• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paul..fake liar or apostle?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
Also, being a rank amateur, I've always appreciated Kirby.
Click to expand...

See what I mean about the date? That puts Mark from 65-80, and 80 is quite late because it doesn't allow time for development between Mark and the other Gospels as well as other early Christian literature.

And as I said - I don't see anything magical about dating Mark at 55CE or 65CE. The only difference is 10 years, and nothing can pinpoint the date in that decade. The real issue is simply this: is it written before the destruction of the Temple or after.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
outhouse said:
Dont many suggest before being there is no mention of it.

Ive always used 35AD as a good guestimate
Click to expand...

That's what I recall.

35CE is extremely early. Two years after the death of Christ?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
sojourner said:
I seem to remember that it was precisely because it was mentioned that a post 70 date was preferred...
Click to expand...

See the conclusions in
The date of Mark's Gospel: insight from the law in earliest Christianity

By James G. Crossley

---- a google book ---- also search for "Temple"

Crossley says that gMark can be dated from 30s-70CE. Sheesh.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
angellous_evangellous said:
Have you ever heard of a little thing called a double standard?

You're pretending that I am subject to a higher standard of proof than you are -- when you made the original claim.

Newsflash: you have provided no evidence other than your own fantasies.

I am under no obligation to discuss anything that I find a waste of my time and yours.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea any basis behind this reply.

Is it normal for PHD students to completely brush off what anyone says and try to make generalized attacks and avoid the general specifics? If you're under no obligation to answer debate questions, you can just be honest and say "I concede", you're not on a discussion forum. Maybe you could at least bother to include a specific or two in your rebuttal. It might look like you have something to specifically rebut?

I do appreciate you showing your blatant intellectual dishonesty, and anyone reading can peruse. It doesn't exactly weaken my perception that people with Doctorates tend to lie more than others.
 
Last edited:
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
angellous_evangellous said:
Every time I see 55CE for Mark, I cringe a little. That date just seems impossibly early, and I don't know why they chose 55CE instead of 56 or 62 or whatever.

But in my mind, it's the most popular view. In fact, I don't think that I've ever seen a date after 70CE for Mark - unless I've forgotten...

I don't have the ABD or Udo Schnelle on hand - do you know what they say?
Click to expand...

Yet when I asked for a link that discusses why Baur was wrong about the 47 A.D. date for 1 Thes, or why the 47 A.D. date is given in the first place, you start throwing projectiles.

It's an interesting double standard that you question the early date of Mark, yet you blindly write off Baur and Schrader.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
I really have no idea any basis behind this reply.

Is it normal for PHD students to completely brush off what anyone says and try to make generalized attacks and avoid the general specifics? If you're under no obligation to answer debate questions, you can just be honest and say "I concede", you're not on a discussion forum. Maybe you could at least bother to include a specific or two in your rebuttal. It might look like you have something to specifically rebut?

I do appreciate you showing your blatant intellectual dishonesty, and anyone reading can peruse. It doesn't exactly weaken my perception that people with Doctorates tend to lie more than others.
Click to expand...

"This speaks volumes":D
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Shermana said:
I really have no idea any basis behind this reply.

Is it normal for PHD students to completely brush off what anyone says and try to make generalized attacks and avoid the general specifics? If you're under no obligation to answer debate questions, you can just be honest and say "I concede", you're not on a discussion forum. Maybe you could at least bother to include a specific or two in your rebuttal. It might look like you have something to specifically rebut?

I do appreciate you showing your blatant intellectual dishonesty, and anyone reading can peruse. It doesn't exactly weaken my perception that people with Doctorates tend to lie more than others.
Click to expand...

It's not normal for PHD students to read as poorly as you do.

But some of us do have more patience than others. If Oberon were here, and in the mood, he is more apt to engage in indulge in the foolishness of others than me. I do it sometimes, but it's rare. I think.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
Shermana said:
Yet when I asked for a link that discusses why Baur was wrong about the 47 A.D. date for 1 Thes, or why the 47 A.D. date is given in the first place, you start throwing projectiles.

It's an interesting double standard that you question the early date of Mark, yet you blindly write off Baur and Schrader.
Click to expand...

I think you're the one who is having a hard time reading, here's the quote again. You brush off Baur and Schrader, yet you reject the early date of Mark. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top