the Christian Church Fathers with texts to 155 AD/CE

[MrMacSon]

.
I believe hardly any - if any - Christian documents were written before near the end of the 1st century

• not even the extant Pauline epistles

• not even extant gMark

All Christian narratives are likely to just be set in the early 1st century: they borrow from mid 1st-century events, or later events and later texts.

They imply they refer to 1st century events, or it is implied that they do.

[MrMacSon]

Bernard Muller wrote:
Lk21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.", also in Marcion's gospel (written 140 +-10 years), and corresponding to Mk13:14 "abomination of desolation".

Neil Godfrey has previously noted -

• " ..that [Mark] 13:14 does not mention a temple, but only a place where something ought not to be. Hadrian’s ordering of the setting up the statue of Zeus along with his own image was the beginning, not the culmination, of the most terrible calamaties."
  
  http://vridar.org/2007/02/10/little-apo ... ba-revolt/

[Kapyong]

Gday Bernard,

That's because you don't want to accept the evidence...

Ah, I'm an evidence-denier ? Like a Holocaust-denier ?

In fact I accept the same evidence that we all do.
I just don't always agree with your interpretations of the evidence - the conclusions you draw from the evidence.
But you seem to conflate the two, as if Bernard Muller's Website is the last word on early Christian history.

And if I dare to express a different view, then it's just :

Too bad.

Sure Bernard, you have done some good work, but now you seem to treat Bernard Muller's Website as if it's like the academy's consensus based on many peer-reviewed works - as if it's the Bible.

So now most of your posts boil down to :

No, that's wrong.
My view XYZ is correct.
Check here for details :
<Bernard Muller's Website>

Cordially, Bernard

Actually, I find your posts can be un-friendly, even arrogant.


Regards,

Kapyong

[MrMacSon]

Gday Bernard,

That's because you don't want to accept the evidence...

In fact I accept the same evidence that we all do.

I just don't always agree with your interpretations of the evidence - the conclusions you draw from the evidence.

But you seem to conflate the two, as if Bernard Muller's Website is the last word on early Christian history.

What Bernard uses - essentially just the Synoptic texts - is hardly evidence. It's information from unverified narrative.

And Bernard uses such narratives as " circular reasoning" -

• "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

Yet - Bernard's "premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion"

And if I dare to express a different view, then it's just :

• • Too bad.

... you seem to treat Bernard Muller's Website as if it's like the academy's consensus based on many peer-reviewed works - as if it's the Bible.

So now most of your posts boil down to :

• • No, that's wrong.
    My view XYZ is correct.
    Check here for details : <Bernard Muller's Website>

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Neil Godfrey has previously noted -
" ..that [Mark] 13:14 does not mention a temple, but only a place where something ought not to be. Hadrian’s ordering of the setting up the statue of Zeus along with his own image was the beginning, not the culmination, of the most terrible calamaties."

http://vridar.org/2007/02/10/little-apo ... ba-revolt/

Abomination of desolation may as well mean the destruction of the temple & Jerusalem in 70 CE. I know, it looks out of sequence for the events of 70, but I do not think "Mark" cared about historical accuracy.
Note: "Luke" interpreted that desolation as the Roman armies besieging Jerusalem which they did not do in 135 AD.

I also note that "Mark" had Jesus asking people to flee Judah, not necessarily Jerusalem. Maybe "Mark" thought that the Romans, after the conquest of Jerusalem and massacring many they found in the city, would do the same, or were doing the same all over Judah.

Godfrey made a lot for "Wars or rumors of wars" and "people against people" but there were wars from 30 to 70 AD in the Roman empire or its borders, including Romans against Romans, Arabia Petra against Galilee, war during the conquest of England, against Parthia, etc. The first Jewish war was not the only one during that period.

Famines were happening in part of the empire, more so one in 46-47 (including Jerusalem).
The famine under Claudius, mentioned in Ant. XX, II, 5 and Ac11:28 "... a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world." This famine, caused by a crop failure in Egypt (the bread basket of the Roman empire then), made the price of food too expensive for the poor all over the empire.

About earthquakes, there was one in Pompeii in 62 AD. And probably more from 30 to 70 AD. Look at the frequency of earthquakes around the Mediterranean sea during the last 40 years (13 in Turkey, 32 in Italy, 11 in Greece).

Winter times: "Mark" did not say the events of 70 AD happened in winter but he had Jesus asking his disciples to pray so that will not happen in winter. So, the disciples allegedly prayed and they were heard! =>The siege of Jerusalem happened in summer.
I do not think "Mark" wanted his audience to think the disciples did not obey Jesus and prayers going for naught.

As far as false prophets and false Christs, the situation among Diaspora Jews and possibly Jewish Christians after the events of 70 AD, would pretty well have some Jews/Christians making prophecies about God reacting to what the Romans did, and others pretending to be the leaders for some revenge. I know of one false prophet during that period: a certain John who wrote the Jewish Revelation: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html. Anyway false prophets and Christs cannot refer to only one person, that is Bar Kochba.

During 30-70 AD there were many local persecutions, many not life threatening (harassment by family members or Jews), except for the one of Nero in Rome in 64 AD.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Abomination of desolation may as well mean the destruction of the temple & Jerusalem in 70 CE.

and maybe not - maybe the view after the put down of the Bar Kochba revolt was of greater desolation.

I know, it is out of sequence for the events of 70, but I do not think "Mark" cared about historical accuracy.

So Mark is of dubious 'historical accuracy'?

I also note that "Mark" had Jesus asking people to flee Judah, not necessarily Jerusalem. Maybe "Mark" thought that the Romans, after the conquest of Jerusalem and massacring many they found in the city, would do the same, or were doing the same all over Judah.

That suggests something pretty desolate, doesn't it?

Anyway false prophets and Christs cannot refer to only one person, that is Bar Kochba.

Sure.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

I believe hardly any - if any - Christian documents were written before near the end of the 1st century

not even the extant Pauline epistles
not even extant gMark
All Christian narratives are likely to just be set in the early 1st century: they borrow from mid 1st-century events, or later events and later texts.

They imply they refer to 1st century events, or it is implied that they do.

Thank you for your statement of belief. I think you rely mostly on the opinions of some modern scholars, amateurs and contemporary bloggers when they agree with your beliefs. Instead, I rather do my own homework on the earliest Christian texts and non Christian texts written in the same period.

So Mark is of dubious 'historical accuracy'?

That's what I always thought. Did you think I am a Fundy?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

as if Bernard Muller's Website is the last word on early Christian history ...
Sure Bernard, you have done some good work, but now you seem to treat Bernard Muller's Website as if it's like the academy's consensus based on many peer-reviewed works - as if it's the Bible.

Let me get that straight:
a) I do not pretend my website is the last word on early Christian history.
b) My website does not represent the academy's consensus (the fact is there is no academic consensus in the first place)
c) I do not consider my website as a Fundy considers the Bible.

If I indicate that I have a webpage on the topic, it is to say I made research on the subject, put my arguments together presented as best as I was able to do. When I say something on this forum and post a webpage of mine, that means I tried already to justify that "something" the best I could. I am conscious these justifications can be debated and I welcome those debates.
Too bad that you think my posting of these webpages of mine makes me look arrogant.

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

Abomination of desolation may as well mean the destruction of the temple & Jerusalem in 70 CE. I know, it looks out of sequence for the events of 70, but I do not think "Mark" cared about historical accuracy.
Note: "Luke" interpreted that desolation as the Roman armies besieging Jerusalem which they did not do in 135 AD.

I also note that "Mark" had Jesus asking people to flee Judah, not necessarily Jerusalem. Maybe "Mark" thought that the Romans, after the conquest of Jerusalem and massacring many they found in the city, would do the same, or were doing the same all over Judah.

Please keep in mind that there is another Thesis on the table - The "Abomination of Desolation" was an act performed by the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus (Let the reader note) at the Temple at Gerizim. Josephus writes the MOST improbable garbage surrounding the Triumph of Demetrius over Alexander Jannaeus. Demetrius DESTROYS Jannaeus' Army AND THEN flees the country while the Jewish Mercs leave the Greeks and join Jannaeus "out of pity..."

You don't have to believe it but it is Consistent, in Sequence and describes the events as given.

CW

[MrMacSon]

I believe hardly any - if any - Christian documents were written before near the end of the 1st century

• not even the extant Pauline epistles

• not even extant gMark

All Christian narratives are likely to just be set in the early 1st century: they borrow from mid 1st-century events, or later events and later texts.

They imply they refer to 1st century events, or it is implied that they do.

Thank you for your statement of belief. I think you rely mostly on the opinions of some modern scholars, amateurs and contemporary bloggers when they agree with your beliefs. Instead, I rather do my own homework on the earliest Christian texts and non Christian texts written in the same period.

That's pretty arrogant, Bernard. I post a lot of references on this Forum about a range of issues: to be as open-minded as possible, while trying to discern what really went on, without being tied to any one view, and yet when I make a rare statement like that you use my use of 'I believe' to belittle me as supposedly having 'belief' and mere 'opinions' from narrow sources.

So Mark is of dubious 'historical accuracy'?

That's what I always thought. Did you think I am a Fundy?

lol. Only insofar as you do consider your website "as a Fundy considers the Bible" --especially as you only do a form of exegesis of the Bible.