How do we know when the Gospels were written?

Hi Rev, Jesus wasn't talking about the actual Temple in Jerusalem, in John 2:19-21 it is explained. Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

​

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

​

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. Bit of a yawn really.Brian.

Ahhh, ok. I can understand why the jews didn't really believe him then..it would have been something if he could have brought the temple back though

There are numerous instances in the Gospels of the disciples and others taking Jesus' statements literally when he really meant them in a figurative or "spiritual" sense. After a while, one gets to thinking they were idiots. Is it possible that, even a generation later, at the time the Gospels were written (as well as afterward), they were still (wrongly) believing that Jesus preached a relatively imminent second coming in the flesh--when in fact he was only talking about a "spiritual" return?This might explain "prophecies" that were supposedly fulfilled, only not fulfilled, unless one takes a twisted look at whatever the prophecy was supposed to be.

One of the more traditional and more conservative perspectives on prophecies is that they can have more than one fullfillment, and a partial early fulfillment with a later one, often more significant.

it is tradition, but i just don't understand were the conclusion came from? is it purely because some leaders and writers didn't want to admit they got what jesus meant wrong, or jesus was wrong?it just doesn't make sense to say "well this line doesn't mean what it says in context, it means a later time"
it just sometimes seems like some sects do not want give up the idea, but really they could be wrong which they shoehorn to fit itThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-02-2006 03:19 AM

It's because that's the way New Testament biblical writers viewed prophecies and at times even rules. For example, Paul writes that when the scripture says you shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn, that it was primarily meant for ministers of the gospel. His comment "does God take care of oxen?" is thus rhetorical.If you read how OT scriptures are used in the New Testament, you will notice this principle in effect.

sorry could you explain that a bit? the first part really doesn't make any sense in conjuntion with the second part. the effect i see is the authors mutilating fufilled prophecies, and trying to shoe horn jesus into them to get the jews to believe he was the messiah, which from what i understand didn't work

There is a rule in the Law that states when an oxen is plowing, you will not muzzle it so it cannot eat at the same time, presumably of the field it is plowing. Paul says that was written for "our benefit" meaning the people in the New Testament, and says it relates to supporting ministers of the gospel while they plow the field (minister the word of God). Paul, of course, also states that he supported his own ministry to avoid charges from others that he and his team were taking advantage of this privilege.So Paul sees a mundane rule as having a secondary temporal-wise but more primary meaning intended for a later time, a sort of prophetic meaning if you would that he says reflects God's heart and mind more than the original purpose of the rule.This is basic principle within the New Testament. It's not hard to grasp and is a very old Christian principle dating back to Jesus and his words, and arguably earlier.

How can you have a Christian principle dating back before Jesus?Brian.

Brian, certainly Christ existed prior to the creation and Aberaham, or that's what we beleivers believe.But really the principle could arguably be known to the prophets in the Old Testament, or to Moses, for example, and thus being a very old Christian principle, it could be a very old Jewish principle prior to that.

Yes indeed, but as there were no Christians before Jesus' appearance then it would not be a Christian principle. So, it is a very old Jewish principle that Christians took on after the death of Jesus?Brian.

Greetings all,Have a look at this table:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipIt shows when the earliest Christian writings began to mention the Gospels and their contents.This evidence argues that the Gospels were unknown by CHRISTIANS until early-mid 2nd century.Iasion

What do you mean by "exists". Prior to creation what would existence be?lfen

Brian,Remember back to the old Soviet Union when the Russians had invented everything? at least they claimed to have invented everything first. I think it's kind of like that.If the Christians like it then it was Christian and was their's first, the pagans, or Jews or whoever must have then by this logic stolen it from them. Then I guess the communists stole this logic from the Christians! but then if the Commie's invented everything first then the Christians stole it from them, but only after they stole it first? Some sort of time travel paradox infinite loop results! oy!lfen

Why go with faith? Knowledge is better. The truth is out there.