Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Who Wrote the Gospels?" video.

@charlesbrowne9590 For early Christians the torture chamber was for those who believed. The questions about the "originals" don't have any sense, since we don't have the originals of any long text of that age and for many years later. The dead sea scrolls are originals? Who says that? And originals of what? If those are the originals, where are the derivates? Stone carvings are originals? Are you sure? Someone starts carving stone without having a reference text before? Dating the gospels post-70 due to the references to the destruction of the temple is very weak. The prophecy of destruction of the temple in Mark and Mattew is very vague and in line with other apocalyptic texts written before the actual destruction, and even in Luke is different from how it really went (no references to the burning, he talks about a siege, but also about earthquakes, famines and plagues ). Several parts of the Gospel of Mattew seems to imply the temple was still standing and Jerusalem had not been besieged when he was writing (IE 23-21, 27-10)
2
@charlesbrowne9590 the Dead Sea scrolls survived because they were near to the Dead Sea. Papyrus doesn't survive more than 200 years if not in very particular climatic conditions. That's why all the early fragments of the gospel came from places around the Sinai. The Torah in the dead Sea Scrolls is practically identical to that of the 11th Century Leningrad codex, and differs only due to translation issues from Ebraic to Greek to that present in any Christian Bible. It seems the Romans did a particularly shitty job in repressing the Ebraic writings. The Nag Hammadi library contains pretty late texts. We have earlier entire gospels. The question of the age of the texts has nothing to do with your or anyone's personal simpaties.
2
@charlesbrowne9590 The Dead Sea Scrolls survived by pure chance and had been found by pure chance. Those were copies of texts that were centuries old and amply diffused. We have many copies of the Gospels written when they were centuries old and amply diffused.
1
The prophecy of destruction of the temple in Mark and Mattew is very vague and in line with other apocalyptic texts written and profecies made before the actual destruction (IE "Jesus son of Anaus" made the same prediction in 62CE) , and even in Luke is different from how it really went (no references to the burning). Several parts of the Gospel of Mattew seems to imply the temple was still standing and Jerusalem had not been besieged when he was writing (IE 23-21, 27-10).
1
John doesn't mention anything about Jesus' birth. It starts with his baptism, 30 years later. Jerusalem's destruction regarded Jerusalem. Almost the only thing Jesus did there is to die.
1
A life expectancy of 40 was due to the very high child mortality, not by the fact that people were considered old at 40 (they weren't. We know of several Centurions that were considered plenty able to fight in their '60s). People in their 70s were fairly common in Roman era, and in their '80s not so rare. IE general Lucius Verginius Rufus died at 82, and he was consul (for the third time) that year, so he was still considered able.
1
@ghostriders_1 Actually there are many doubts, both for Mark being the first and it being written in 80CE. Dating the gospels post-70 due to the references to the destruction of the temple is very weak. The prophecy of destruction of the temple in Mark and Mattew is very vague and in line with other apocalyptic texts written before the actual destruction, and even in Luke is different from how it really went (no references to the burning, he talks about a siege, but also, like Mattew, about earthquakes, famines and plagues). Several parts of the Gospel of Mattew seems to imply the temple was still standing and Jerusalem had not been besieged when he was writing (IE 23-21, 27-10).
1
@ghostriders_1 Well. Mark inventing a life of Christ, while, before, Christianity had been practically invented by Paul talking of a metaphorical Jesus, seems pretty strange. Infact, if there is ONE theme Paul stresses is resurrection. REAL resurrection, not metaphorical one (Corinthians 1 14-19). So, if that was the main reference, Why Mark talks so little about resurrection? It's like asking to be called an heretic from those that only knew Paul (so all the Christians).
1
@ghostriders_1 It's not a question of buying. To decide the gospels are post 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the temple don't solve more problems that it poses. Why Mattew, that writes for Jews, talks about Jerusalem as a vital city? If they had all the infos, why they talked about the destruction wrong, leaving the readers guessing if Christ had just being lucky, and not even that much? Then there is the Paternoster, not found in Mark, existing in Mattew, slightly different in Luke, and found on a wall of Pompeii (in form of the sator square), so written and known before 79CE... AND, on the other end, Jesus Christ was not the only guy predicting the destruction of the temple before 70CE, it was not even the only Jesus predicting it. Josephus records that, in 62 CE, a man named Jesus son of Ananus began to prophesy exactly the same thing. Jerusalem had been invaded an conquered multiple times, and its temple had already been destroyed once, the fear it could happen again was justified.
1
@ghostriders_1 "Is anybody's guess" is not an explanation. Christians were not idiots that accepted anything with the word "Jesus" in it. To be accepted by them, like by ANY religious group, a writing should have been compatible with what they already believed. If they only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark is possible.
1
@ghostriders_1 Then why you are not stating you don't know, instead of stating the reality of a fictional world of your where Christians didn't even believe in the phisical body of Christ until, precisely around 80CE, a guy composed a tale about the life of a guy named Jesus and all the Christians "oh, yeah! It's our Christ!". Religious people are not more idiot than the others. If you have to postulate the idiocy of people for your theory being right, then your theory is wrong. You can't adapt reality to theory. Religious people have strong believings that are not easily bent. The stronger themore sectarian is the group. Christians were not idiots that accepted anything with the word "Jesus" in it. To be accepted by them, like by ANY religious group, a writing should have been compatible with what they already believed. If they only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels. You seem to be under the delusion that very early Christianity was unified in one place & in one belief, that's why you concentrated on Paul. it was not. Wake up. If the Christians only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels. All of that happened before Catholicism, sorry and the same Pauline epistles show those early Christian "different believings" to be just nuances. The theological questions that divided Christianity in incompatible sects had yet to be posed. Mattew considers Gerusalem a vital city the moment he's writing, not the moment the story is set. Then where is a paternoster before Mattew?
1
So much of what you say doesn't make any sense and is not backed by any evidence. To decide the gospels are post 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the temple doesn't solve more problems that it poses. WE KNOW those kind of predictions were diffused before 70 CE in the Jewish community. Why Mattew, that writes for Jews, talks about Jerusalem as a vital city in the moment he writes? If they had all the infos, why they talked about the destruction wrong, leaving the readers guessing if Christ had just being lucky, and not even that much? Why the paternoster, that we find first in Mattew, was known and diffused before 79CE? Your pretense people should be idiots for your theory to work disqualifies it. You can't adapt reality to theory. Your theory fails to take into considerations religious people have strong believings that are not easily bent. The stronger the more sectarian is the group. New people are welcomed into the sect when they accept the believing of the sect. Is not the sect that acquire the believing of the new people. Another time you have to adapt reality to theory. You have even to force early Christianity to be a mysteric religion, another time adapting reality to theory, when that was EXACTLY the problem Christians had with gnosticism, that sold "very special revelations" only for the initiates. Sorry, but early Christianity didn't work like that. Bishops were elected, not cooptated. You have not debunked anything, sorry. You seem to be under the delusion that very early Christianity was unified in one place & in one belief, that's why you concentrated on Paul. it was not. If the Christians only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels. Contrary to you, I've not to adapt reality to theory.
1
That kind of apocalyptic predictions were fairly common in Jewish world. Christ had not even been the only Jesus to predict the destruction of the temple in first century. IE "Jesus son of Anaus" made the same prediction in 62CE, as reported by Josephus. The temple was very important for the Jews, it had already been destroyed once, and Jerusalem had been conquered several times, so to predict the destruction of the temple leveraged on a realistic fear. There is then the problem of the Pater Noster. The prayer is not found in Mark, it's in Mattew, slightly different in Luke and, in form of the "sator" square, is on two walls of Pompeii, so it was already known and diffused before 79CE. Also Mattew 27-10 seems to imply Jerusalem had not been destroyed when the gospel had been written.
1