SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (65973)12/9/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Yes, they suppose that Mark was the first, precisely for its terseness, and that Matthew and Luke used it as a source, elaborating according to the traditions they had learned. John is supposed to be entirely separate. One of the suppositions is that Matthew and Luke were reflecting debates between Christians and Jews about the claim that Christ was the fulfillment of prophecy, and therefore that it was necessary to assert certain bona fides, such as the Virgin Birth and descent from David.....



To: Ilaine who wrote (65973)12/11/1999 1:32:00 AM
From: Grainne  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
<<According to Cahill, Biblical scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel, and Mark doesn't describe the infancy of Jesus. Not sure what the significance of that is, if any.>>

Perhaps that nothing was actually known of Jesus' infancy because his life was much embellished after the fact, and really nothing was known of his early life until it was invented much later?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News