Changes

The '''Date of the Gospel of Mark''' is unjustifiably pegged to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, based very loosely on the eschatological, end-of-the-world talk in {{bibleref|Mark|13}}. Also, [[liberal logic]] for the [[Bible]] is that when a work is known to have been composed before a certain event, as in the Temple's destruction in AD 70, then [[liberal]]s say that is when the work was written to assign as late a date as possible.

The '''Date of the Gospel of Mark''' is unjustifiably pegged to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, based very loosely on the eschatological, end-of-the-world talk in {{bibleref|Mark|13}}. Also, [[liberal logic]] for the [[Bible]] is that when a work is known to have been composed before a certain event, as in the Temple's destruction in AD 70, then [[liberal]]s say that is when the work was written to assign as late a date as possible.

Honest biblical scholars are not as well-versed in the trickery of [[liberal style]] and, as a result, absurd claims about a late date of writing of the Gospel of Mark become widely repeated.

Honest biblical scholars are not experts in the trickery of [[liberal style]] and, as a result, the scholars allow absurd claims of a late authorship to gain unjustified favor.

In fact, at least five considerations point to a date of authorship of the [[Gospel of Mark]] to be soon after the [[Resurrection]], or even prior to it in the form of a diary kept during the events:

There are seven (7) reasons why the date of authorship of the [[Gospel of Mark]] was soon after the [[Resurrection]], or even prior to it as an ongoing account:

*the [[Gospel of Mark]] omits subsequent events after the Resurrection, implying that it was finalized at the time of the Resurrection;

*the [[Gospel of Mark]] omits subsequent events after the Resurrection, implying that it was finalized at the time of the Resurrection;

*the Gospel of Mark is concise and to-the-point, almost like notes, while a later work would have been (and was) more verbose;  

*the Gospel of Mark is concise and to-the-point, almost like notes, while a later work would have been (and was) more verbose;