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 : "I STILL own the ban button, buddy" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RMF who wrote (1769)2/8/2013 3:15:39 AM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2133
 
"The FIRST writer of a Gospel was Mark and he DIDN'T MENTION the resurrection!!!"

Luke was the first Gospel writer and he did mention the resurrection.

Why didn’t Luke mention the deaths of Paul, Peter and James in the book of Acts?
J. Warner Wallace makes the case for an early date for Luke’s gospel.

Excerpt:

I make a much more elaborate and cumulative case for the early dating of the gospels in Cold Case Christianity, but a portion of this case revolves around Luke’s omission of three important deaths in the Book of Acts: the deaths of Paul, Peter and James. A recent listener to the Stand to Reason “Please Convince Me” Podcast recently wrote: “Firstly, perhaps such historical events were simply beyond the scope of the author of Acts? It has been suggested that the author may have been aware of the aforementioned events, but he chose instead to end his account thematically with the Gospel finally reaching the heart of Gentile civilization, Rome… Is it really viable to suggest that these possibilities are less reasonable than the early dating hypothesis?” One of the evidences in the Book of Acts that makes the omission of Paul, Peter and James’ death so powerful is the inclusion of two other deaths in the narrative: the deaths of Stephen and James, the brother of John:

Acts 7:58-60
When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of da young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 12:1-2
Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword.

As important as Stephen and James, the brother of John, were to the early Church, it can hardly be argued that Paul, Peter and James, the three most important Christian leaders of the first century and the primary characters of the Book of Acts narrative, would not be considered important enough to describe their deaths. Is it possible (viable) that Luke “may have been aware of the aforementioned events, but chose instead to end his account thematically with the Gospel finally reaching the heart of Gentile civilization, Rome?” Of course it’s possible, because anything and everything is possible. But it’s not reasonable.

I am one of those people who thinks that all three synoptic gospels should be dated prior to 65 A.D. and this is one of my main reasons for thinking so. I might be willing to concede later dates in a debate situation, but I think that the synoptic gospels were written from 40 to 65 AD.

By the way, if you haven’t got your copy of Cold Case Christianity, what are you waiting for? The thing is getting rave reviews from everyone!



To: RMF who wrote (1769)2/19/2013 11:31:11 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2133
 
Mark did mention the resurrection.

The last part of the Gospel of Mark - from 16:9 on - is said to not be a part of the oldest manuscripts. However, the preceding part of chapter 16, which IS in the oldest manuscripts, names three women who visited the tomb, finding it open and empty and being told Jesus had risen.



To: RMF who wrote (1769)2/20/2013 8:30:12 AM
From: Solon1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2133
 
You are quite right. There are many versions of "Mark". The Church fathers only knew of the versions before crafty scribes had editorialised so that the gospels and Acts would at least have an exceedingly clumsy (and still utterly unbelievable) pretension of contrived congruency.

earlychristianwritings.com

There are no gods involved. Just primitive people looking for a little help in what matters: feeding, fucking, and looting land and possessions. It realIy doesn't matter whether Shaman, medicine man, or Priest. Somebody gets the privilege of talking to an invisible power and of commanding obedience to that invisible person's desires. Of course, this involves feeding the family with "offerings" of appeasement, guilt, and so forth. And this strange magical power (conveniently) stays in the "family" in the normal course of events. -g-

Great job if you can get it! Look at how the Catholic Church ran the world and made trillions just by this simple formula. But even the smallest of tribes have their own success stories when it comes to preying on the terror and the superstition of the untutored.