Illiterate men.

[FallentoReason]

Are you looking for an apologetic? Or are you looking for a secular source?

Well because the Gospels are meant to be historically accurate, ideally I would like to see the apologetic and secular viewpoints in agreement. I highly doubt this is the case as we already know some parts of the Gospels have been tampered with like in Mark (and others), but ultimately that's what I would like to see. So I guess from you let's go with apologetics.

You already have thapologeticic which points to a time line that has the completion of Luke's work before the death of Peter.

Ok, I'll have a look at that post again.

We know Mark was written after the death of Peter. These are the main points of determining when the books were written from a biblical pov.

No, you can't start with that assumption to prove that assumption. Circular reasoning, and this is where we differ.

[Drich]

No, you can't start with that assumption to prove that assumption. Circular reasoning, and this is where we differ.

It's not an assumption. One of the things i was going to have you do is look up St. Mark and St. Peter in the same search and it should give you a history of all they accomplished together Ending with the book of Mark after Peter was martyered in or around 70 AD.

[FallentoReason]

It's not an assumption. One of the things i was going to have you do is look up St. Mark and St. Peter in the same search and it should give you a history of all they accomplished together Ending with the book of Mark after Peter was martyered in or around 70 AD.

Ok, I'll look into this and see where it leads me.

I'll post in this thread when I have some time on my hands.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Did you not just send me a PM telling me if I shut up and "stop playing conspiracy/martyr" you would try and find the deleted post, and re post it? How is this not trying to silence me? Do i need to post your PM to prove my point?

Very stupid person alert! Very stupid person alert!

[Cinjin]

o jesus fucking christ!

[Minimalist]

We know Mark was written after the death of Peter.

The odds that there was a fucking "peter" are fairly slim. He was a fictional addition to the Greek Chorus of so-called "disciples" whose main job was to stand there and go,

" Wow....holy shit, lord, tell us more."

You'd think after a few miracles this bunch of morons would have caught on and stopped being surprised when "jesus" did one of his magic tricks.

Childish nonsense.

[FallentoReason]

Because, As I said Mark's work was not penned down till after the death of Peter.(70 AD)

Please state your source because all I have read point to his death being anywhere from 64-68AD by execution of the Emperor Nero.

I don't see how it could have been 70AD because Nero suicided in 68AD.

Luke's work was written much earlier for a very different reason. We know this because Luke was mentioned in Collossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon which were all written in the life time of Peter.( died around 70 AD) and Paul(who was acredited to writting those three books died in 67 AD)

Remeber Luke's Letters (The book of Luke and the Book of Acts) were written to his, at the time, Master (Theopolus.) Luke's efforts in the other three books written by Paul were after Luke had been released from the service of Theolopus, and was now acting as an understudy to Paul himself. (Well before 67 AD)

Because I believe that your date for Peter's death is implausible, let's take the worst case scenario (in your eyes) and say he died in 64AD. This gives a 3 year gap where Luke could have written his Gospel and then joined forces with Paul after Mark had been penned down (according to your theory of when Mark was penned down). This would perfectly explain Luke 1:1-4:

[1]Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us
-Implicitly saying that Mark was written already.

[2]just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us
-Explicitly saying that these writings have been passed around.

[3]it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
-Explicitly saying he is writing his own Gospel like others have.

[4]that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught
-Not sure what he means here. Possible saying he will confirm the content of the Gospel of Mark(?)

[Drich]

Please state your source because all I have read point to his death being anywhere from 64-68AD by execution of the Emperor Nero.

From the catholic encyclopedia:

The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held.
http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-s...t-paul.htm


Paul died in 64 AD
Date of Death: Saint Paul died in A.D. 64

Cause of Death: Beheaded
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

These are the points i am making:
peter died after Paul. (It makes no difference when because

Luke was a disciple of Paul.
Mark was a disciple of peter.

Luke's works to Theoplus were complete before he could go on to be a disciple of Paul. This means the book of Luke/Acts was well before Paul's Death in 64 AD.

Peter did not die till after 67-68 AD. We know his book/The book of Mark was not complete till after Peter's death.

Again their exact deaths are irrelevant even if they died on the same day as some believe, Luke's work to theolopus (The book of Luke and the book of acts) would have been completed before then, and the book of Mark was not completed till some time after Peter's death.

That makes the rest of your post irrelevant when speculating the book of Luke as being copied from the book of Mark.

Because I believe that your date for Peter's death is implausible, let's take the worst case scenario (in your eyes) and say he died in 64AD. This gives a 3 year gap where Luke could have written his Gospel and then joined forces with Paul after Mark had been penned down (according to your theory of when Mark was penned down). This would perfectly explain Luke 1:1-4:

[1]Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us
-Implicitly saying that Mark was written already.

[2]just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us
-Explicitly saying that these writings have been passed around.

[3]it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
-Explicitly saying he is writing his own Gospel like others have.

[4]that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught
-Not sure what he means here. Possible saying he will confirm the content of the Gospel of Mark(?)

As explained when you first brought up this passage and point. The only "words" available to the first century believers was the words of the prophets/the OT. (That is why Paul only quotes from the OT) Luke sees his obligation as important if not more so to record the events of Christ with the same dedication and attention to detail as the OT prophets took upon themselves.

At best your argument here points to lost gospels of Christ. For we know without doubt that Luke was written before Mark. Since we can also prove the rest of the accounts come after Mark this would indicate an unknown gospel account.. Lest you think the four we have were the only four ever written.

[FallentoReason]

Paul died in 64 AD

Well... how convenient that you have decided to rely on Church tradition... By the same token, Church tradition says Peter died in 64AD as well. As you said though, this still isn't enough to prove my point right.

evidence highly suggests the apostle Paul's death occurred after his fifth missionary journey ended in 67 A.D. Paul was likely beheaded by the Romans, under Emperor Nero, sometime around May or June of 68 A.D

It is commonly believed that, when a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero, about A.D. 64, under pretence that they had set Rome on fire, both St. Paul and St. Peter then sealed the truth with their blood

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html

Clearly no one knows when they died, so I'm not entirely convinced that Luke essentially isn't referring to Mark because Church tradition doesn't count for much (I'm planning on starting a thread on this) and there isn't any secular evidence for when they died. We can't know exactly if your view or mine is correct.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a third option. Neither.