A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[Easyrider]

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark.

Still beating that dead "Q" horse, Goat? You know, the one nobody has ever found historical or archaelogical evidence for?

Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories.

Tsk, tsk....

Mark - the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12).

Easton's Bible Dictionary - http://www.bible.org/ebd.asp?id=2419

Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.

See above.

[Goat]

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark.

Still beating that dead "Q" horse, Goat? You know, the one nobody has ever found historical or archaelogical evidence for?

Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories.

Tsk, tsk....

Mark - the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12).

Easton's Bible Dictionary - http://www.bible.org/ebd.asp?id=2419

Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.

See above.

Yes, that is a minority opinion. Please explain why the writer of the Gospel of Mark got his geography about Jersualum wrong, if your claims are accurate.

What is the references for their conclusions? What is the reasoning behind their claims? Where is the beef?


Your 'bible.org' seems highly inaccurate.

[Cathar1950]

easyrider I would like yto know how you know any of the Marks mentioned are the Marks that wrote the gospel.
Given the others copied his poor Greek work and changed his words and ideas with their gospels what is it you are trying to say?
Answer goat's questions.

[achilles12604]

And not one of those books were written by an eye witness. They might have CLAIMED eyewittnesses, but a story is a story is a story.

For that matter, most of those quotes were written decades after the fact.

Wrong. The authors of the gospels were the closest to Jesus. Each book written at different times, by different wittnesess, confirm the same account. Check it out man! Yeah, they are written from differenent people(coming from their own perspecitive of the account) that experenced what Jesus was. With that, none contradicted another. All 4 books confirm what Jesus was/did/and is.

No, you are quite wrong Lets look at the one that is acknowleged to be the first written of the synoptic gospels.
That would be the Gospel of Mark.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

A Marginal Jew, v. 2: Buy at amazon.com! John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6): "This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form."

Who Wrote the Gospels? : Buy at amazon.com! The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

This shows while Mark might have been relying on oral tradition, in no way was Mark a witness.

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories. Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.[/quote]



Ok fine. GOAT lets say you are 100% correct.


Mark was not an eyewitness. He was a recorder.

Since he was not recording his own sights or actions but rather someone elses, that means that MARK was not an eyewitness, but he did write an eyewitness account, Peter;s account.

There now is everyone happy?

[Goat]

And not one of those books were written by an eye witness. They might have CLAIMED eyewittnesses, but a story is a story is a story.

For that matter, most of those quotes were written decades after the fact.

Wrong. The authors of the gospels were the closest to Jesus. Each book written at different times, by different wittnesess, confirm the same account. Check it out man! Yeah, they are written from differenent people(coming from their own perspecitive of the account) that experenced what Jesus was. With that, none contradicted another. All 4 books confirm what Jesus was/did/and is.

No, you are quite wrong Lets look at the one that is acknowleged to be the first written of the synoptic gospels.
That would be the Gospel of Mark.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

A Marginal Jew, v. 2: Buy at amazon.com! John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6): "This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form."

Who Wrote the Gospels? : Buy at amazon.com! The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

This shows while Mark might have been relying on oral tradition, in no way was Mark a witness.

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories. Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.

Ok fine. GOAT lets say you are 100% correct.


Mark was not an eyewitness. He was a recorder.

Since he was not recording his own sights or actions but rather someone elses, that means that MARK was not an eyewitness, but he did write an eyewitness account, Peter;s account.

There now is everyone happy?

Nope. not at all. No evidence of that either. Just a bunch of after the fact tradition. Yes, mark relys on the Petrine tradition.. but that does not mean that he got Peter's story from Peter either, and it is STILL hersay, not an eye witness.

[Easyrider]

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark.

Still beating that dead "Q" horse, Goat? You know, the one nobody has ever found historical or archaelogical evidence for?

Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories.

Tsk, tsk....

Mark - the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12).

Easton's Bible Dictionary - http://www.bible.org/ebd.asp?id=2419

Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.

See above.

Yes, that is a minority opinion.

No. Acts spells it out pretty well, unless you and your like-minded friends are hell-bent on denial.

Please explain why the writer of the Gospel of Mark got his geography about Jersualum wrong, if your claims are accurate.

Another reach. No foundation or evidence.

Where's the beef?

[Goat]

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark.

Still beating that dead "Q" horse, Goat? You know, the one nobody has ever found historical or archaelogical evidence for?

You really stretching there. The 'Q' theory has nothing to do with Matthew and Luke copying from Mark.
As a matter of fact, those people who oppose the Q theory claim that the way Matthew and Luke got their information was via Mark.

Where is the 'Q' in that statement? When have I EVER mentioned Q ? As far as I am concerned 'Q' is just a character on star trek.

Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories.

Tsk, tsk....

Mark - the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12).

Easton's Bible Dictionary - http://www.bible.org/ebd.asp?id=2419

Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.

See above.

Yes, that is a minority opinion.

No. Acts spells it out pretty well, unless you and your like-minded friends are hell-bent on denial.

Please explain why the writer of the Gospel of Mark got his geography about Jersualum wrong, if your claims are accurate.

Another reach. No foundation or evidence.

Where's the beef?[/quote]

Really?? Then, why did he get it wrong?

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

THere is the evidence. There is the beef.

Now, where is the evidence that the "Gospel of Mark" was written by Mark? It's tradition, but no evidence for it.

[achilles12604]

Nope. not at all. No evidence of that either. Just a bunch of after the fact tradition. Yes, mark relys on the Petrine tradition.. but that does not mean that he got Peter's story from Peter either, and it is STILL hersay, not an eye witness.

Of course you say that.

[AB]

Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark.

Still beating that dead "Q" horse, Goat? You know, the one nobody has ever found historical or archaelogical evidence for?

You really stretching there. The 'Q' theory has nothing to do with Matthew and Luke copying from Mark.
As a matter of fact, those people who oppose the Q theory claim that the way Matthew and Luke got their information was via Mark.

Where is the 'Q' in that statement? When have I EVER mentioned Q ? As far as I am concerned 'Q' is just a character on star trek.

Mark never saw Jerusalum. That means, he was depending on stories.

Tsk, tsk....

Mark - the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12).

Easton's Bible Dictionary - http://www.bible.org/ebd.asp?id=2419

Since Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, they were copying from someone who was decades distant from the events, and who never was in Jerusalum to begin with.

See above.

Yes, that is a minority opinion.

No. Acts spells it out pretty well, unless you and your like-minded friends are hell-bent on denial.

Please explain why the writer of the Gospel of Mark got his geography about Jersualum wrong, if your claims are accurate.

Another reach. No foundation or evidence.

Where's the beef?

Really?? Then, why did he get it wrong?

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

THere is the evidence. There is the beef.

Now, where is the evidence that the "Gospel of Mark" was written by Mark? It's tradition, but no evidence for it.[/quote]

Ok, but how does all this disprove the Gospel? Check out the book from John, the closest to Jesus and another desciple Matthew. And really, here we have 4 writings that still coincide with Jesus the Son of God. Goat, where is the contradiction of the Gospel?

[Easyrider]

(from previous link) The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

THere is the evidence. There is the beef.

That isn't evidence or beef, just some confused arguments.

Your argument # 1: The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295).

Response:

 Helms and the liberals are simply playing the old game of making verses say more than they actually do. Simply because the cities are listed a certain way does not mean that Mark (or Luke) is saying that this is the order that they are approached; no more so does approaching Minneapolis-St. Paul from the St. Paul side, or Dallas-Ft. Worth from the Ft. Worth side, mean we have to reverse the order of the cities to make it clear what direction we are coming from. As long as Mark does not say, "we went from Jericho to Bethphage, and then to Bethany" he is not in error (unless the disciples were taking an unusual route for a purpose).

 Finally, it is far more likely that Mark is listing the approach to Jerusalem in reverse order, in order to stress the importance of their Jerusalem destination. The order of Bethphage and Bethany is simply being determined by their relationship to Jerusalem.

In short, no error here, except due to the usual problem of skeptical overreading.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/bethbeth.html

Now, for the demolition of your second example, which stated:

“Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

Response:

"Sidon most certainly does appear to be out of the way if Jesus were going directly back to the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee from which he had come. But Mark 7:31 indicates that he looped around and approached the southeast shore of the Sea of Galilee through the region called Decapolis. If you view the Sea of Galilee as a clock, Decapolis (Greek for "ten cities") was a region which bordered the sea from 3:00 to about 6:00.

Orthodox Jews did not normally travel in this area because the region was almost entirely inhabited by Gentiles and Hellenized Jews. Jesus, however, brought his disciples here immediately after their time in the regions of Tyre and Sidon. Now, an important question: What did these two regions have in common?

What they had in common was lots of Gentiles. Since Jesus is reported to have spent most of his ministry in Jewish territory, it is significant that these areas should be linked together. What Matthew and Mark are probably saying is that Jesus took his disciples on one last ministry tour through the Gentile regions. This mission would set a precedent for the disciples’ later concern regarding being His witnesses ‘even to the remotest part of them earth,’ even among the Gentiles. Beginning on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, they would have traveled northwest to Tyre, northeast to Sidon, southeast to the region of Decapolis, and west to the Sea of Galilee. Far from showing ‘a lamentable ignorance’ of the geography of Palestine, the passage helps explain why Jesus did not go directly back to the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, the location identified as his home.

Wilson’ further contention that there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee is likewise immaterial. The gospels report numerous occasions where Jesus was going up mountains or into the wilderness to pray, and he consistently conducted his ministry in rural areas. There is therefore no reason why Jesus and the disciples could not have walked the less than twenty miles from Sidon to the Valley of Lebanon. Their route along with the south side of Mount Lebanon would not have been too difficult. Only further north are the mountains of Lebanon imposing. This route would have allowed Jesus and is disciples a more direct path around to the southeast side of Galilee." (Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us Evidence For the Historical Jesus [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville TN 1993], pp. 209-210; bold emphasis ours)

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses ... rrors2.htm

And here’s another nail in your coffin:

It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also." Glenn Miller has passed on to me this quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60])

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html

So, you're 0-2 on trying to defame Mark's geography. Got anything better?