Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doubtingmerle" data-source="post: 56742535" data-attributes="member: 6687"><p>Good point.</p><p> </p><p>One could also use this argument to say that God did not inspire the book of Mark to be read by 21st century Christians, since mentioning Alexander and Rufus mean absolutely nothing to us. If frivolous names mean the account was written for those who recognize those names, that would be a strike against the view that God inspired Mark for us.</p><p> </p><p>Interestingly, when Matthew and Luke later copied the story from Mark, they left out the names of the two sons. Or could it be that somebody added those names to Mark later? I don't know why those names are there in Mark. </p><p> </p><p>One can also argue that characters like Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Armimathea, and Mary Magdalene are the invention of Mark, since nobody before Mark mentions them. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>That seems to be a key part of the early Christian message: taking references from the Old Testament and interpreting them to the messiah. In that background, it is not at all surprising that a fictional story of a messiah would have him quoting those passages.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Why does the messiah need to be on earth to change Paul? After all, Paul only saw a vision of Jesus, not Jesus when he walked on earth. If Paul's conversion was based on a heavenly vision of this Jesus, why does it matter to Paul if that Jesus ever walked on earth before appearing to Paul in a vision? Couldn't Paul have been equally motivated if he thought the messiah's work was always in heaven?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doubtingmerle, post: 56742535, member: 6687"] Good point. One could also use this argument to say that God did not inspire the book of Mark to be read by 21st century Christians, since mentioning Alexander and Rufus mean absolutely nothing to us. If frivolous names mean the account was written for those who recognize those names, that would be a strike against the view that God inspired Mark for us. Interestingly, when Matthew and Luke later copied the story from Mark, they left out the names of the two sons. Or could it be that somebody added those names to Mark later? I don't know why those names are there in Mark. One can also argue that characters like Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Armimathea, and Mary Magdalene are the invention of Mark, since nobody before Mark mentions them. That seems to be a key part of the early Christian message: taking references from the Old Testament and interpreting them to the messiah. In that background, it is not at all surprising that a fictional story of a messiah would have him quoting those passages. Why does the messiah need to be on earth to change Paul? After all, Paul only saw a vision of Jesus, not Jesus when he walked on earth. If Paul's conversion was based on a heavenly vision of this Jesus, why does it matter to Paul if that Jesus ever walked on earth before appearing to Paul in a vision? Couldn't Paul have been equally motivated if he thought the messiah's work was always in heaven? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
Top
Bottom