to Jesus' generation:
Irenaeus AH, I, XXVII: removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord (even if they show in gMark).

Yeah, I don't know where you are getting three Gospels from. Mark wrote the first. Marcion's is a derivation from Mark's. Matthew and Luke are harmonizations between Mark's and Marcion's (a simplistic explanation). Matthew & Luke are mid-second century, not Mark.

I made the correction about Mark's.
About a derivation from Mark? did you check in gMarcion has anything on Mk6:47 to Mk8:27a? gMarcion has nothing on that. And Marcion knew about gLuke:
Tertullian's AM, IV, IV "For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Nope, lots of recent studies show it going the other way. Marcion came first, then GLuke was derived from it.

Writers on these matters follow the trend.

There is way too much evidence supporting this

Can you give me some of the best evidence?

Indeed, GLuke doesn't even make the effort to really revise Marcion,

Or Marcion did not even make the effort to really revise gLuke but also Marcion did remove or modify stuff against his doctrine.

so it still has many Marcionite elements in it, which is kind of funny.

And what would they be? identify the funniest ones.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Hakeem,

You assume the Synoptics were written around c 71-90 CEI read what you wrote and it still doesn't make sense. You assume the Synoptics were written around c 71-90 CE because NT Jesus would not be known as a false prophet until a generation had passed.

NO, I did not come up with these dates because NT Jesus would not be known as a false prophet until a generation had passed.
About gMark dating: http://historical-jesus.info/41.html
About gMatthew dating: http://historical-jesus.info/57.html
About gLuke and gJohn dating: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html

But a "generation" is regarded as 20-30 years.

But the synoptic gospels tell not about Jesus' generation, but some people in Jesus' generation:
Mk 9:1 "And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.""

NT Jesus claimed in the Synoptics, c 30 CE, that he would be killed and raised after three days/on the third day.
After 72 hours, at some time in c 30 CE, NT Jesus would have been known as a false prophet and liar for at least 40 years if the Synoptic Gospels were written 71-90 CE.

Not Jesus, but the authors of these gospels had Jesus claiming ...
And then all the three claims of raising after three days in gMark are just inventions when there were not yet bodily appearances in the gospels and not yet a empty tomb passage in gMark. The resurrection after three days is just here for theological reasons.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

I read what you wrote and it still doesn't make sense. You assume the Synoptics were written around c 71-90 CE because NT Jesus would not be known as a false prophet until a generation had passed.

NO, I did not come up with these dates because NT Jesus would not be known as a false prophet until a generation had passed.

You did say that if the Synoptic "generation" prophecy was written c 150 then Jesus would be known a false prophet and a liar so the prophecy must have been written earlier.

But, your claim does not make sense since there is a failed resurrection prophecy by Jesus in the Synoptics since c 30 CE.

If the Synoptics were written c 71-90 CE, The Synoptic Jesus would still be known as a very false prophet, a liar and also an idiot for at least 4 decades before they were composed.

[Bernard Muller]

to Hakeem,

You did say that if the Synoptic "generation" prophecy was written c 150 then Jesus would be known a false prophet and a liar so the prophecy must have been written earlier.

But, your claim does not make sense since there is a failed resurrection prophecy by Jesus in the Synoptics since c 30 CE.

Read again my previous post: it is not Jesus' generation but some of Jesus' generation. That's a big difference.

Let's say allegedly Jesus was addressing some 30 years old people among the crowd in Mk 9:1 in 30 CE:
In 70, that "some" would be 70 years old, in 90: 90 years old, in 130: 130 years old (not realistic to be still alive then), in 150: 150 years old (same comment), in 180: 180 years old (same comment).

If allegedly addressing "some" were 20 years old, substract 10 to the ages.
If allegedly addressing "some" were 10 years old, substract 20 to the ages.
Still, in the last case, 110 years old is not realistic to be still alive then, especially rural Jews, who had to do hard work and lived in unsanitary conditions.

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

Let's say allegedly Jesus was addressing some 30 years old people among the crowd in Mk 9:1 in 30 CE:
In 70, that "some" would be 70 years old, in 90: 90 years old, in 130: 130 years old (not realistic to be still alive then), in 150: 150 years old (same comment), in 180: 180 years old (same comment).

Bernard --

You are correct though you don't need my approval here.
The character "Peter" is in a similar situation. The "Backdating" of Peter runs into a "Forward-Dating" problem, especially in Acts:

Acts 9: 33 - 35 (RSV):

[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.
[35] And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

Too much is required for Peter. He is Jewish. He is cosmopolitan Roman. The Narrator has knowledge that "ALL" of Lydda and Sharon knew. If this Tableau is placed in the 30s, would the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon have been Christian? Would they have welcomed the Romans 40 years later?

If the events described in Acts 9 occurred later, how old would Peter have been? Events do not occur in a vacuum. Peter's age implied in the Scenarios given do not compute and you are correct in your analysis.

Good Insight.

[Bernard Muller]

to Charles Wilson,

Acts 9: 33 - 35 (RSV):

[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.
[35] And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

Too much is required for Peter. He is Jewish. He is cosmopolitan Roman. The Narrator has knowledge that "ALL" of Lydda and Sharon knew. If this Tableau is placed in the 30s, would the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon have been Christian? Would they have welcomed the Romans 40 years later?

If the events described in Acts 9 occurred later, how old would Peter have been? Events do not occur in a vacuum. Peter's age implied in the Scenarios given do not compute and you are correct in your analysis.

Peter being a cosmolitan Roman: there is no evidence for that.
In the "tableau":
9:35 And all that dwelt at Lydda and in Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
It is not: All of Lydda and Sharon knew, but all that dwelt at Lydda and in Sharon saw him [Aeneas being healed]

Part of the story might be true, but Lydda & Sharon turning Christians, and "Christ " in 9:34 is certainly not. Because James, and ex-disciples like Peter never became Christians:
I got many pieces of evidence and clues as explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html Did the early Galilean pillars of the Church of Jerusalem (Peter, John & Jesus' brother James) become Christians?
There is an abundance of evidence and clues leading to a NO answer, despite the effort by the early Christian authors to show otherwise.

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

to Charles Wilson,

Acts 9: 33 - 35 (RSV):

[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.
[35] And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

Too much is required for Peter. He is Jewish. He is cosmopolitan Roman. The Narrator has knowledge that "ALL" of Lydda and Sharon knew. If this Tableau is placed in the 30s, would the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon have been Christian? Would they have welcomed the Romans 40 years later?

If the events described in Acts 9 occurred later, how old would Peter have been? Events do not occur in a vacuum. Peter's age implied in the Scenarios given do not compute and you are correct in your analysis.

Peter being a cosmolitan Roman: there is no evidence for that.

I'll gladly withdraw that assertion for this Thread. "There's something about Peter" but we are on different sides of the universe in regards to Peter.

9:35 And all that dwelt at Lydda and in Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
It is not: All of Lydda and Sharon knew, but all that dwelt at Lydda and in Sharon saw him [Aeneas being healed]

YES!!!
We do actually have a record of Lydda outside of the NT:

Josephus, War..., 2, 19, 1:

"AND now Gallus, seeing nothing more that looked towards an innovation in Galilee, returned with his army to Cesarea: but Cestius removed with his whole army, and marched to Antipatris; and when he was informed that there was a great body of Jewish forces gotten together in a certain tower called Aphek, he sent a party before to fight them; but this party dispersed the Jews by affrighting them before it came to a battle: so they came, and finding their camp deserted, they burnt it, as well as the villages that lay about it. But when Cestius had marched from Antipatris to Lydda, he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles; yet did he destroy fifty of those that showed themselves, and burnt the city, and so marched forwards; and ascending by Betboron, he pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty furlongs distant from Jerusalem...."

You are absolutely, positively correct! I've always looked for the subtle clues - ""It was the fourth watch...", etc. - and this one is right up there. It isn't about "ALL of Lydda...". It is about "...all who dwelt at Lydda..." and I thank you for that.

Part of the story might be true, but Lydda & Sharon turning Christians, and "Christ " in 9:34 is certainly not.

AGREED!

There is an abundance of evidence and clues leading to a NO answer, despite the effort by the early Christian authors to show otherwise.

Agreed here as well.

Cordially, Bernard

Cordially back'atcha Bernard. I hope you know that i believe you're good people...

CW

[hakeem]

to Hakeem,

You did say that if the Synoptic "generation" prophecy was written c 150 then Jesus would be known a false prophet and a liar so the prophecy must have been written earlier.

But, your claim does not make sense since there is a failed resurrection prophecy by Jesus in the Synoptics since c 30 CE.

Read again my previous post: it is not Jesus' generation but some of Jesus' generation. That's a big difference.

Let's say allegedly Jesus was addressing some 30 years old people among the crowd in Mk 9:1 in 30 CE:
In 70, that "some" would be 70 years old, in 90: 90 years old, in 130: 130 years old (not realistic to be still alive then), in 150: 150 years old (same comment), in 180: 180 years old (same comment).

If allegedly addressing "some" were 20 years old, substract 10 to the ages.
If allegedly addressing "some" were 10 years old, substract 20 to the ages.
Still, in the last case, 110 years old is not realistic to be still alive then, especially rural Jews, who had to do hard work and lived in unsanitary conditions.

Cordially, Bernard

Again, when you date the authorship of the Synoptics by failed prophecies then they must have been written no earlier than c 30 CE or within 72 hours of the prophecy that Jesus would be killed and be raised from the dead on the third day.

Jesus of Nazareth did not resurrect.

Mark 9:31
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Matthew 16:21
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Luke 9:22-
Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Jesus would have been known as a false prophet, a liar and and idiot by the authors of gMark, gMatthew and gLuke if they wrote their stories only four days after Jesus was dead.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

Again, when you date the authorship of the Synoptics by failed prophecies then they must have been written no earlier than c 30 CE or within 72 hours of the prophecy that Jesus would be killed and be raised from the dead on the third day.

I did not date the Synoptics by failed prophecies.
gMark was written right after the events of 70, but certainly this gospel and gMatthew & gLuke were made believed for early Christians to be written before the Jewish war of 66-70. It had to be so, because the prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem, if admitted to be "reported" by the Synoptics after the fact, would be suspected to be a concoction of the gospels writers.
Even now, young Christians (as I was myself) are intructed the gospels were written soon after Jesus' alleged resurrection.

Jesus of Nazareth did not resurrect.

We all know that on this forum. But the early Christians (and Christians along the centuries) believed Jesus resurrected.

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day

Actually, that's a bad translation: it's after three days NOT the third day.

Jesus would have been known as a false prophet, a liar and and idiot by the authors of gMark, gMatthew and gLuke if they wrote their stories only four days after Jesus was dead.

But they did not write their stories only four days after Jesus was dead. They wrote their stories after 70 CE but before around 85-90 CE.

Cordially, Bernard