The ressurection is the cornerstone, the foundation of Christianity.
No ifs and's or but's about that.
Markan priority and the synoptic gospels
by 88JM 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
transhuman68
Maybe 'Forged' will help to clear up some of the mysteries for you. Watchtower relies on the bible writer's own accounts of where they were at certain times to determine when they were written and adopts many traditional assumptions as well. Now we know that much of that is fiction- there were no literate fishermen who could have ever written the Gospel of Matthew, for instance: and Peter did not write the epistles that bear his name. But it's all good- the real story is much more interesting than the Watchtower will ever let you know...
-
mP
mP; Interestingly Iraeneus also says that Jesus died of old age and not at 30 years.
SoonToBe:
He did not mean that in a literally, chronological sense.
mP:
Thats down right dishonest. It seems xians who claim to be always honest, and yet so often words have alternate meanings which they change at their advantage.
-
mP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8).
With facts like that for your argument or proof, how can you possibly be wrong ?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_III
And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it?
Josephus tells us that the 12 tribes because there are 12 zodiac signs.
The question is do you believe Josephus ? or some fool who tells you that the gospels we have are from god not because they are but bevcause there are 4 winds or directions of the compass ?
-
mP
PSac:
The ressurection is the cornerstone, the foundation of Christianity.
No ifs and's or but's about that.
mP:
That maybe so, but that doesnt make it true. Somehow Mark didnt think so, because its evident he didnt write about it. But for a single word "raise" the rest of his great book the thought is absent. How exactly did Mark forget to write about such a great thing ?
-
mP
Pistoff:
It is not until Paul begins writing in the 50's that we get the christology that has persisted to our day.
mP:
But what did Paul actually believe or say about Jesus ? Was it the same message as the gospels ?
-
transhuman68
LOL, I don't know what you are smoking mP, but I want some. Here is Chapter 16 of the Gospel of Mark from the RSV Bible:
16 And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.* 2 And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
So clearly there is a risen Christ in the first Gospel account ofJesus.
-
mP
Trans:
He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.
mP:
Everything after Mark 16:8 is an addition. Notice that even the NWT has two parts after 16:8, a LONG and a SHORT ending each with different footnotes in very very small writing. Its proababy the dirties little secret in the Bible.
-
mP
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/28353740
jump to 44:00ish
The Bible Geek, January 5, 2013
January 10 at 5:27am on The Bible Geek
Scholar Robert M Price talks abot the different Jesus in the first century...very interesting.
-
Bobcat
Priority: Mark or Matthew
I promised I would get back to this thread concerning whether Matthew or Mark were written first.
At first I was going to reference R. T. France in his NICNT-Matthew commentary. This is a c.1200 page reference on Matthew with a big introductory section. As it turns out, though, France wrote extensively about this isssue in another book that he authors (Matthew: Evangelist, pp.24-46), one which I don't have in my library, and he only gives some basic information about the subject in the NICNT book.
Nevertheless, what he does say agrees in substance with the NAC-Matthew commentary and the Bible Knowledge Commentary. So what I will share below is three paragraphs from the Bible Knowledge Commentary (Vol II, NT, p.96-97, which lays out the general pros and cons to the subject of which (Matthew or Mark) was likely written first.
[Start of quote.]
Many scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used it as a primary source document along with material from other sources. Luke, in fact, stated that he used other documents (Luke 1:1-4) Several arguments support the priority of Mark:
(1) Matthew incorporates about 90 percent of Mark, and Luke over 40 percent - over 600 of Mark's 661 verses are found in Matthew and Luke combined.
(2) Matthew and Luke usually follows Mark's order of events in Jesus' life, and where either of them differs for topical reasons the other always holds to Mark's order.
(3) Matthew and Luke hardly ever agree against the content of Mark in passages where they all deal with the same subject.
(4) Matthew and Luke often repeat Mark's exact words but where they differ in wording, the language of one or the other is simply grammatically or stylistically smoother than Mark's (cf., e.g., Mark 2:7 with Luke 5:21).
(5) Matthew and Luke seem to alter Mark's wording in some instances to clarify his meaning (cf. Mark 2:15 with Luke 5:29) or to "tone down" some of his strong statements (cf., e.g., Mark 4:38b with Matt. 8:25; Luke 8:24).
(6) Matthew and Luke sometimes omit words and phrases from Mark's "full" descriptions to make room for additional material (cf., e.g., Mark 1:29 with matt. 8:14; Luke 4:38).
Five major objections have been raised against the theory of Marcan priority:
(1) Matthew and Luke agree with each other against the content of Mark in some passages dealing with the same subject.
(2) Luke omits all reference to the material in Mark 6:45-8:26 which is unusual if he used Mark.
(3) Mark occasionally has bits of information not found in the same incident reported in Matthew and Luke (cf. Mark 14:72).
(4) The early chuch fathers apparently believed in the priority of Matthew instead of Mark.
(5) Marcan priority practically requires the view that Matthew and/or Luke were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
In response to the first objection, the agreements of Luke and Matthew against Mark involve a very small number of passages (ca. 6%) and are probably due to common sources (i.e, oral tradition) which they used in addition to Mark.
The second objection falters on the commonly acknowledged fact that the Gospel writers selected material from their sources in line with their purposes. Luke may have omitted reference material in Mark 6:45-8:26 in order not to interrupt the development of his own journey-to-Jerusalem theme (cf. Luke 9:51).
This also answers the third objection in addition to the fact that mark had Peter as an eyewitness source.
The fourth objection stems from the arrangement of the Gospels in the New Testament canon. To infer from this that the early fathers believed Matthew was written first is not valid. They were concerned about the apostolic authority and apologetic value of the Synoptic Gospels, not their historical interrelationships. Thus Matthew, written by an apostle and beginning with a genealogythat linked it nicely to the Old Testament, was given first place. Furthermore, if Matthew were the first Gospel written and it were used by Mark and Luke, one would expect to find places were Luke follows Matthew's order of events and Mark does not - but this does not occur. It is also more difficult to explain why Mark would shift from Matthew's order than vice versa. displacement of order favors Marcan priority.
In response to the fifth objection, Marcan priority does not necessitate dating Matthew and/or Luke after A.D. 70 (cf. comments on "Date").
[End of quote. Note that paragraphs were broken up to highlight the major pro/con arguments. The material was originally in three paragraphs. Italics is preserved from the reference.]
Personally, the arguments presented here are very compelling, and even-handed, to me. When compared with the WT All Scripture publication, the arguments there are very simplistic or surface level. As if the writers did not expect the reader to be able to comprehend much beyond a surface explanation.