Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Drich]

look sweet heart read luke 1 & 2. if you will not read luke 1 and 2 you will never understand.

In luke 1 when herod is alive the book is not speaking of jesus. so in 4 bc the bible/luke is speaking of john, and only in so far as an angel speaking to john's father about the coming baby (john)  name and his role in the future of being the herald of the coming messiah (jesus.) this all happened while herod was alive. then in verse  24 it says later meaning away from the time the angel told John's father and took his voice. IE later from the time of herod/4bc.

do you understand? the first 1/2 of luke 1 happened at the end of the time of herod. 4(bc) from verse 24 it would seem we where now then in the time of quintius.

do you get it? do you understand why your question is invalid?

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-5)

Okay, Jesus was born in 6 AD, but...

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:39-45)

Okay, Mary not yet pregnant in 4 BC??  She would wait another 10 years???

where is verse 24 in all of this?

How many times do I have to say verse 24 before you read verse 24?

Are you scared of verse 24 because you know it will change everything?

how about this just read the first word of verse 24!

what is that word?

Seriously you tell me what is the first word in vers 24?

Let me help you:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

Now I'm serious... You next post should only have one word in it. a one word post. that word should be the first word in vers 24. if you did not know The above link is to luke 1 verse 24 only. Just click on that link and write down letter for letter the first word of verse 24...

Now after you do that I am going to ask for a definition of that first word of verse 24. So if you want go a head in the next post write that word in verse 24 and in a second seperate post give me the defination ok?

So next post you make to me is only one word

That word can be found in the link above that goes to luke 1:24

And once you have written that word out letter by letter post it to the thread. then if you want to go one more step ahead you may define or cut and paste the defination of the first word in verse 24, but again only in a second post.

Do you got it? next post one word first word of verse 24

---

ready...

set....

go!

---

OFC you are, but you're too ignorant to look into it, or even want to look into it.  You're convinced for no reason at all that it must be "atheist scholars", but it just isn't.

The overwhelming majority of the scholars who's consensus you selectively value..are believers.  Those are the people telling you, with receipts, that you're full of shit.

then provide a link of the majority believer scholars who think _______

[Jehanne]

Okay, Jesus was born in 6 AD, but...


Okay, Mary not yet pregnant in 4 BC??  She would wait another 10 years???

where is verse 24 in all of this?

How many times do I have to say verse 24 before you read verse 24?

Are you scared of verse 24 because you know it will change everything?

how about this just read the first word of verse 24!

what is that word?

Seriously you tell me what is the first word in vers 24?

Let me help you:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

Now I'm serious... You next post should only have one word in it. a one word post. that word should be the first word in vers 24. if you did not know The above link is to luke 1 verse 24 only. Just click on that link and write down letter for letter the first word of verse 24...

Now after you do that I am going to ask for a definition of that first word of verse 24. So if you want go a head in the next post write that word in verse 24 and in a second seperate post give me the defination ok?

So next post you make to me is only one word

That word can be found in the link above that goes to luke 1:24

And once you have written that word out letter by letter post it to the thread. then if you want to go one more step ahead you may define or cut and paste the defination of the first word in verse 24, but again only in a second post.

Do you got it? next post one word first word of verse 24

---

ready...

set....

go!

---

OFC you are, but you're too ignorant to look into it, or even want to look into it.  You're convinced for no reason at all that it must be "atheist scholars", but it just isn't.

The overwhelming majority of the scholars who's consensus you selectively value..are believers.  Those are the people telling you, with receipts, that you're full of shit.

then provide a link of the majority believer scholars who think _______

Okay, we're making progress here.  When was John the Baptist born?

[The Grand Nudger]

---

OFC you are, but you're too ignorant to look into it, or even want to look into it.  You're convinced for no reason at all that it must be "atheist scholars", but it just isn't.

The overwhelming majority of the scholars who's consensus you selectively value..are believers.  Those are the people telling you, with receipts, that you're full of shit.

then provide a link of the majority believer scholars who think _______

Drich, that -is- what you've been getting.  The majority of new testament scholars are protestant christians educated at religious colleges.  It's the one bit of academia that, like so much of the NT, is full of anachronism.

You imagine that you're defending christian mythology from the atheist hordes.....

In truth, the overwhelming majority of the scholars who's consensus you selectively value..are believers. Those are the people teling you, with receipts, that you're full of shit.

Personally, I doubt that any amount of scholarship could help to dissuade you of your silly inerrantist views regarding the content and construction of magic book...but it would be nice to see you come to some sort of grip with reality on the nature of the people and positions you disagree with. You're not any kind of defender or teacher of the faith, just another uneducated sectarian twat disagreeing with his fellow christers over the most meaningless of things. They have a faith that allows them to see magic book for what it is and was and still believe. Do you?

[Drich]

where is verse 24 in all of this?

How many times do I have to say verse 24 before you read verse 24?

Are you scared of verse 24 because you know it will change everything?

how about this just read the first word of verse 24!

what is that word?

Seriously you tell me what is the first word in vers 24?

Let me help you:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

Now I'm serious... You next post should only have one word in it. a one word post. that word should be the first word in vers 24. if you did not know The above link is to luke 1 verse 24 only. Just click on that link and write down letter for letter the first word of verse 24...

Now after you do that I am going to ask for a definition of that first word of verse 24. So if you want go a head in the next post write that word in verse 24 and in a second seperate post give me the defination ok?

So next post you make to me is only one word

That word can be found in the link above that goes to luke 1:24

And once you have written that word out letter by letter post it to the thread. then if you want to go one more step ahead you may define or cut and paste the defination of the first word in verse 24, but again only in a second post.

Do you got it? next post one word first word of verse 24

---

ready...

set....

go!

---

then provide a link of the majority believer scholars who think _______

Okay, we're making progress here.  When was John the Baptist born?

it tells you in verse 24, so again what is the first word of verse 24. You are not getting away from verse 24 so answer my question what is the first word of verse 24?

---

---

then provide a link of the majority believer scholars who think _______

Drich, that -is- what you've been getting.  The majority of new testament scholars are protestant christians educated at religious colleges.  It's the one bit of academia that, like so much of the NT, is full of anachronism.

I ask for names quotations papers proof of statement and all you give me is "scholars on your side believe." Horse shite. I have studied with "scholars on my side" why or how do you think it is I can break all of your silly paradoxes? So when a fake statement like scholars on my side believe what atheists do. I simply ask for proof. Proof you have yet demonstrated or delivered. All I have is your word which means nothing without the corresponding proof.

So if you are going to stand on that hill, get to getting me some proof, or I will just ignore you till you have something different to say or can back up your statments. again your word means nothing as you have been caught several time saying anything to change the direction of an argument.

You imagine that you're defending christian mythology from the atheist hordes.....

In this instance I am defending luke one in relation to the birth of christ in luke 2 from 2 specific atheists who are intellectually being very dishonest, demanding of me things they when asked will not provide. one specifically knows she has been bested but refuses to conceed hopping i will simply give up. But I know I have her by the toe and she can't go anywhere else. That is what I imagine.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of the scholars who's consensus you selectively value..are believers.  Those are the people teling you, with receipts, that you're full of shit.

so you are telling me these scholars do not have verse 24 in their bibles? because again a simply reading resolves all conflict. chapter 1 verse 1 through 23 happened in the time of Herod. then something happens in verse 24 that pushes the time line to the rule of quintius. No special book no inside knoweledge needed just a 4th grade reading level and this whole thread comes apart at the seems, but you one who has not even read the passage in question, but only commentary seems to think all scholars on both side of faith also skipped verse 24? again show me you lying douche. If verse 24 has language to push the time line back then what would a believer claim a contradiction here?

So again So me a legit bible theologian who believes as you do.. not a but as you said demonstrate most think as you do.

Personally, I doubt that any amount of scholarship could help to dissuade you of your silly inerrantist views regarding the content and construction of magic book...

now ask youeself why, beside the obvious (your biblical aqueity is little more than a joke because it is clear you yourself have not even read this passage let alone studied it , but all that aside why could you not convince me to accept your reading? Because again the very first word in verse 24 chapter 1 reconciles everything in plain english.

So again chapter one verse one to verse 23 happens in the time of herod but in verse 24 it simply says later, which pushes the time line back to the regime of quintius. why would a biblical scholar have a problem deciphering the meaning of this passage?

but it would be nice to see you come to some sort of grip with reality on the nature of the people and positions you disagree with.  You're not any kind of defender or teacher of the faith,

As I am not a faith believer. do you not get it? when you know or see God for yourself no faith is needed. so you are right I do not teach faith I teach relationship with God in direct opposition to faith believers. which is why I am not ticking the boxes you think I should tick as a teacher.

just another uneducated sectarian twat disagreeing with his fellow christers over the most meaningless of things. [quote] so me one who believes in christ but believes as you do here, then allow me to simply show him the benfit of reading the passage himself and let see which side of the road mine or your he will stand on.

[quote]
 They have a faith that allows them to see magic book for what it is and was and still believe.  Do you?

again the book isn't a book it is a map to God. follow the map find God. that is the book primary purpose. using it any other way will have you see faults that are not there, because the faul is in the use not the execution.

That said no where ever have I claim the bible to be without error. However This luke 1 business is not an error. I have no reason to believe the bible is without error as it never claimed to be without error. it only states God is without error. and the bible is not God.

That said not one of you has ever successfully been able to bring up a supposed error that could not be reconciled.

[The Grand Nudger]

As ever, I appreciate the performance of more of your usual insanity. You could always go and look this up yourself, now couldn't you? It is a simple statement of fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars whose consensus you selectively value are, themselves, believers. They're the people who have been identifying anachronisms, errors, and flat out legendary fiction in magic book for all these centuries.

Whether or not it is your firmly held belief that you could (and have) corrected all of this in magic book is irrelevant to that.

[Drich]

As ever, I appreciate the performance of more of your usual insanity.  You could always go and look this up yourself, now couldn't you?  It is a simple statement of fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars whose consensus you selectively value are, themselves, believers.  They're the people who have been identifying anachronisms, errors, and flat out legendary fiction in magic book for all these centuries.

Whether or not it is your firmly held belief that you could (and have) corrected all of this in magic book is irrelevant to that.

What a hypocrite in the truest sense of the word.

When ever I make a blanket statement or what seems to be an odd or off the cuff remark that does not sound right or does not read true, I almost always am asked to provide not only a citation but a ready defense.

You can't exactly google what you posted here, therefore because you made the statement you are responsible to provide a source or citation that proves you are not lying/saying anything to win an argument.

4th time now. I you believe the majority of Christian side with atheist when interpreting scripture I ak you provide some source that the majority of scholars read or interpret scripture as you have indicated. more specifically this portion of luke 1 and 2

[The Grand Nudger]

Or maybe that's something you should have researched for yourself before imagining that you were battling atheist scholars and their positions?

-All- of the different ways that scholars have approached the construction and content of the texts have been done in the majority believing field of new testament studies. You want to bicker with me, which sucks for you..since I'm informing you that you are only bickering with them. Christians bickering with christians and then blaming it on "atheists", that train is never late.

[Jehanne]

Okay, we're making progress here.  When was John the Baptist born?

it tells you in verse 24, so again what is the first word of verse 24. You are not getting away from verse 24 so answer my question what is the first word of verse 24?

---

After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. (Luke 1:24, NIV)

Now, your point?

[Drich]

it tells you in verse 24, so again what is the first word of verse 24. You are not getting away from verse 24 so answer my question what is the first word of verse 24?

---

After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. (Luke 1:24, NIV)

Now, your point?

Erv says later and 15 other version say after these days Elizabeth became pregnant. 

Later, after, after these days... means verse 1-23 while Herod was alive was one time period. then Later, after, after these days... set up a new time period.. how much time? so much time Quintius is now regent/governor at the birth of Christ.

So lets review.. luke chapter 1 verse 5 used herod the great to identify the time period. so that means everthing written luke 1:1-23 happened durning the time of herod.
The verse 24
Later, after, after these days... meaning a large amount of time separates verse 23 and 24. Verse 24 begins a new time and it is marked with the borth of John which was fortold some time ago in verses 1-23.

Again how much time? the exact time was not know but enough time to have Christ being born under quintius rather than herod.

do you get it now?

---

Or maybe that's something you should have researched for yourself before imagining that you were battling atheist scholars and their positions?

-All- of the different ways that scholars have approached the construction and content of the texts have been done in the majority believing field of new testament studies.  You want to bicker with me, which sucks for you..since I'm informing you that you are only bickering with them.  Christians bickering with christians and then blaming it on "atheists", that train is never late.

what is there to research sport? the passage resolves itself. only pretend scholars or pretend theist who say the bible is full of errors or youtubers pretending to be both who clearly never read the bible before make the assertions you have. I am not pretending nor lying that i spent the time I have in study, and that time was not spent in a vacuum. I have had much guidance from people in the faith to jews in the faith to jews out of the faith i have studied with imams and even clerics with josephwitnesses and even Mormons. NO ONE who has ever read the bible and has a basic grasp of it thinks as you do.

Clearly you are convinced how about sharing your atheist buddy blog so I can see what you are on about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, all of the people who disagree with your silly shit are pretend scholars, and pretend theists.  Brilliant fucking conclusion.

Maybe you should have spent less time with shamans and witchdoctors.....and more time with "pretend" scholars and their work?