- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Ok, understand no one is questioning Galatians or at least six other NT books were written by Paul. Galatians being a very early book. Stories didn't exactly flourish in the early decades following the ascension of Christ because the Apostles, who were eye witnesses, were with them. John Mark wrote the Gospel according to Mark under the supervision of Peter in Rome, think what you like but that's what Christian scholarship has maintained for 2,000 years.I have to stop you right here. I assume no such thing. Stories could begin immediately. My point is they are told, over and over again. As the legendary tales grow, they become vastly inflated. After enough time passes, the story hardly resembles the original story, which may have also been embellished. By the time an educated person writes it to paper, they write what is in common circulation at the time they hear of such a tale. Their IQ could be 180. But this is of no relevancy. Some of the smartest people on the planet practice beliefs opposed to Christianity. So again, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Furthermore, the number of believers, or people whom convert, has no bearing or bases to it's truth claims.
As stated prior... Take Mark 16:8. This is originally where the story ends. So why the later addition of 9-20? This further supports the conclusion of legendary tales, which manifest and grow over time. Then fast forward a few decades to the claims of 'John'.
A lot of Christian scholars have seriously questions the last verses of John Mark's Gospel for very good reason, it's simply unlike the rest of the book. It probably originally ended with 'and they were all in fear', you have to understand the purpose of the book in the first place. They knew about the resurrection but the details of Jesus earthly ministry were sketchy at best, unless you had access to the Apostles of course. John Mark is kind of filling in the blanks and the church took great pains to preserve that testimony being so closely associated with the Apostles.
Speculation and controversy abounds regarding the ending, what is it doing in there is the biggest question, not so much does it belong. It was one of the earlier books and perhaps the ending from the original was recreated or maybe some well meaning scribe tried to piece together the ending he remembered, that is lost to history. There are some questions regarding parts of John's Gospel, like the woman caught in adultery. But the book itself has been the subject of virtually no controversy until modern times and the vast majority of that is from modern secular scholars.
You might want to consider this if your taking the subject matter seriously:
Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Testimony of the Evangelists 1846 by Simon Greenleaf)
Last edited:
Upvote
0