Happy Birthday to our Members!!!

[ilgwamh]

http://www.acfaith.com/marcaninvention.html

See my critique of this impossible claim.

Vinnie

 

[Thinker]

Mostly, I agree with you Vinnie.

I would submit, though, that `Mark' and `John' knew some of the same stories.

If `Secret Mark' is to be given credence, then `Mark' knew of the Lazarus story.

Likewise, I have seen the odd argument that the `lost ending' of Mark was probably a cruder version of the last chapter of John. Also, in this vein, the opening of the `Sophia of Jesus' makes a sort of `natural fit' with the short ending to Mark.

 

[look]

Welcome to the Bible bashers club!!!

As long as you try to apply man's logic and reasoning to any of the things of God, you are going to miss it completely.

The Gospel writers were moved upon by the Holy Spirit. He had each of the contribitors write each work in the style He wanted, to show the things of God that was to be revealed to the ones whose hearts were listening.

Only forty years ago, it was widely known that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel written (37 AD) and the Gospel of Mark was written in the period between 57-63 AD. The Gospel of Luke was written in the period of 58-63 AD. The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD.

So the first three Gospel were written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Gospel of John was written about twenty years after the fall of the Temple.

That was the accepted chronlogy only forty years ago. What happened? Who or what group of people changed it? And on what basis?

Let me interject something here. In order to properly hear what the Holy Spirit is saying in the Bible, you have to be connected to God through faith in Jesus' rising from the grave and ONLY those people will be able to hear.

With that in mind, if anybody could understand the hidden things of the Bible, then Satan would have not caused Jesus to be crucified. But satan lost his glory (which only comes from the Father) when sin was found in him. Without that quickening, only a small portion of God's Word is readily apparent.

Do you think Satan would have caused Jesus to be crucified, if he knew that would cause him to be defeated? It was fortold in the Bible. All of the Old Testament saints knew, so how come Satan didn't?

I hope you can see that you guys are missing the key that would enable God's Word to be understood. The Word is supernatural, endued with the Life and Glory of God, from Whom all good things come from.

Of course I realize that the people who try to batter the Word of God will never accept what I said, simply because it would violate their sense of uniformity. If that's what you want to keep, then by all means. It will tke you straight into trouble in life. Of course the Wisdom contained in God's Word will lead you to Life in Jesus. You DO have a choice. And you have exercised it.

Remember, For every action, there is a reaction.
Fight against God, He will fight against you.

 

[OldBadfish]

look is right IMO, as usual...

 

[wildernesse]

look and badfish:

Did you read Vinnie's essay? How, exactly, does changing the chronology of the NT books change the MESSAGE within them?

How, specifically, is Vinnie's essay battering the Bible's message? And lastly, do you have anything to say about his work refuting this particular part of Jesus-mythers?

Vinnie, I will have to print this out and read it. I'm interested in early Bible history, but I don't know much about it so I'm still dabbling. Thanks for giving me something to think about!

--tibac

 

[Sin of Man]

Look:
Only forty years ago, it was widely known that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel written (37 AD) and the Gospel of Mark was written in the period between 57-63 AD. The Gospel of Luke was written in the period of 58-63 AD. The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD.

It wasn't "widely known". You keep on making this assertion.

As doubtingmerle has said before, Mark is generally thought to have been written from 65-80 AD, Matthew from 80-100 AD, Luke-Acts from 80-130 AD, and John from 90 to 120 AD.

 

[wildernesse]

Dang it, Sin of Man, I still can't get you off my ignore list! I can't view your post without logging out. Can anyone help me with this? I'm such an idiot--that's what I get for having no self-control. Stupid learning lessons and all that!

--tibac

 

[Sin of Man]

Today at 03:08 AM wildernesse said this in Post #7

Dang it, Sin of Man, I still can't get you off my ignore list! I can't view your post without logging out. Can anyone help me with this? I'm such an idiot--that's what I get for having no self-control. Stupid learning lessons and all that!

--tibac

Why was I on it in the first place?

 

[look]

Today at 09:43 PM Badfish™ said this in Post #4

look is right IMO, as usual...

Thanks, Badfish™! It's nice to be encouraged!

 

[wildernesse]

Today at 03:11 AM Sin of Man said this in Post #8

Why was I on it in the first place?

Because I'm a brat and pitched some kind of tantrum one day, aimed at you when I was really just annoyed at life in general. Please don't try to dig it up, it's thoroughly embarrassing and a perfect example of how to lose your temper and be incredibly rude. The board has apparently decided to make this a constant reminder of why I shouldn't lose my temper! haha.

--tibac

 

[Sin of Man]

Today at 03:39 AM look said this in Post #9



Thanks, Badfish™! It's nice to be encouraged!

Badfish isn't helping you Look, he's only encouraging some ignorance. You should be thanking me instead.

 

[PastorFreud]

I'll say thanks to Sin of Man. Thanks for battling fundy ignorance and anti-intellectualism. We can do lots of things now we couldn't do before, like use DNA to make positive identification. We also have Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents that we didn't have before or had limited access to. The more we have, the fuller our understanding becomes.

But what I thought was really weird is that Vinnie was DEFENDING Marcan authorship and you thought that was Bible bashing.  Did you read the material in the link?

 

[look]

Today at 10:04 PM Sin of Man said this in Post #6

look said in post #3

Only forty years ago, it was widely known that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel written (37 AD) and the Gospel of Mark was written in the period between 57-63 AD. The Gospel of Luke was written in the period of 58-63 AD. The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD.

So the first three Gospel were written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Gospel of John was written about twenty years after the fall of the Temple.

That was the accepted chronlogy only forty years ago. What happened? Who or what group of people changed it? And on what basis?

It wasn't "widely known". You keep on making this assertion. As doubtingmerle has said before, Mark is generally thought to have been written from 65-80 AD, Matthew from 80-100 AD, Luke-Acts from 80-130 AD, and John from 90 to 120 AD.

Ok, then I'll show the basis for my statements, complete with links. In the probable case of no web articles, then I will cite the publication.

[align=center]Matthew[/align]

The early church unanimously ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, also called Levi. He refers to himself as "the publican," which may indicate his feeling of humility for having been exalted by his Saviour from such a low estate to the distinguished rank of an apostle.

According to the earlier traditions, this Gospel was placed first in the order of the four "Memoirs" for two reasons: It was first in the date of composition. The date of writing is placed by some as early as A.D. 37; present-day scholarship, however, ascertains the date in the vicinity of A.D. 60 to 64. Secondly, this Gospel was regarded as first in importance in early Christian history because the predominant element among the early Christians was Jewish. Early Christian history strongly indicates that Matthew first wrote a "Memoir of the Life and Teachings of Christ" in the Aramaic, or spoken Hebrew of Palestine. Later, then, he wrote his gospel in Greek as handed down to us in ancient manuscripts. The Aramaic edition was probably written as early as A.D. 37; the Greek edition, at a later date, probably about A.D. 60. http://www.anewyou.ca/booksbible/Biblmatt.html


Syriac documents from Edessa, first written down around 37 AD record the preaching of Mar Addai, one of the 72 Apostles. This man was the first to preach Jesus Christ in Edessa. In his preaching he mentioned a few short phrases which can be traced to the Syriac gospels of Matthew and Mark, indicating the existence of these gospels at this very early date. http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html


There is a very ancient fragment of his book found in Egypt called the 'Magdalen Papyrus' which has been dated to the 60's AD by Carsten Theide. This means that we have a copy made from Matthew's original text by 30 years after Jesus left the earth. This indicates that Matthew probably wrote his original Gospel within a decade after the ascension of Jesus in order for the copy to have made it to Egypt by 60 AD. Thus, Matthew's gospel is extremely immediate to the actual events of Jesus' life, and is a very reliable source of evidence. http://www.churchoftheapostles.net/aym/grow_03_evidence.htm


Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i. e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

I think that will be enough for the Gospel of Matthew, now for the Gospel of Mark;

[align=center]Mark[/align]

I. THE WRITER OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK
John Mark - John (Jewish) Mark (Roman) - called elsewhere John and Marcus.
II. DATE OF WRITING 57-63 AD http://www.ibmao.com/mao207a.htm


Is there any indication that Mark can be dated earlier than 70? Indeed, there is strong evidence to date it earlier:
Contemporary-sounding references. Mark 15:21 refers to Alexander and Rufus, sons of Simon of Cyrene. It would be peculiar to mention these two persons unless they were somehow alive and known to the church - and the later Mark is dated, the more doubtful this becomes. The same may be said of referring to Pilate without mentioning his position as Matthew and Luke do.
Material accuracy. Mark's Gospel reflects well the contours of Palestinian Judaism before the time of the fall of Jerusalem; indeed, "No New Testament author portrays the different groups in Jewish Palestine at the time of Jesus as accurately as Mark" [Heng.Mark, 10]. Since the whole religious landscape was changed by the events of 70, Mark is reflecting either a very accurate memory, or else is writing before 70 when that landscape was still whole - and if we choose the former, we have no basis to reject the sayings of Jesus as inauthentic due to memory loss!
Indications of early tradition. Mark's rare use of the word "apostle," his consistent ordering of the apostles' inner circle (Peter, James, John - as opposed to Luke's Peter, John and James), and his references to "the Twelve" point to an earlier date when these terms were in use.
Our conclusion: the authorship and date of Mark, by the grounds used by secular historians for making the same determinations, we see thus far point strongly to Mark's authorship and significantly towards a pre-70 composition. http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html


When papyrologists like Thiede claim that a complete codex of the gospels of Matthew & Mark was available as early as A.D.50 (at the latest A.D.70), the churches applaud. He identified (a) little fragments of Greek Qumrân-papyri (on scroll) with an early (A.D.50) Gospel of Mark (cf.the controversy around Qumrân-text 7Q5) and (b) the Magdalen & Barcelona fragments (forming a complete codex ?) with a complete Gospel of Matthew (claimed to be an eyewitness of Jesus) written before A.D.70 (Thiede, 1995). http://sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/jesus1.htm


The Gospel accounts of the appearances are too early to be legendary. The legend theory rests very heavily on the premise that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. But even the liberal critic John A. T. Robinson challenges this late dating as largely the result of scholarly laziness, unexamined presuppositions and almost willful blindness on the part of the critics. In fact, a growing number of scholars would argue for dating the book that we call Acts, or the books that we call Acts, Luke, Mark and Matthew before AD 70. And one of the reasons is that Acts makes no mention of known historical events that took place between AD 60 and and 70, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Christians by Nero, the death of James and the death of Paul. The best explanation for these significant events going unmentioned by the writer is that they hadn't yet occurred when the Book of Acts was completed. Hence, Acts was written before AD 62-64, and the Gospel of Luke, being Part I of Luke's writings, was even earlier, possibly AD 57-62, and most scholars believe Mark was one of Luke's research sources, and so it would be earlier still, somewhere between 45-56 AD. This pushes the accounts of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus to within 15-32 years after the events, or roughly one generation. http://www.ffrf.org/debates/barker_horner.html


[align=center]Luke[/align]

The gospels of Mark and Luke originated in Rome in the late fifties or early sixties A.D. http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm


We know from sources outside the Bible that the Apostle Paul died during Nero’s persecution in 64 A.D. We also know that Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before 64 A.D. Since Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, we know that Gospel must have been written even earlier still. Any scholar, including those in the “Historical Jesus” movement, will tell you that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke. This supports the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. http://www.historical-jesus.net/


[align=center]John[/align]

In 1920 a piece of papyrus manuscript was found. It is usually referred to as the Rylands Fragment of the fourth gospel. Its discovery proves that John's gospel was circulating in Egypt around 130AD.
If we allow a generation for the book to travel from Ephesus and become known in Egypt, then it could not have been written later than 100AD. How early the gospel may be dated depends on whether or not one thinks that the author knew the gospels of Mark and Luke.
If the author knew them (Streeter's claim) then the date of composition of the fourth gospel can hardly have been earlier than AD90.
If he did not know them then the gospel could be much earlier.
How much earlier than AD90 depends on a solution being found to the question of authorship.
John Robinson has suggested that the gospel contains a good deal of reliable historical information. He wishes to ascribe to the work a very early date. http://www.myerscough3.freeserve.co.uk/l6/l6g/jauth.htm

John's Gospel is generally considered to be the last of the four canonical Gospels to be written. On the other hand, as Michaels points out, "no limit could be fixed on how early it could have been written" because John does not rely on the Synoptic Gospels. In the past, some have dated the Gospel in the second century, but that view has decreased in popularity after the discovery of two important manuscripts of John's Gospel that are dated in the early part of the second century (P46 and Egerton Pap. 2). The majority of scholars date the Gospel in the period AD 90-100, though some have dated it much earlier. http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/john.html

Well, I guess this blows away the purpose of dating the Gospels to a much later time for the sake of refuting the resurrection of Jesus, because now we can see that these Gospels were indeed written by EYEWITNESSES!

The Gospels ARE NOT legend at all!!! The resurrection of the Lord Jesus is very much plausible than you would like or admit it to be.

 

[look]

Yesterday at 11:22 PM Sin of Man said this in Post #11


Badfish isn't helping you Look, he's only encouraging some ignorance. You should be thanking me instead.

Me thank you? A false teacher? Hah! You must have been smoking some lawnmower clippings!

Nah, it's you who should be thanking me for taking the time to refute the information you have blindly accepted from all of your favorite "skeptic" and "humanistic" web teachings.

 

[look]

Today at 01:58 AM PastorFreud said this in Post #12

I'll say thanks to Sin of Man. Thanks for battling fundy ignorance and anti-intellectualism. We can do lots of things now we couldn't do before, like use DNA to make positive identification. We also have Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents that we didn't have before or had limited access to. The more we have, the fuller our understanding becomes.

But what I thought was really weird is that Vinnie was DEFENDING Marcan authorship and you thought that was Bible bashing.  Did you read the material in the link?

The issue wasn't the authorship, rather it was the dates.

The only thing I didn't approve of, was the dates for the Gospels which would reinforce the plausiblity of imperfect transmission of the historical accounts of Jesus (The legend principal). I had no other problems with the article. Just the dates.

However, I admit there was an appearance of my rejecting Vinnie's article, when I really was responding to Thinker's acclamation of the article.

Thinker has been avoiding my rebuttals to his posts recently, as if he won't debate with me. This makes me wonder about his sincerity in his beliefs.

 

[PastorFreud]

Today at 12:43 AM look said this in Post #15

The issue wasn't the authorship, rather it was the dates.

The only thing I didn't approve of, was the dates for the Gospels which would reinforce the plausiblity of imperfect transmission of the historical accounts of Jesus (The legend principal). I had no other problems with the article. Just the dates.

However, I admit there was an appearance of my rejecting Vinnie's article, when I really was responding to Thinker's acclamation of the article.

Thinker has been avoiding my rebuttals to his posts recently, as if he won't debate with me. This makes me wonder about his sincerity in his beliefs.

Having seen the way you debate, I doubt it has anything to do with Thinker's sincerity of beliefs.  For example, you admit here that it seems you were disapproving of the article when it was only the dates.  This kind of lack of clarity can make debates quite difficult.

 

[Sin of Man]

Look,

I see the word "probably" used quite few times in your post.

1) The Aramaic edition was probably written as early as A.D. 37; the Greek edition, at a later date, probably about A.D. 60.

2) This indicates that Matthew probably wrote his original Gospel within a decade after the ascension of Jesus in order for the copy to have made it to Egypt by 60 AD. Thus, Matthew's gospel is extremely immediate to the actual events of Jesus' life, and is a very reliable source of evidence.

It's not a reliable source of evidence because it is not contemporary to the lifetime of the bible character Jesus Christ.

Well, I guess this blows away the purpose of dating the Gospels to a much later time for the sake of refuting the resurrection of Jesus, because now we can see that these Gospels were indeed written by EYEWITNESSES!

Your information doesn't show that at all. It doesn't prove that Jesus actually lived or rose from the dead.

Me thank you? A false teacher? Hah! You must have been smoking some lawnmower clippings!
Nah, it's you who should be thanking me for taking the time to refute the information you have blindly accepted from all of your favorite "skeptic" and "humanistic" web teachings.

Steady on Look. I never said I was a teacher of any kind, let alone a false one. Anyway thankyou for posting those links, even one from Robert "no links" Turkel for fun.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Today at 11:34 PM look said this in Post #14

Me thank you? A false teacher? Hah! You must have been smoking some lawnmower clippings!

Nah, it's you who should be thanking me for taking the time to refute the information you have blindly accepted from all of your favorite "skeptic" and "humanistic" web teachings.

Sin of Man, have you been hanging around those EVIL humanistic and skeptic websites again?

Go here and get saved..
www.landoverbaptist.org

 

[PastorFreud]

Geesh. Don't you guys know that GOD wrote the book of Mark and that it is, therefore, completely reliable? I heard of a rock singer who said he just held the pen in his hand and Satan wrote the words. Well if Satan can do it, God surely can!! All of this debate is just the wisdom of man that will lead you astray. The wisdom that comes from God will show you the Truth. But you have to be a born again, saved, washed in the blood of the lamb Christian to get it. Believe first and then it will all make sense.

 

[Sin of Man]

Today at 07:54 AM Annabel Lee said this in Post #18



Sin of Man, have you been hanging around those EVIL humanistic and skeptic websites again?

Yes...... sowwy miss. I can't help it.

Spongebob squarepants is my favourite cartoon, I'm in even deeper trouble.