Hi Mark, you say that the Christian view in Satan is confirmed in the O.T. in the book of Job. Maye you are reading a translation different to mine, or maybe you havent read the book of Job for some time, but I suggest that you read the 1st 2 chapters of Job again. Satan as described in the book of Job is fairly consistent with the temptation of Christ in the Gospel of Mark, but NOT consistent with the description given in either John or Revelation. In the old testament Satan is an adversary or tempter, but who is doing Gods work. In the book of Job, Satan is NOT acting on his own, but at the behest of God.
I'm actually very familiar with Job, it was the first book I did a formal study of and I engaged in a study of the book of Job recently that is still ongoing here on CF. It is profoundly consistent with the New Testament witness, like few books in the Old Testament. Satan is challenged by God to consider Job, he complains that God has set up a hedge, so he cannot get to him. The Devil is never seen as a nemesis that actually threatens God's sovereignty, but rather as a rebellious spirit that is subject to God's will. The gospel of John is unique, John spends more time on dialogues, Jesus with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and almost half is spent on the last three days, Matthew has extensive details about what happens the last week. John Mark wasn't even an Apostle, he got his writing under the supervision of Peter. I'm still a little puzzled with your theory, if that's what you call it, because, John only mentions the Devil once, he is mentioned repeatedly in the synoptic gospels.
I find the Gospel of Mark to be the most honest Gospel in the N.T. When Jesus is tempted in the wilderness, very little is said about it by Mark. Mathew & Luke go into much more detail.
Matthew and Luke had much more detail, Luke was the most detailed writer of the Gospel account in the New Testament and Matthew was very much into the minute details. Mark's Gospel was an early writing, one of the earliest of the New Testament writings. It is very brief in comparison to the others.
So I ask you this, if Jesus was alone in the wilderness, who's account likely to be the most accurate? The person who says the least about the temptation, or the one who says the most about the temptation? Jesus was ALONE which means there were no eyewitnesses. That is why I find Marks account the most believable.
I don't know what you mean, the account of Jesus in the wilderness would have been related to the Apostles by Jesus personally, no other explanation makes any sense.
Similarly with the virgin birth. Mark says nothing about the virgin birth, whereas Mathew & Luke add a virgin birth (both with differing accounts). Jesus said nothing about a virgin birth, Paul said nothing about a virgin birth. The only person who could possibly know if she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, is Mary the mother of Jesus herself, yet we have no testimony from her at all. In the gospel of Mark, when Jesus is preaching at Nazareth, Jesus entire family comes to fetch him because they think he has gone crazy, not understanding why he is preaching the things that he is preaching Surely if Mary & Joseph had both had angels visit them to tell them that the child Mary is carrying is from immaculate conception, they would also know that God had other plans for him, so I find it hard to believe that they would think he was crazy from preaching stuff about God.
Luke spent more time on the details, he makes it clear he researched the writing thoroughly, even writing the book of Acts as a continuation. It has more details then the rest of them put together, the fullest explanation of the nativity comes from Luke. Matthew was very much focused on declaring Jesus as King of the Jews, he reads the Messianic pedigree like a royal decree.
Yes his family did try to come get him early, but they were having a tough time dealing with him having gone into the ministry. They didn't think he had gone crazy, one of his brothers complained that someone wanting to be famous doesn't hang around Decapolis and Capernaum. They were probably concerned for his safety, and Jesus being the oldest son with their father gone they were probably worried about the future. The unsettling time early in his ministry would be taken in stride and Mary was with him right up until the end, she even accompanied Mary Magdalene is her initial visit to the tomb of Jesus and was there when he died. James and Jude were both his brothers, James presided over the Jerusalem Council, because he to was a Son of David and seen as royalty. James and Jude both wrote canonical books in the New Testament. Mary is said to have ended up in Ephesus later in her life, the hub of the mission to the Gentiles. His family knew he was the promised Messiah, but with all the intrigue, especially early in his life, I think they were concerned for his safety.
From memory both Mathew & luke gloss over or neglect to mention this, probably because they can see themselves how inconsistent this account is with the virgin birth.
I still don't know what you mean, the accounts of the virgin birth are part of the more detailed records. It was a direct fulfillment of predictive prophecy and while it became a key point of doctrine later, it's sufficiently addressed in the New Testament witness.
You say that
Again, I have read that there was much debate about including both John & Revelation in the cannon in the 1st place. The fact is it was included, & merely BECAUSE it was, christian apologists claim that we HAVE to believe it. Based on what evidence do I have to believe the Gospel of John when there is NO other evidence to back up that it is true? I have no evidence that john was an eyewitness, I have no evidence that John was a scribe for an eyewitness, & there are no other comparable gospels to back up the claims made in John.
Let's get a couple of things straight, and trust me, this isn't a rebuke. First of all the New Testament books did not fall out of the sky, nor where they kept in clay jars in the dessert somewhere. When the church received them they read them to the church, other churches that wanted them read to their congregations had to make a copy. That is why the New Testament is the best preserved collection of documents from antiquity, bar none. You don't have any evidence? The Scriptures themselves are evidence and the over abundance of manuscript evidence is overwhelming compared to anything from antiquity with the exception of the Old Testament canon. Now while you might not be convinced or impressed, which of course is the right of any free thinking person, I've spent most of my adult life concerned with such things. I have done exhaustive studies, across disciplines, from the musings of mystics and skeptics, to the detailed accounts of the Early Church Fathers and profoundly pious men of God who spent their whole lives researching those texts.
I've never seen that perspective stand up to close scrutiny, nor have I seen it accompanied with substantive evidencial arguments against John's authorship of his Gospel or his epistles. Revelations is a special case, I must admit, there are only about six hundred manuscripts from deep antiquity. Now while compared to the rest of the canon that might seem rather slight it surpasses anything else we have from antiquity by a considerable margin. If you wanted to add Euclid's Elements for instance, I doubt seriously that would be a consideration since plane geometry can be confirmed mathematically. As historical documents the New Testament is incomparable, considered to have withstood the ravages of time with close to 98% consistency with the autographs.
Put it this way, say I have never read the bible before, & I find a Mormon bible, & I start reading it. I start to believe a lot of what is written in it until I get to the parts that were written by Joseph Smith. So I go to the Mormon church & ask them, do I have to believe EVERYTHING in your bible to become a Mormon, or can I just believe the parts that make sense? If the church says that you have to believe the whole box & dice, I am probably out of there never to return. I feel the same way about the Christian bible, some parts of it make sense, a lot of it doesn't. In other words, my logical mind would tell me that the account by Joseph Smith is false. In the New Testament, my logical mind tells me that there are parts of the Christian bible that is false.
I understand what you are saying, went through that more times then I can count. I checked into the Book of Mormon as a matter of fact and found it to be a humorous work of fiction. I didn't just pick the Bible up and agree with everything it said, I took the time to learn the evidences for it's authenticity. That and my personal experiences with God and the nature of Christian discipleship I have become convinced of it's authenticity.
There are answers to your questions, I'm not saying I can shoot every argument you have down, goodness knows I wouldn't try. I can tell you from personal experience and long study that it's authentic and completely reliable as a witness to the redemptive history within it's pages. I don't ask you to take me at my word, that would be a pretty unreliable source considering the long history and enormous scholarship involved. I'm just saying, give yourself some time to consider the wealth of understanding you might gain, not the least of which is a relationship with the God who made you.
We all have questions, believe me, I fellowship with scholars on a regular basis that are constantly combing over the details. Just give yourself some time to absorb some of the details. Even if you land on the unbelieving side you might pick up some cultural things with regards to the literary features and much of the philosophical and intellectual byproducts that inevitably are produced.
Take some time, consider carefully and if you decide there isn't enough there to hold you, go in peace, I have no problem with you. But at least give it a careful consideration, with an open mind, and you can walk away with a clear conscience and perhaps a little wisdom from a source that is highly regarded for exactly that.
Grace and peace,
Mark
