Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even that isn't true. You guys are either lousy at actually reading what people say, or are so bent on putting your own spin on other's comments that you constantly get it wrong. I'd bet it's both.
I said that many Christians don't care when exactly it was written. Since you need everything spoon-fed to you to understand, 70 AD, 61 AD, 102 AD, etc. wouldn't be relevant. Since Christians believe God inspires and directs the writing of scripture, God would be intimately involved in the transfer of information from him to the scribes. The timing of the writing is never implied or delineated, or meant to be dwelled on. And there is no I, Joe Smith, wrote this in Year 070 in any of the books. You make the false premise that that is implied, to then argue against it.
The books of scriptures weren't even originally named (Mark, Luke, etc.) They also did not have chapters or verses. All of that was added by man, for man's convenience. Maybe it was a dumb idea, but it's not worth haggling and bitching over.
Christians aren't going to recognize this obsession over dates and authors, so you're not going to change any of their minds. Maybe you all are just preaching to choir of atheists and seeking pats on the back of approval, but it's a waste of time on this particular area of the forum. Would be more applicable to the Atheism section.
And you think that post is going to change the minds of atheists?
Now we are back to -- essentially -- god wrote the bible.
A lot of Christians don't give a rat's hiney of exactly when Mark was written. Maybe you're @nal about things like that, but most aren't. Another big waste of time trying to attack Christianity. Instead of rationale and plausible data, we just see anger, distortion, and instability (all those font changes like bolding and underling just add to it). That overshadows any points you're trying to make, and you're completely blind to it. I guess you just want to make atheists look like fools.
Well, if it wasn’t written in 70 CE, then that would mean that someone else wrote it later and perhaps made it up...
And you think that post is going to change the minds of atheists?.
I have no interest in changing atheists or anyone else's mind, as I've said dozens of times on this forum. But again, as another perfect example, you guys never really read what some of us say. If you think something will be with your group, you'll read it. If you sense it's from non-Atheists, you skip and skim over it and color it with your perceptions and philosophies.
I didn't start the thread, so I'm not starting anything. If people start threads and put schtuff 'out there', they'll have to deal with highlighting of where they might be getting it wrong. If they can't handle the criticism, then shouldn't be starting it.
I don't care what others believe. It's a free country. But information is important, and so is relevance and applicability.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 10:06 AM..
I have no interest in changing atheists or anyone else's mind, as I've said dozens of times on this forum. But again, as another perfect example, you guys never really read what some of us say. If you think something will be with your group, you'll read it. If you sense it's from non-Atheists, you skip and skim over it and color it with your perceptions and philosophies.
I didn't start the thread, so I'm not starting anything. If people start threads and put schtuff 'out there', they'll have to deal with highlighting of where they get it wrong. If they don't want the criticism, then shouldn't be starting it.
I don't care what others believe. It's a free country. But I will speak when I see people pushing "data" to further one extreme or the other.
Would you actually stop and think.
When I respond to a post of yours, I've read the post. I mean, duh!
The problem here is that you think if we don't agree with you that we haven't read the post. That's your ego talking.
When I respond to a post of yours, I've read the post. I mean, duh!
Anyone can say they've read something, but that doesn't mean they've taken in every word, and digested the thoughts and meanings of the author. That's the distinction I'm making. Two people can "read" a post, while only one actually takes in the information to 'hear' what the other person is saying.
Too many just shoot through the 'reading' with their brain already in the future, on their counter-post. There's something to be said about being 'present' and focusing on what is in front, rather then on tangents and other locations.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 10:07 AM..
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
This is strong on Wallace's personal opinion and extremely short on supporting evidence. The statement first of all doesn't make sense. If it was common knowledge that Mark was the author the gospel then it would have been named Gospel of Mark right from the beginning long before Irenaeus affixed Mark's name to it in the late 2nd century. What were they calling this gospel prior to Irenaeus affixing Mark's name to it in the latter part of the 2nd century some 130 years later?
Secondly, If the evidence was really that strong then there would be no reason for the majority of Biblical scholars to have determined the gospel is by an anonymous writer. Please explain why the majority of scholars have determined it is written by an anonymous writer if the evidence was so strong that Mark was the author.
Third, where is some written evidence that the gospel we are talking about is the same gospel sitting in the Codex Sinaiticus? We have absolutely nothing in writing from anyone earlier than the Codex that I am aware of that gives some samples of the gospel's contents with which to compare to the Codex. You know, Mike that there were hundreds of "gospels" floating around in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We know of at least 70 that have survived today from the Nag Hammadi dig in 1945 in Egypt. How many more were lost to time? Please give us some writings by any church father earlier than Irenaeus that includes excerpts from the gospel itself in their writings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
How is the testimony of the early church Wallace's opinion? Scholars have no valid reason to ignore the external evidence of the early church leaders who were in a much better position to know who wrote the Gospels.
No, there were not hundreds of gospels floating around in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. That is a vastly exaggerated number. According to Dr. John Dickson (PhD in ancient history from Macquarie University, and a Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University (2004-17)), we have direct evidence of only twenty non-canonical gospels which were written after the first century.
There were never ''more than eighty'' additional Gospels written about Jesus. In the centuries after Christ there were possibly as many as fifty such works (though we have direct evidence for just twenty). And none of them can be confidently dated to the first century.
The Christ files, Dickson, p.29
Dickson's comment concerning ''more than eighty'' additional Gospels concerns the statement in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code in which Brown has Sir Leigh Teabing say, ''More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament . . .'' The Da Vinci Code is a fictional work.
And none of the twenty additional gospels were written early enough, or have the orthodox character to have been considered by the church to have been included in the New Testament. One of the requirements for canonicity was that it had to have been written either by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. This is borne out in the Muritorian fragment;
4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,Âł⁷ and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made publicÂł⁸ in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. Of the writings of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those are rejected too who wrote the new Book of Psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides and the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians. [Bolding mine]
The Shepherd of Hermas was written to late to be a part of the New Testament Canon because it was written after the apostolic era. On the other hand, the four canonical Gospels were recognized by the church as canonical.
You asked for a writing from an early church father earlier than Irenaeus that includes excerpts from the gospel itself in their writings. Clement of Rome will do.
Clement of Rome (AD 35-99) quotes Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42.
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
1Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that
man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that
at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that
a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than
that he should pervert one of Mine elect.
Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
The early church fathers often didn't make exact quotations of the Biblical writers but more of a paraphrase.
Here's another quotation from Mark by Clement.
1Clem 15:2
For He saith in a certain place This people honoreth Me with their
lips, but their heart is far from Me,
Mark 7:6 Jesus replied, "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Clement of Rome who died c. 99 quoted the Gospels of Matthew and Mark which places both Gospels squarely in the first century.
Most scholars think that Mark was written before Matthew, so a quote by Polycarp (AD 69-155) of Matthew will answer your request as well.
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP
Polycarp 2:3
but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge
not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are
the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of God.
Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
You're so obsessed with trying to discredit Christianity that you don't even bother to do any actual and honest research, and you grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to do so.
Oh yes. Since we don't have the original Gospel manuscripts there is no basis for assuming that the writers names weren't attached to the Gospels from the beginning. Had the names been attached late, there most likely would have been competing traditions concerning the authorship of the Gospels. But there isn't. Without exception, every reference in the early church is to Matthew ,Mark, Luke and John.
At any rate, you've just been shown that early church fathers, before Irenaeus, quoted the Gospel of Mark.
Mike, what you've done here is held up a duck egg and then tried to convince us you have a henhouse full of chickens.
Quote:
Scholars have no valid reason to ignore the external evidence of the early church leaders who were in a much better position to know who wrote the Gospels.
I reiterate:
If the early church leaders knew the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then why didn't they refer to them in their writings as "The Gospel of Mark" or "The Gospel of Luke" instead of Irenaeus having to affix the names and adding the dubious "Gospel ACCORDING to Mark" and "The Gospel ACCORDING to Luke".
In fact, wasn't it "The Memoirs of the Apostles" dating from the early-middle part of the 2nd Century that was acting as a surrogate for what would later come to be known as the "Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"? Justin Martyr refers to it extensively in quoting various passages that later got incorporated into the canonical gospels. For example:
Quote:
"...in the Memoirs [Gospels] which, as I have said, were drawn up by the apostles and their followers, [it is recorded] that sweat fell like drops of blood while he [Jesus] was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass'. "
This passage of course later came to be incorporated in the Gospel ACCORDING to Luke, more specifically Luke 22:44
Quote:
"And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." Luke 22:44
Now do some detective work, Mike:
If the Gospel of Luke was around in the 1st Century....and known to all the early church fathers as "The Gospel of Luke".....then WHY is Justin Martyr referring to a passage taken out of the Gospel of Luke and saying it derived from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" instead of "The Gospel of Luke"???????????
Shouldn't the Justin Martyr passage I quoted above read:
Quote:
"...in the Gospel of Luke which, as I have said, was drawn up by Luke the physician, the faithful companion of our brother, Paul, he records that "sweat fell like drops of blood while he [Jesus] was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass'. "
I'll wait for your reply to that before going on to the rest.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 01-11-2019 at 11:03 AM..
Anyone can say they've read something, but that doesn't mean they've taken in every word, and digested the thoughts and meanings of the author. That's the distinction I'm making. Two people can "read" a post, while only one actually takes in the information to 'hear' what the other person is saying.
Too many just shoot through the 'reading' with their brain already in the future, on their counter-post. There's something to be said about being 'present' and focusing on what is in front, rather then on tangents and other locations.
Most of your posts aren't that deep that they require the level of contemplation that you attest to yourself.
Most of your posts aren't that deep that they require the level of contemplation that you attest to yourself.
Thanks. I try to keep things direct and straightforward, rather than plunge into babbling treatises, scripture marathons, and clippings of Internet ramblings. Glad you noticed. You've earned the star sticker for today.
Whatever earlier source Mark may have been referring to is irrelevant. The question that was asked was did any early church father quote Mark. It is far more likely that Clement would be quoting one of the Biblical writers than for one of the Biblical writers to be quoting one of the church fathers.
Then put in the figures and do the mathematics if it is more probable than Mark using Clement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And no, it does not spoil the flow of the passage on either side. Clement was writing about divisions and factions within the church. The quotation of Mark concerning not offending one of the elect fits right in.
Having read it again, 46:9 does follow. Still, it is not a quotation, and Clement does not say it came from Mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Then let's take Clement 13:1 in which Clement specifcally writes about remembering the words of Jesus which he then quoted in Clement 13:2
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
1Clem 13:1
Let us therefore be lowly minded, brethren, laying aside all
arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let us do that which
is written. For the Holy Ghost saith, Let not the wise man boast in
his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, neither the rich in his
riches; but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, that he may
seek Him out, and do judgment and righteousness most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching
forbearance and long-suffering:
1Clem 13:2
for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive,
that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to
you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so
shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be
showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
withal to you.[Bolding mine]
And I am presuming an early date here. A late date still allows for a later dating of the gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I find nothing strange about the title - '' According to_____.''
Because people did not name their books that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, the fact that there were no competing traditions in the early church concerning the authors of the Gospels argues for the titles being used, even from the beginning.
How do you know there were no competing traditions? And if Christianity was not so popular, as Pliny the Younger implies, would there be enough important people to make competing claims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And why, in the case of Mark and Luke, use those names instead of other names which would have lend more authority to those Gospels unless Mark and Luke actually did write the Gospels which bear their name?
Because whoever put the canon together wanted to make Matthew the dominant gospel, so they make Mark a second hand account. As for Luke, he says he used other sources, so any name taken from Paul would do.
Christians aren't going to recognize this obsession over dates and authors, so you're not going to change any of their minds. Maybe you all are just preaching to choir of atheists and seeking pats on the back of approval, but it's a waste of time on this particular area of the forum. It would be more applicable to the Atheism section.
Written immediately after Mike's post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
