(July 3, 2018 at 9:39 am)Succubus Wrote:

(July 2, 2018 at 6:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: He did post a wikki article that stated Christianity began in Africa in the mid 1st century...

So Mark established Christianity in Africa 20 years before he wrote the first gospel.

I see.

There was a 40-or-so-year gap in between the time Jesus would have lived and died and the time the Gospel of Mark would have been written. It's actually not that implausible.

Dripshit the very moment you start with bible mythology you lose all credibility.  Xtians as a general rule are full of shit.  You are merely their standard bearer.

No one ever heard of any "gospel of mark" until the late 2d century when the names were attached to give them some sort of credibility - credibility if one is a gullible shit like you, that is.  So the moment you start talking about "mark" in 47 AD you are just an asshole.  But then, you've been an asshole since Day #1 so nothing new.

(July 3, 2018 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: Dripshit the very moment you start with bible mythology you lose all credibility.  Xtians as a general rule are full of shit.  You are merely their standard bearer.

No one ever heard of any "gospel of mark" until the late 2d century when the names were attached to give them some sort of credibility - credibility if one is a gullible shit like you, that is.  So the moment you start talking about "mark" in 47 AD you are just an asshole.  But then, you've been an asshole since Day #1 so nothing new.

what a weak willed single minded thing to say or do. If someone opens with something you do not like to you that person looses all credibility. no wonder your side of the election lost if your peers think as poorly as you do.

You are so intolerant you can not be bother to look at a simple paragraph as a whole and determine what is good or is bad. you look for things that allow to dismiss everything as a whole. how is that advanced thinking? 

To me this is closed minded thinking as you will not allow yourself to be exposed to anything you do not already accept. how does that not raise an alarm in your mind? oh that's right you stopped reading 3 words in.

Addressing the content of your message:
Jesus you are either willfully the dumbest person on this website or this is simply the result of shutting down anything you don't want to hear for decades you just absorbe things that fit your narrative despite little things called evidence and provenance.

Because in truth the gospel of mark has been traced to 47 AD

• Perkins, Pheme (1998). "The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story". In Barton, John. The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 241–58. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
  

did you see that you old goat? do you know what I just did? it took the conversation up a notch by taking my word and bndng to the work sited above who was published westminster john knox press.. which is indeed an authority on the matter like it or not..

What would your typical response be? to cuss and disparage and lead with a loud "nut-huh, cause I said so." like it or not your wild draws by pulling dates out of the air go largely unchallenged because no one takes you seriously. example "bla bla bla mark was not even known till the second century." who says? you do.. I even goggled it and came up with nothing that says marks work was a second century finding. but that's ok because you don't actually need evidence to support what you say or believe it is only the christians that must provide three different colabritivate sources when asked.

Why don't you go back to your waldorf/muppet style commentaries and leave the heavy subjects to the people willing to actively be apart of the subject.

(July 3, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: Dripshit the very moment you start with bible mythology you lose all credibility.  Xtians as a general rule are full of shit.  You are merely their standard bearer.

No one ever heard of any "gospel of mark" until the late 2d century when the names were attached to give them some sort of credibility - credibility if one is a gullible shit like you, that is.  So the moment you start talking about "mark" in 47 AD you are just an asshole.  But then, you've been an asshole since Day #1 so nothing new.

what a weak willed single minded thing to say or do. If someone opens with something you do not like to you that person looses all credibility. no wonder your side of the election lost if your peers think as poorly as you do.

You are so intolerant you can not be bother to look at a simple paragraph as a whole and determine what is good or is bad. you look for things that allow to dismiss everything as a whole. how is that advanced thinking? 

To me this is closed minded thinking as you will not allow yourself to be exposed to anything you do not already accept. how does that not raise an alarm in your mind? oh that's right you stopped reading 3 words in.

Addressing the content of your message:
Jesus you are either willfully the dumbest person on this website or this is simply the result of shutting down anything you don't want to hear for decades you just absorbe things that fit your narrative despite little things called evidence and provenance.

Because in truth the gospel of mark has been traced to 47 AD

• Perkins, Pheme (1998). "The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story". In Barton, John. The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 241–58. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
  

did you see that you old goat? do you know what I just did? it took the conversation up a notch by taking my word and bndng to the work sited above who was published westminster john knox press.. which is indeed an authority on the matter like it or not..

Oddly enough, Wikipedia suggests that Mark "probably" dates to 66-70 AD, and they use the same work as a reference for that date. Where are you pulling the 47 AD date from, specifically?

Quote:Mark was the earliest narrative account of Jesus. References to war in Judea (Mark 13:5-8, 14-19) as well as to persecution (8:34-8; 13:9-13) suggested that it was written during Nero's persecution of Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt in Judea (c. 66-70 CE; see Donahue, 'Windows and Mirrors').

The Synoptic Gospels and Acts of the Apostles : Telling the Christian Story. Pheme Perkins.

(July 3, 2018 at 10:37 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 9:39 am)Succubus Wrote: So Mark established Christianity in Africa 20 years before he wrote the first gospel.

I see.

There was a 40-or-so-year gap in between the time Jesus would have lived and died and the time the Gospel of Mark would have been written. It's actually not that implausible.

I think it becomes more implausible when we take into account Mark was a potless, illiterate fisherman without the means to travel to Egypt. No matter how we track the story all roads lead back to Acts Ripping Yarns.
Camp fire tales.

(July 3, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 10:37 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: There was a 40-or-so-year gap in between the time Jesus would have lived and died and the time the Gospel of Mark would have been written. It's actually not that implausible.

I think it becomes more implausible when we take into account Mark was a potless, illiterate fisherman without the means to travel to Egypt. No matter how we track the story all roads lead back to Acts Ripping Yarns.
Camp fire tales.

Yeah, that’s pretty much the case. It is really bloody hard to find much reliable information about the earliest days of Christianity.

(July 3, 2018 at 12:41 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Drich Wrote: what a weak willed single minded thing to say or do. If someone opens with something you do not like to you that person looses all credibility. no wonder your side of the election lost if your peers think as poorly as you do.

You are so intolerant you can not be bother to look at a simple paragraph as a whole and determine what is good or is bad. you look for things that allow to dismiss everything as a whole. how is that advanced thinking? 

To me this is closed minded thinking as you will not allow yourself to be exposed to anything you do not already accept. how does that not raise an alarm in your mind? oh that's right you stopped reading 3 words in.

Addressing the content of your message:
Jesus you are either willfully the dumbest person on this website or this is simply the result of shutting down anything you don't want to hear for decades you just absorbe things that fit your narrative despite little things called evidence and provenance.

Because in truth the gospel of mark has been traced to 47 AD

• Perkins, Pheme (1998). "The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story". In Barton, John. The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 241–58. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
  

did you see that you old goat? do you know what I just did? it took the conversation up a notch by taking my word and bndng to the work sited above who was published westminster john knox press.. which is indeed an authority on the matter like it or not..

Oddly enough, Wikipedia suggests that Mark "probably" dates to 66-70 AD, and they use the same work as a reference for that date.  Where are you pulling the 47 AD date from, specifically?

Honestly can't find the otation. It was the number I always went to.. but did find this http://jesusalive.cc/ntsurveymark.htm
that puts us 55 to 68.. I might be thinking about luke contextual authorship. Meaning the argue authorship put luke past mark, but if you consider the events when luke and acts stop it puts the book of luke in the 40 ad window.

(July 3, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Drich Wrote: ...Because in truth the gospel of mark has been traced to 47 AD...

No. Mark 13: describes the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

(July 3, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Drich Wrote: ...Because in truth the gospel of mark has been traced to 47 AD...

No. Mark 13: describes the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

that would be called a prophecy moron.

(July 3, 2018 at 2:23 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Succubus Wrote: No. Mark 13: describes the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

that would be called a prophecy moron.

Or a "prophecy" retroactively placed in the mouth of a character to impress hearers/readers who already knew the Temple's fate. 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus did say something similar. Is that evidence of divinely inspired prophecy, or is it just possible that a Jew steeped in stories about the Assyrian destruction of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of the Judeans might somehow have figured out that the Jews' continued provocations of the Romans might lead to disaster?

As someone once said, "Glob!"