A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

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

[Goat]

<snip stupidity>

You say that refutes what I wrote?? Really??

It seems strained at the very best. It makes use of a lot of 'but maybe , then if's', but doesn't substantially answer the questions put forth.

In other words, the response you gave is meaningless.

Do YOU have better than that? Do you actually have something of SUBSTANCE??

No, I don't thinks so. The whole concept of looping back to sion is just plain stupid, (possible, but very stupid). It does not fit the flow of the writing at all.

[AB]

<snip stupidity>

You say that refutes what I wrote?? Really??

It seems strained at the very best. It makes use of a lot of 'but maybe , then if's', but doesn't substantially answer the questions put forth.

In other words, the response you gave is meaningless.

Do YOU have better than that? Do you actually have something of SUBSTANCE??

From someone who simply says "Paul Lied" to refute valid evidense. Pretty weak complaining about another without substance. I am sure I am breaking a big debating rule here.

[achilles12604]

<snip stupidity>

You say that refutes what I wrote?? Really??

It seems strained at the very best. It makes use of a lot of 'but maybe , then if's', but doesn't substantially answer the questions put forth.

In other words, the response you gave is meaningless.

Do YOU have better than that? Do you actually have something of SUBSTANCE??

From someone who simply says "Paul Lied" to refute valid evidense. Pretty weak complaining about another without substance. I am sure I am breaking a big debating rule here.

I didn't see any rules being broken by you. Don't worry. I have yet to see you attack anyone personally.

snip stupidity on the other hand . . . .

[Cathar1950]

Paul say he took them by deceit because he is was so cleaver.
So Paul admits he lied. Do see the problem with piecemeal theology from bible verses taken out of context?

[Cathar1950]

So your proof about Mark is from Papias the simple?

Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:
Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.
That is not direct testimony. We do not even know if it is the same work of Mark and he doesn’t quote it.

“I have heard” is hearsay. The earlier the text the more apt it was changed do to errors and rewrites. By the time better scribes were used the mistakes and changes were copied along with them. Mark gets Abiathar and Ahimelech mixed up in the story of David and the show bread (1 Sam. 21:1-6). In the early text Mark (Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1) get the source of “make straight the way of the lord” wrong and attributes it to Isaiah, latter scribes fix it. The list goes on and on and Luke and Matthew copy him. Yet those that think the bible is with out error will go to all kinds of trouble to reconcile these problems.
For some reason they can’t believe these human works could not be wrong about anything. 66 works and not one mistake or error. Now that takes faith and a blind eye

[Cathar1950]

.

Critics tend to reject this testimony out of hand. Kümmel, in particular, simply says that Papias "had no reliable knowledge of the connection of Mark with Peter" [Kumm.Int, 95], but fails to provide any significant basis for this assertion. Contrarily, Boyd notes that there "is as yet no convincing reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this statement." That it "predates any concern to artificially give Mark's Gospel apostolic clout," and the "incidental and unpretentious nature" of the statement itself, is testimony to its veracity. Further testimony may be found in that there was certainly no apologetic value to attaching Mark's name to a Gospel, not just because he was a rotten kid, but also because he was a relative unknown, and not an apostle, and there were much better candidates to choose from (even if one proposes, in a desperate moment of conspiracy-mongering, that Mark was chosen precisely because he was low on the totem pole!), like those selected for the late apocryphal Gospels. (Even Kümmel agrees the attribution to a non-apostle adds weight to the argument that Mark was the author. - [ibid., 97]) Reicke also adds [Reic.Root, 165] that Papias' inquiry was undertaken in a time when apostolic dignity was highly esteemed, thus making the ascription to Mark even more unlikely to be fake.

I like this ‘ but fails to provide any significant basis for this assertion.”
It is hearsay so why not doubt it? Yet he goes on to say, “ is as yet no convincing reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this statement."
Is there any convincing reason not to doubt? Do to the use of names a side kick of Peter bashing Peter and the disciples is enough reason to use his name no matter his position on the totem pole. Scholars agree Mark is a poor writing and Luke and Matthew felt the need to clean up his haphazard arrangements. Maybe the author of Mark had some unknown sources that might have gone back to Peter but he was careful to blame Jews and not Romans and obscuring the political issues of the times and the relationship to the zealous ones.
110 and 130 CE is still 40 to 60 years after the usual date for Mark and more (80 to 100) if you are a conservative giving it an early date for pure political reasons.
Isn’t it interesting that the poor literary skills of Mark did not have any errors? There is not a good argument that Mark wrote the gospel and not weight.

[AB]

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.

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

[Goat]

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

The 'fact' is that there was a story around, and they wrote as if the story was true. They probably believed in the core of the story, but elaborated on it.

[achilles12604]

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

The 'fact' is that there was a story around, and they wrote as if the story was true. They probably believed in the core of the story, but elaborated on it.

So your reason for disbelief in the Authors of the Gospels is because you do not think that a group of people can retain who wrote what for 70 years (maximum), possibly less?

I think that it is quite likely that people can retain who wrote what for much longer than that. Alexanders sources were 500 years out of date but they were believed to be accurate dispite massive inconsistencies. But the Gospels authors are suspect because . . .? (remember I am only concerned with who wrote them, not content for this question)

[Cathar1950]

I think that it is quite likely that people can retain who wrote what for much longer than that. Alexanders sources were 500 years out of date but they were believed to be accurate dispite massive inconsistencies. But the Gospels authors are suspect because . . .? (remember I am only concerned with who wrote them, not content for this question)

How are they believed to be accurate yet inconsistent?
Why is it you believe something that is not accurate or consistent to be without error and true?
How is comparing them to another writing even reasonable given the extraordinary claims it makes? Why is your interpretation the right one?