Illiterate men.

[FallentoReason]

Actually Faith in God is enough. For if one has Faith in the God of the bible then it is up to said God to preserve that bible.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Yet Luke's nor Matthew's account does not. Funny how if they were a simple copy of the work of John Mark they confirm each other's account, and not the account in which they were supposedly copied from.

Funny how Mark didn't deem the birth and resurrection to be of any importance. But more to the point, funny how it had to be edited in so that it would better align with the other two (in terms of the resurrection).

Mark was written before the other two which can only mean the author(s) involved believed in a spiritual Jesus. Then comes Luke and Matthew who turn everything Mark says into supernatural events (specially with Matthew. He loves his earthquakes that no other apostle seemed to notice). They had Mark to work with hence the similarity and the 3 being called the synoptic Gospels. Except, surprise surprise, the later 2 feel like they should add a little more content like birth and resurrection narratives. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same people that then added the extended ending to Mark.

You have the burden of proof on the claim that Mark came after Matthew and Luke.
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testame...index.html
Even apologetic sites disagree with you.

can you elaborate? Or are you trying to dismiss what you can not account for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_J...c_elements
It's not as straight forward as you would like it to be. The Gospel of John is definitely different in many ways.

I pointed to a time line of biblically recorded events that directly contradicts what you have represented to be true, and it seems you are choosing to ignore, rather than discuss.

I can easily dismiss it because your argument depends on the claim that Luke was written before Mark. Where is the secular evidence for this?

what Hearsay?

The author of Luke clearly states that he is merely passing on the information he has gathered. We have already discussed Matthew and it seems like it can't be traced back to any Apostle, therefore hearsay.

My dad recorded a series on the Bible that was on tv. One of the episodes they interviewed a Catholic Father that was explaining the context in which Paul was living in. Anyways, I forgot why, but he mentioned that out of the NT authors MAYBE Mark was a witness. This Drich, is the balanced view that he has when faced with the raw evidence. The very same evidence that you should be thanking because without this evidence, archaeology, you wouldn't have a translated Bible that you can read in english.

You seem to live in this ideal bubble that assumes every last written word was from an eyewitness. Why is it that this historically based religion can't even stand up to that claim?

[Drich]

Funny how Mark didn't deem the birth and resurrection to be of any importance. But more to the point, funny how it had to be edited in so that it would better align with the other two (in terms of the resurrection).

The oldest manuscripts and the most reliable validate Mark upto Verse 8. (which includes the resurrection of Christ)

You have the burden of proof on the claim that Mark came after Matthew and Luke.
http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testame...index.html
Even apologetic sites disagree with you

. The term apologetic in the Christian sense of the words means to defend scripture. What you have left (via your link) is not a defense of scripture. It is a loose reflection of the traditional beliefs of when the books of the bible were adopted by the church.(For your source material places the authorship of John Mark's work before the death of Peter in which case if it has been written then, it would have been called the book of Peter, not Mark.)

An apologetic is exactly what I left you to answer for. I gave you a time line based on the scriptural accounts that denied your assertion as to when the book of Mark was written in comparison to the book of Luke. One I might add that you have failed to address satisfactorily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_J...c_elements
It's not as straight forward as you would like it to be. The Gospel of John is definitely different in many ways.

according to whom? wiki? What if Gave you three Christian links that show the book of john to be pivotal in the Christian life? The only thing that proves is that you can do a Google search as well as I can. I am asking you directly to explain to me (not by using the work of a smarter man) in your own words; how the book of John is different?

I can easily dismiss it because your argument depends on the claim that Luke was written before Mark. Where is the secular evidence for this?

Make up you mind first you wanted me to answer with an apologetic now you want secular evidence.. You know if you ask for Islamic evidence ALL of you bases would be better covered.. That s unless you miss the whole point of the conversation completely.

what Hearsay?

The author of Luke clearly states that he is merely passing on the information he has gathered.

How is that Hearsay? We have the letter. Hear say would be something like: I read a letter someone wrote and this is what it said.. Lest you suggest the whole of recorded history is Hearsay.

We have already discussed Matthew and it seems like it can't be traced back to any Apostle, therefore hearsay.

Again do you even know what that term means? We have the letter the content is not Hearsay.

My dad recorded a series on the Bible that was on tv. One of the episodes they interviewed a Catholic Father that was explaining the context in which Paul was living in. Anyways, I forgot why, but he mentioned that out of the NT authors MAYBE Mark was a witness.

You misunderstood what your dad was watching (this would be a great example of hearsay)

For Mark (The Author of the Book) was a disciple of Peter, and was not among the twelve.

This Drich, is the balanced view that he has when faced with the raw evidence. The very same evidence that you should be thanking because without this evidence, archaeology, you wouldn't have a translated Bible that you can read in English.

you know as well as I do how weak this statement is.. and I will leave it at that.

You seem to live in this ideal bubble that assumes every last written word was from an eyewitness.

no I clearly said John and Mat were the only Eye witnesses. Rather, This is what you need my position to be inorder for your argument to work.

Why is it that this historically based religion can't even stand up to that claim?

Because you have denied all of the history and evidence leading up to the final conclusion.

[FallentoReason]

The oldest manuscripts and the most reliable validate Mark upto Verse 8. (which includes the resurrection of Christ)

It would help your case a bit if this were actually true. Mark ends abruptly with the empty tomb, although, there is the young man making claims of a resurrected Jesus. Any further evidence of this from supposed witnesses like in Matthew and Luke? Nope. That is the stuff that was edited in. So Mark leaves us hanging with no resurrected Jesus, only mere hearsay from this young man that he is resurrected.

. The term apologetic in the Christian sense of the words means to defend scripture. What you have left (via your link) is not a defense of scripture. It is a loose reflection of the traditional beliefs of when the books of the bible were adopted by the church.

Ah I see. I've always heard apologists are the 'defenders of the faith'. I thought it included every last detail of said faith.

An apologetic is exactly what I left you to answer for. I gave you a time line based on the scriptural accounts that denied your assertion as to when the book of Mark was written in comparison to the book of Luke. One I might add that you have failed to address satisfactorily.

Make up you mind first you wanted me to answer with an apologetic now you want secular evidence

The problem with your apologetic is that you seem to stand alone with that viewpoint. Never have I heard it before. I'm not appealing to the masses, but I find it odd that none of my research has ever lead me to someone with this view, whether it's an 'apologetic' or secular evidence.

Ok, here's the start of your argument:

We know Luke's account was written well before John Mark's (the Apstole Peter's protege.) Because, As I said Mark's work was not penned down till after the death of Peter.(70 AD)

Baseless assertion. Show me how you know Mark's came after Peter. I have already told you that the general understanding is that Luke and Matthew were based on Mark according to the understanding of the three, which form the Synoptic Gospels. This is backed up by the similarities all 3 share, the reason why Mark is so short and omits huge chunks of M and L, the reason why Mark has so little unique content when compared with M and L. Above all, if Mark had access to M and L and not the other way around, then why omit the birth and resurrection? Did he forget that from every single point of view (theologically, historically..) it's rather important???

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)

So the book/The letters of Luke were written first to Theolopus for his personal/family usage. However They were not considered to be apart of the conical gospels till late 2nd century (Some say 4th century) But either way the actual text of Luke was recorded before the work of Mark was even penned.

None of this resolves the problems I've stated above.

How is that Hearsay? We have the letter. Hear say would be something like: I read a letter someone wrote and this is what it said.. Lest you suggest the whole of recorded history is Hearsay.

Strawman. I didn't say we don't know what Luke wrote and that evidence of his letter is from hearsay. I said the content of his letter is hearsay. He admits it himself in the beginning. Are you going to go against his word? Hear say would go something like: I will write an orderly account of what information I've gathered, which is what he said exactly. He wasn't a witness, just merely forwarding information from Mark. That is called hearsay.

Again do you even know what that term means? We have the letter the content is not Hearsay.

I think you might not understand what hearsay is. So if write a letter about some event and I send it to you it means my account is not hearsay because you have my letter?!

Hearsay - unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge (dictionary.com)

It has to do with where the (in this case) author of the letter got his information. Not the fact that you're holding it in your hands.

You misunderstood what your dad was watching (this would be a great example of hearsay)

Maybe I didn't word it properly, but I watched the program myself because my dad had recorded it.

you know as well as I do how weak this statement is.. and I will leave it at that.

How is this a weak statement?! Had people not dug these manuscripts out of the ground then your 'religious views' as you've stated them on this forum might go something like this.. 'atheist'.

Archaeology gave you these manuscripts. Archaeology is also suggesting a very different story about these manuscripts. Wouldn't it be sensible to look into that?

no I clearly said John and Mat were the only Eye witnesses. Rather, This is what you need my position to be inorder for your argument to work.

Ok, fair enough. If anything, that makes my argument so much easier, because my argument is that no word in the NT comes from a single eye witness.

[Drich]

Ok, fair enough. If anything, that makes my argument so much easier, because my argument is that no word in the NT comes from a single eye witness.

Except Matthew, (Direct eye witness) the works of John, (which BTW I did notice you failed to address or dismiss him of your own work) The writing of Luke (as they were gather from all of the remaining eye witnesses) and the Work of Mark as it was the record of Peter.

If in another Historical settings these three accounts would be air tight, but because they are of something you personally want to dismiss you will find fault. Which is apart of the plan. Because Christ told his disciples to only teach those who wanted to be taught you will not find evidence to force your thought here. Why? because Christ only offers choice and not a mandate. So subsequently the whole of biblical Christianity must reflects choice and not Mandates.

[The Grand Nudger]

I directly witnessed landfall of the Tuatha De Danaan, they came upon clouds, their druids powerful magic bending the sea to their will. Their might and glory completely consumed their enemies, the Fomorians, who had before them subdued the Firbolgs, this very same might that would one day retreat in the face of the Milesians.

Please believe me, please believe me, please believe me.............

[Drich]

I directly witnessed landfall of the Tuatha De Danaan, they came upon clouds, their druids powerful magic bending the sea to their will. Their might and glory completely consumed their enemies, the Fomorians, who had before them subdued the Firbolgs, this very same might that would one day retreat in the face of the Milesians.

Please believe me, please believe me, please believe me.............

done, now what?

[The Grand Nudger]

You've shown yourself to be quite the easy mark at this point then, haven't you? Also a tad more than a little dishonest, just so long as it permits you to continue with gibberish. All myth and legend, at this point in the conversation, is equally true. The gods known as Tuatha De (and titans expressed as Fomorian, and first men as Firbolgs) are as authentic as Mathew, or Jesus. All based on nothing more than my claims to being an eyewitness, which you have accepted (seemingly just because I made them). Congratulations.

[Drich]

You've shown yourself to be quite the easy mark at this point then, haven't you? Also a tad more than a little dishonest, just so long as it permits you to continue with gibberish. All myth and legend, at this point in the conversation, is equally true. The gods known as Tuatha De (and titans expressed as Fomorian, and first men as Firbolgs) are as authentic as Mathew, or Jesus. All based on nothing more than my claims to being an eyewitness, which you have accepted (seemingly just because I made them). Congratulations.

You assume too much. You asked for belief I gave you the benefit of the doubt and allowed you initial belief. This means I was willing to listen and test what it was you had to say. Your fatal error was made when you assumed "belief" is faith. You have proven yourself to be dishonest and no longer worthy of even initial belief, for you are willing to say or do anything to establish an argument as you see fit.

---

FallentoReason

I hope you had a chance to read all that was written, before faith no more censored it for a bogus reason. appearently i am no longer allowed to respond line by line on this web site.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Drich, I simply stated that since you've granted me belief, your fairy tale witnesses and my actually being a fairy tale witness are on equal grounds. Which they are. Unless you don't actually believe me, and then I would ask you why. How would one go about testing fairy tales? On what grounds will you be able to dismiss The Tuatha De that would not dismiss your own?

Have I proven such a thing, you'll have to lay that out for me, your assertions are not sufficient (neither in this case, nor your claims of eye witnesses).

[Faith No More]

I hope you had a chance to read all that was written, before faith no more censored it for a bogus reason. appearently i am no longer allowed to respond line by line on this web site.
IP Address: Logged

Censored my ass. Everything I deleted was within quote tags and appeared to be identical to a previous post at first glance. If I delted your post, I apologize, but you have already made your obections known in private. There is no need to whine about it publically. I suggest in the future you learn how to properly use the quote function if you don't want your posts being mistaken for quotes.