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.
How did Mark use Mark as a source?
Luke used the Q document, not Mark, apparently. They are similar yet reflect subtle differences in passages.
You can read about the Q document here: The Lost Sayings Gospel Q It was one of the things in my Bible courses that began to alter my personal biblical view from inerrant and infallible to "reasonably true."
Oops. My mistake. Matthew copied from Mark almost verbatim see Matt 16:13, compare with Mark 7:27. However, Matthew writes further telling us that Simon got his name changed to "Peter" at this point. But, in John 1:35 Simon's brother Andrew is the person who tells Simon that Jesus is the messiah and Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter at this point before Peter even becomes an apostle.
Do you get the feeling that you are just reading stories and not actual history?
BTW The word "church" (an English word) didn't come into being the the early middle ages. When did you say Matthew 16 was really written?
Oops. My mistake. Matthew copied from Mark almost verbatim see Matt 16:13, compare with Mark 7:27. However, Matthew writes further telling us that Simon got his name changed to "Peter" at this point. But, in John 1:35 Simon's brother Andrew is the person who tells Simon that Jesus is the messiah and Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter at this point before Peter even becomes an apostle.
Do you get the feeling that you are just reading stories and not actual history?
BTW The word "church" (an English word) didn't come into being the the early middle ages. When did you say Matthew 16 was really written?
If the word "church" didn't come into existence until the middle ages, it was only because that was the way the translators decided to use the Greek word "eclessia."
Quote:
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: In the New Testament, “ecclesia” is the only single word used for church. It (ecclesia) was the name given to the governmental assembly of the city of Athens, which ‘called out’ proper officers possessing all political power including even juridical functions.
So we can see that the term “ecclesia” in Greece had no resemblance to a church or a body of believers. An “ecclesia” was an assembly in Athens having to do with town politics and other civil issues even before the writing of the New Testament. Quoting from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on the word “ecclesia“, “the word means “summoned,” especially the general assembly of Athenians. Later used for church.”
So it isn't a "mistake," it was a conscious decision to use a word that originally had a different meaning. There are several instances where the KJV translators didn't use "church" because it didn't fit the context. They used assembly or some such.
The fact that details don't match perfectly in the synoptic gospels is actually PROOF that they weren't "made up." It's the old argument of eye-witnesses in the court. Rarely do two match exactly what each other states, often when they are at the same place at the same time. Does that mean the historicity is incorrect, or that human beings engaged their expressions the best they could?
How many women were at the tomb? One, two, many? Depends on who is recording the details. And since the details are different, but the overall story is the same, it lends credibility to what is read.
Quote:
Hugo Munsterburg published his groundbreaking volume on the topic, titled On the Witness Stand, in 1906. This book, based on basic memory research, detailed how eyewitnesses were prone to a number of errors and did not have the perfect memories the legal system often assumed.
Now, if you want to state it means the Bible is not inerrant, I certainly agree. People wrote it, and it wasn't written as a "history" book, it was written as a faith book, so details were not as important as the message.
RESPONSE: Here are a few. You probably should have yout librarian show you how to research references.
New American Bible, Introduction to Mark
Traditionally,the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at atime of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Itsaudience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk7:3–4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in theface of persecution (Mk 13:9–13), while going on with the proclamation of thegospel begun in Galilee (Mk 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as theauthor an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhapsshortly after the year 70
It's important to note that neither Matthew nor Luke (writing about 80 AD)were witnesses and used Mark as their source. Matthew uses 90% of the material found in Mark not infrequently verbatim.
You are just repeating what someone else tells you, do you not study these things out for yourself?
Why do this people you quote give the dates they do, do you even know that much at least?
But I just reread your post and its claim that "If you have researched this at all then you should have no problem telling me why you believe the dates you gave. So far all I have gotten from you is repeat, rinse and repeat.
When being trained as a technical instructor I was taught that all groups have some slow learners so frequent repeating was necessary.
I'm afraid its a habit that stuck.
That's correct you supplied a reference, but you don't even seem to be a where of why that reference gave the dates it does. In other words you are just repeating what someone told you believing it without checking it out. I sure hope that is not the way you instruct others
If you were to believe in a god, be sure that He is the true God. How do we know the true God? Very simple and logical. He must be able to know what happened in the past, like when Jesus was crucified, and what will happen in the future.
If all the Gospels were written word for word skeptics say we’ll their plagiarized and can’t be trusted. But sense the Gospels were written by the perspectives of different eyewitnesses and for different audiences and were handed down from eyewitnesses, they tell the same main story. The four Gospels give us what we would expect from accurate reports from different people, with the same major similarities and minor differences. The names of people recorded in the Gospels correspond with what we know about ancient names used in Israel from other sources. And if you say well Gospels were just made up by later Christians, Papias of Hierapolis says Mark got his writings from Peter who was a eyewitness. Also Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” And Luke recognized the reliability of the narratives, for they were based on eyewitness testimony. So to say all the Gospels have no roots dealing with people that walked and witnessed Jesus is fallacy.
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.
