Dating of the gospels Sexy boys chat free chating
It is unbelievable that Luke could gloss over that horrible persecution in silence.
Still a third event not mentioned is the murder of Jesus’ brother James, who was leader of the Christians in Jerusalem at the time.
But if He really was the Son of God, as the gospels state, then He could have prophesied the future. But that assumption is itself founded on mere assumptions. At face value, it makes more sense to say Mark was written before A. 70, for it seems unbelievable that Mark (whom critics agree was John Mark mentioned in Acts) would wait thirty to forty years to write down his gospel. If he wrote afterwards, he could not have portrayed the Romans only as friends.
(3) With regard to the arguments for a post-70 date for Luke, the first assumes Mark was not written before A. Is it really plausible to think that Mark would wait decades before writing his brief gospel, which would be so valuable in sharing and leaving with newly established churches as the gospel preachers went about teaching and preaching? As a matter of fact, Jesus’ prophecies are actually evidence that the gospels were written before A. 70, for Luke never casts the Romans in the role of enemies in his writings. Besides that, we have Josephus’s descriptions of the sacking of Jerusalem in A. 70, and many of the striking peculiarities of the city’s destruction are absent from the prophecies.
But more than that: since one of the sources used by Luke in writing his gospel was probably Mark’s gospel, this means Mark was written even earlier than Luke. Remember, we are not talking about deliberate lies; we are talking about legends.
It is unreasonable to charge Luke or his sources with being liars.
And really, even on a purely humanistic account of the matter, there is no reason those predictions could not have been given before A. So really the argument from Jesus’ predictions supports a pre-70 dating of the gospels. This evidence is both compelling and authoritative, and as far as I know, has not been refuted convincingly by any reputable scholar. Luke centers much attention on the events that took place in Jerusalem, but he mentions nowhere in Acts the destruction of the city in A. A second event noticeably absent is the Roman Emperor Nero’s terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome.
The author of Acts does not refer to or seem to be well acquainted with Paul’s many letters. Luke therefore ought to be regarded just as historically reliable as Paul. “Granted that Luke and Paul wrote about the same time, still Paul had earlier sayings and sources to go on.” But so did Luke.