The theory that the Gospels in the bible were written AFTER 70 A.D. is an argument only to discredit the accounts, as well as beyond idiotic.
Also, saying that Matthew, Luke, and John only copied and expanded on the gospel of Mark, the shortest gospel, is to lie, and discredit the other 3 authors, as well as stupid to even imagine.
Why would 3 authors decide AFTER 70 A.D. to tell a story with only the smaller book of Mark to work with?
Let's take a look at the goings-on in 30 A.D. to 70 A.D....
The Romans were somewhat liberal when it came to how their conquered people's could worship.
There were a few insurrections, but they were put down quickly by the Romans, and life returned to normal for the most part.
The Bar-Khokba revolt, and as we see in Acts when Paul was accused of being an Egyptian who tried to start an insurrection.
There were very few happenings in this form from 30 A.D. until around 60-61 A.D. when the Jews revolted and that ended with millions dead, Jerusalem destroyed, and their temple burned in 69-70 A.D.
The insane theory suggests that between 30 and 61 A.D. no one was recording what was taking place in Jerusalem, because of for whatever reason, and therefore we don't know.
Did the Romans take away quills and parchment from the people? Did the people not know how to write? And only AFTER 70 A.D. did the people suddenly need to record what they forgot to years prior about a man dying on a cross?
Was it that only Mark was allowed to write, and what he wrote wasn't good enough for other authors who needed to use the smaller account, like Luke, a physician, who couldn't come up with his own story so copied and expanded Mark?
Paul, the author of so many letters to many peoples across the Roman empire, must have forgotten to write a gospel. He seems to have expanded the most on the teachings of Yashua, and the law that was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Paul actually interpreted his teachings in many of the letters.
So what was it that kept people from writing down the events as they took place?
What kept people from writing about a man who walked on water, turned water to wine, healed a man who was blind, deaf, had leprosy, and rose Lazarus from the dead?
These events were know to even Herod, a hedonistic Jewish leader in Israel, who later collaborated with the Roman procurator Pilot, to get rid of Yashua. As Paul would testify later in front of Felix, and his wife, none of the things he talked about "happened in a corner..."
Luke, the physician, followed Paul everywhere and it is known that he also penned letters for Paul. It is also known that Luke, while on these missions, wrote not only a gospel, The Gospel of Luke, but ALSO the book of Acts!
He writes about all of the apostles long before the destruction of Jerusalem, and even up to the time Paul was handed over to the guards in Rome.
To believe that no one wrote a gospel before 70 A.D. is saying to your audience that all of the above is accurate, when in reality it's beyond dumb to even think the above nonsense.
Everything in the new testament was written BEFORE 50 A.D.
Many of the churches Paul wrote to were destroyed by 70 A.D. and therefore wouldn't have ever read the letter written to them.
So, in finishing this post, let me say that because people hate the bible, and wish to see it, and Christianity destroyed, lie and try to discredit in every way possible.
In a later post, I will talk about the lies surrounding the Hebrew old testament, and the Septuagint Greek translation.
Until then...
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below... 👇🏻
