Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Drich]

http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html this only concludes that mark is the popular 1st author of the NT, and what worse the evidence is based on everything but content and the times line provided in scripture it self. Because if you read what is in the bible, the bible itself point to luke as being the primary author as he showed up within 10 years of Christ death, was sent for the express purpose of recording everything he could about Christ and sent it back to his master theophilus. who commissioned the work. this would have happened 40 to 50 ad.marks works are some times cited as early as 70 ad. we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times and luke we know to be the author of acts which end abruptly in late 50 AD.. by the time luke took upon the writing of the acts of the apostles his work in the book of luke had to be done because at the time of acts he was no longer in the service of theophilus but in the service of the apostle paul. Meaning all of the first person tesimony luke records in the book of acts happen in real time sometime before Paul's final journey to rome decades before mark put pen to page.

If any of you ever bother to read the bible, the time lines sort themselves out clearly. but you let other people tll you what is in the bible and you figure they are right because the interwebs says so.

How about read the bible yourelf and discuss what you have read, just like i did above!

The same "Luke" who said that Quirinius was governor of Syria:

Wikipedia -- Census of Quirinius

2 It was about that same time that Augustus Caesar sent out an order to all people in the countries that were under Roman rule. The order said that everyone’s name must be put on a list. 2 This was the first counting of all the people while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 Everyone traveled to their own hometowns to have their name put on the list.

yes that luke.

You do understand John the baptist was indeed older than Jesus,and chapter 1 describes John's birth while at the same tie john grew up and moved out into the wilderness, the events of chapter two took place which gives plenty of time for the change in power.

---

It is precisely by reading acts that those scholars whose consensus you selectively value determined that acts was a legendary narrative meant to solve a theological problem - not a history.

Any comment as to the primacy of acts or it's author amounts to nothing more or less than an assertion that the christian religion began as a story.  The mythicist position, hilariously.

citation please.

because I just left a citation that speaks to the exact opposite of what you just said. not only that it (book of acts) can be used as a historical reference, that scrutinizes the authorship of the pauline epistles. the book of acts has indeed been used as a historical anchor for the events and recording of major events in that region at that time other secular historians have also confirmed what the book of acts records.

Meaning you can't have it both ways. either you use the book of acts a some  sort of the key, to scrutinize elements to determine historical plausibility on the authentication of a epistle of Paul or you must accept Paul's epistle as it's primary detractor is now been disqualified itself.

that aside my primary point stands.

If one used the bible as apart of the equation to determine which gospel came first the the book of luke can be the only answer.