Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo, you just ignore the facts. The other gospel accounts were not copied from Mark, that is just your claim. Have you even READ the gospels? Other than bits and pieces you get from reading other books or websites about the gospels? Have you? Have you ever read the entire New Testament? From the posts you have made, I seriously doubt it. You just repeat nonsense you gathered from other websites and anti-christian books. Which you probably have never actually read either, but found excerpts on websites. I have found a lot of your posts on other websites, yahwhat. The same drivel, and searching for your sources, like your list of quotes about the burial practices, which you have never given cites for, I found that most of them are plagiarized from a website, and the rest from a quote from a Bart Erhman book. You can't even be honest about your sources.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe only reason you can even claim it is "plausible" or "possible" is by completely ignoring the actual documentary evidence that shows otherwise.
IF all we had were rumors about the burial of Jesus handed down orally for 2000 years, then you could claim that your theory was plausible. Unfortunately we have 4 source documents written very close to the event, which contradict your theory and you have not given any evidence that they are not trustworthy in this reporting. Mere conjecture is all you have. So, no, your theory is not plausible. or probable. it is imaginary.
Therefore, it is very possible that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThe issue I have with this is that it puts each of these scenarios on the same level.
The majority of NT scholars believe that the first two postulates are probably true. A minority of NT scholars believe that the latter postulates are probably true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo, you just ignore the facts. The other gospel accounts were not copied from Mark, that is just your claim. Have you even READ the gospels? Other than bits and pieces you get from reading other books or websites about the gospels? Have you? Have you ever read the entire New Testament? From the posts you have made, I seriously doubt it. You just repeat nonsense you gathered from other websites and anti-christian books. Which you probably have never actually read either, but found excerpts on websites. I have found a lot of your posts on other websites, yahwhat. The same drivel, and searching for your sources, like your list of quotes about the burial practices, which you have never given cites for, I found that most of them are plagiarized from a website, and the rest from a quote from a Bart Erhman book. You can't even be honest about your sources.
If you are not aware that most scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed whole sections of Mark's gospel for their own, you are seriously uninformed regarding NT scholarship.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostYou are severely misinformed. The most popular theory for the Synoptic Problem is the two source hypothesis, meaning Matthew and Luke copied Mark's Gospel and used another sayings source known as Q. We know they copied Mark due to the verbatim Greek copying. How else do you explain that? Another strong piece of evidence is editorial fatigue. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.c...e-copied-mark/
again, you show that you have never even read the gospels, just rely on what you read on other websites. Your credibility is shot.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostOk, let's add this:
The majority of NT scholars believe that the first two postulates are probably true. A minority of NT scholars believe that the latter postulates are probably true.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostSparko,
If you are not aware that most scholars believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed whole sections of Mark's gospel for their own, you are seriously uninformed regarding NT scholarship.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostMore accurately, the authors of Matthew and Luke depend on sections of Mark's gospel for their own. As Sparko said, there are often small differences in detail. Of course, this is par for the course for ancient writers, both sacred and secular.
"The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Mark's 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. Mark's gospel can be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. Events which today's writer would separate by using different paragraphs. With this method we can divide Mark's gospels in 88 separate episodes or pericopae. Of these 88 only three are not found in the other two gospels. [4]"
Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/mark.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostI think the copying of material is on a much bigger scale than you seem to be inferring. Read this:
"The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Mark's 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. Mark's gospel can be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. Events which today's writer would separate by using different paragraphs. With this method we can divide Mark's gospels in 88 separate episodes or pericopae. Of these 88 only three are not found in the other two gospels. [4]"
Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/mark.html
Paul Tobin is the webmaster and author of the Rejection of Pascal's Wager website.
He holds degrees in Engineering and Business Administration and runs an oil & gas equipment supply company.
He is married and has four children. This is his first book.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/book.html
Hey, how about you read the gospels yourself?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou really need to get better sources than some amateur skeptic if you want to convince anyone of your views.
Paul Tobin is the webmaster and author of the Rejection of Pascal's Wager website.
He holds degrees in Engineering and Business Administration and runs an oil & gas equipment supply company.
He is married and has four children. This is his first book.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/book.html
Hey, how about you read the gospels yourself?
Have you ever read the Gospels and Acts straight through? Interesting isn't? I remember coming to the end of one Gospel and thinking, "Hey. The last Gospel I read said something completely different. What's up here?"
Is the information I quoted incorrect? If so, please give specifics?Last edited by Gary; 07-28-2016, 02:27 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou really need to get better sources than some amateur skeptic if you want to convince anyone of your views.
Paul Tobin is the webmaster and author of the Rejection of Pascal's Wager website.
He holds degrees in Engineering and Business Administration and runs an oil & gas equipment supply company.
He is married and has four children. This is his first book.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/book.html
Hey, how about you read the gospels yourself?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary View PostI think the copying of material is on a much bigger scale than you seem to be inferring. Read this:
"The gospel of Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these Matthew repeats about 600 verses, while Luke uses about 350, some of which differ from the verses used by Matthew. From Mark's 661 verses only 31 verses did not appear in some form or another in Matthew and Luke. Mark's gospel can be divided in another, more natural way, into separate episodes or pericopae. Events which today's writer would separate by using different paragraphs. With this method we can divide Mark's gospels in 88 separate episodes or pericopae. Of these 88 only three are not found in the other two gospels. [4]"
Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/mark.html
Unfortunately, it's a fallacious argument. It doesn't establish Markan Priority.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIt's true that Matthew and Luke use large percentages of Mark. If I recall correctly, Matthew uses most of Mark. But Mark is pretty small. Matthew and Luke also share a ton of material in common that cannot be found in Mark called (as I'm sure you're aware) Q. Most of Q is sayings material though. Matthew and Luke also contain quite a bit of their own unique material coming from an alternative tradition or source other than Mark and Q. On the burial narrative, for instance, Matthew's unique material describes the guards posted at the tomb. Luke tells us that Joseph did not consent to the deeds of the council that condemned Jesus. And then we have John who not only gives us more details about Joseph of Arimathea, the preparation of the body, the location of the tomb, but (re)introduces Nicodemus as a co-preparer of the body. Matthew and Luke don't need to add much more than they have about the burial because the unique traditions they're familiar with agree with that found already in Mark. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
189 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 03:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
481 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-28-2024, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
645 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,142 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment