Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote: power to render the temple obsolete.

Thank you for building my case and providing me with evidence.

They rendered the temple obsolete because it was destroyed and not there anymore
You may read it that way if it pleases you.

The power he had acquired ( Sabbath, sins , oral law) made the temple priesthood obsolete for his followers long before 70 AD .
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote:
outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote: power to render the temple obsolete.

Thank you for building my case and providing me with evidence.

They rendered the temple obsolete because it was destroyed and not there anymore
You may read it that way if it pleases you.

The power he had acquired ( Sabbath, sins , oral law) made the temple priesthood obsolete for his followers long before 70 AD .
One could say the temple was viewed as corrupt and viewed as not having the Israelite Jewish culture as its priority, they had the Roman interest as priority.

But really your describing the divide between Hellenistic Judaism and Israelite oppressed Judaism IMHO
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by iskander »

I have in mind the gospel of Mark .
Good night
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote:I have in mind the gospel of Mark .
Good night

Great you prove my point.

Mark a compilation of existing oral traditions and written text, and was compiled because of the war.

Mark was a product of the temple destruction.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote:I have in mind the gospel of Mark .
Good night

Great you prove my point.

Mark a compilation of existing oral traditions and written text, and was compiled because of the war.

Mark was a product of the temple destruction.
You say, " Mark was compiled because of the war" , this may be true but it is "compilation of existing oral traditions and written text". Jesus had spoken by this time.

The New Testament is an escape from the stricture of biblical Judaism. God becomes the friend of the individual. It is a new theology which liberates the believer!
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by Secret Alias »

Exodus 33:11
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by arnoldo »

Peter Kirby wrote:I forgot to reply to this question.
Ged wrote:Are there any Roman records of the Jewish wars apart from Josephus?
Yes, Tacitus has a less extensive but important account.

There is at least incidental mention in other Roman literature, as well (and beyond that, archaeology, etc.). . .
i.e.,
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by Charles Wilson »

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/r ... o/64*.html
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.co ... -jews.html

Tacitus, Histories, Book 2:

[b"]In A distant part of the world fortune was now preparing the origin and rise of a new dynasty, whose varied destinies brought happiness or misery on the State, prosperity or destruction on the Princes of its line. Titus Vespasian had been sent from Judaea by his father while Galba still lived[/b], and alleged as a reason for his journey the homage due to the Emperor, and his age, which now qualified him to compete for office. But the vulgar, ever eager to invent, had spread the report that he was sent for to be adopted. The advanced years and childless condition of the Emperor furnished matter for such gossip, and the country never can refrain from naming many persons until one be chosen. The report gained the more credit from the genius of Titus himself, equal as it was to the most exalted fortune, from the mingled beauty and majesty of his countenance, from the prosperous fortunes of Vespasian, from the prophetic responses of oracles, and even from accidental occurrences which, in the general disposition to belief, were accepted as omens. At Corinth, the capital of Achaia, he received positive information of the death of Galba, and found men who spoke confidently of the revolt of Vitellius and of the fact of war. In the anxiety of his mind, he sent a few of his friends, and carefully surveyed his position from both points of view. He considered that if he should proceed to Rome, he should get no thanks for a civility intended for another, while his person would be a hostage in the hands either of Vitellius or of Otho; that should he turn back, the conqueror would certainly be offended, but with the issue of the struggle still doubtful, and the father joining the party, the son would be excused; on the other hand, if Vespasian should assume the direction of the state, men who had to think of war would have to forget such causes of offence.

These and like thoughts made him waver between hope and fear; but hope triumphed. Some supposed that he retraced his steps for love of Queen Berenice, nor was his young heart averse to her charms, but this affection occasioned no hindrance to action. He passed, it is true, a youth enlivened by pleasure, and practised more self-restraint in his own than in his father's reign. So, after coasting Achaia and Asia, leaving the land on his left, he made for the islands of Rhodes and Cyprus, and then by a bolder course for Syria. Here he conceived a desire to visit and inspect the temple of the Paphian Venus, place of celebrity both among natives and foreigners. It will not be a tedious digression to record briefly the origin of the worship, the ceremonial of the temple, and the form under which the goddess is adored, a form found in no other place.
...
"Titus, after surveying the treasures, the royal presents, and the other objects which the antiquarian tendencies of the Greek arbitrarily connect with some uncertain past, first consulted the oracle about his voyage. Receiving an answer that the way was open and the sea propitious, he then, after sacrificing a number of victims, asked some questions in ambiguous phrase concerning himself. Sostratus (that was the name of the priest) seeing that the entrails presented an uniformly favourable appearance, and that the goddess signified her favour to some great enterprise, returned at the moment a brief and ordinary answer, but afterwards soliciting a private interview, disclosed the future. His spirits raised, Titus rejoined his father, and was received as a mighty pledge of success by the wavering minds of the provincials and the troops. Vespasian had all but completed the Jewish war, and only the siege of Jerusalem now remained, an operation, the difficulty and arduousness of which was due, rather to the character of its mountain citadel and the perverse obstinacy of the national superstition, than to any sufficient means of enduring extremities left to the besieged. As we have mentioned above, Vespasian himself had three legions inured to war. Mucianus had four under his command in his peaceful province. Emulation, however, and the glory won by the neighbouring army had banished all tendency to sloth, and unbroken rest and exemption from the hardships of war had given them a vigour equivalent to the hardihood which the others had gained by their perils and their toils. Each had auxiliary forces of infantry and cavalry, each had fleets and tributary kings, and each, though their renown was of a different kind, had a celebrated name.

"Vespasian was an energetic soldier; he could march at the head of his army, choose the place for his camp, and bring by night and day his skill, or, if the occasion required, his personal courage to oppose the foe. His food was such as chance offered; his dress and appearance hardly distinguished him from the common soldier; in short, but for his avarice, he was equal to the generals of old. Mucianus, on the contrary, was eminent for his magnificence, for his wealth, and for a greatness that transcended in all respects the condition of a subject; readier of speech than the other, he thoroughly understood the arrangement and direction of civil business. It would have been a rare combination of princely qualities, if, with their respective faults removed, their virtues only could have been united in one man. Mucianus was governor of Syria, Vespasian of Judaea. In the administration of these neighbouring provinces jealousy had produced discord between them, but on Nero's fall they had dropped their animosities and associated their counsels. At first they communicated through friends, till Titus, who was the great bond of union between them, by representing their common interests had terminated their mischievous feud. He was indeed a man formed both by nature and by education to attract even such a character as that of Mucianus. The tribunes, the centurions, and the common soldiers, were brought over to the cause by appeals to their energy or their love of license, to their virtues or to their vices, according to their different dispositions.

"Long before the arrival of Titus, both armies had taken the oath of allegiance to Otho..."

CW
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by outhouse »

iskander wrote:
You say, " Mark was compiled because of the war" , this may be true but it is "compilation of existing oral traditions and written text". Jesus had spoken by this time.
No not what Jesus had spoken.

We are talking about what different cultures of Hellenist learned when making the pilgrimage to Passover every year FROM the diaspora. They picked up on hearsay typical Galilean parables and those of John the Baptist that Jesus learned before traveling to smaller villages. Then being retold and growing accretions important to Hellenist.

The parables evolved so far, you can only find Aramaic transliterations if your lucky, so by the time the temple fell, the original Aramaic parables were long gone that may have even come from Jesus.
The New Testament is an escape from the stricture of biblical Judaism. God becomes the friend of the individual. It is a new theology which liberates the believer!
In part because the temple fell. IN Pauls time while the temple stood, how much of that is being taught in his 7 attributed epistles ?? is it a central theme? or was the importance about opening up the religion to Diaspora gentiles? "less laws"
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

Post by iskander »

outhouse wrote:
iskander wrote:
You say, " Mark was compiled because of the war" , this may be true but it is "compilation of existing oral traditions and written text". Jesus had spoken by this time.
No not what Jesus had spoken.

We are talking about what different cultures of Hellenist learned when making the pilgrimage to Passover every year FROM the diaspora. They picked up on hearsay typical Galilean parables and those of John the Baptist that Jesus learned before traveling to smaller villages. Then being retold and growing accretions important to Hellenist.

The parables evolved so far, you can only find Aramaic transliterations if your lucky, so by the time the temple fell, the original Aramaic parables were long gone that may have even come from Jesus.
The New Testament is an escape from the stricture of biblical Judaism. God becomes the friend of the individual. It is a new theology which liberates the believer!
In part because the temple fell. IN Pauls time while the temple stood, how much of that is being taught in his 7 attributed epistles ?? is it a central theme? or was the importance about opening up the religion to Diaspora gentiles? "less laws"
What impact had the destruction of the temple on Christian theology?
Post Reply