Early date of Mark

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
gnsb	Early date of Mark	Lead	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/22/2007 20:39:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None gnsb: As I promised, I found documentation for early date of James. This is from Daniel B. Wallace's website bible.org "But the cumulative effect argues for a date no later than 49 CE. But as we suggested earlier (and will develop later), there is a good possibility that Herods persecution of Christians, which began with James (the son of Zebedee) execution, is in the background of, and provides part of the occasion for, this epistle. If this is true, then a date no earlier than 44 CEand probably not much laterwould be most fitting. It is our tentative conclusion that James was written, therefore, c. 44-45 CE, making it the earliest writing in the New Testament canon." www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1361 gnsb: Wallace also lists words of Jesus in the Gospels found in James. "4) Similarities with the teaching of Jesus: there are more parallels in this Epistle than in any other New Testament book to the teaching of our Lord in the Gospels.10 The parallels to the Sermon on the Mount are especially acute:11 1:2 Joy in the midst of trials Matt. 5:10-12 1:4 Exhortation to perfection Matt. 5:48 1:5 Asking for good gifts Matt. 7:7ff. 1:20 Against anger Matt. 5:22 1:22 Hearers and doers of the Word Matt. 7:24ff. 2:10 The whole law to be kept Matt. 5:19 2:13 Blessings of mercifulness Matt. 5:7 3:18 Blessings of peacemakers Matt. 5:9 4:4 Friendship of the world as enmity against God Matt. 6:24 4:11-12 Against judging others Matt. 7:1-5 5:2ff. Moth and rust spoiling riches Matt. 6:19 5:10 The prophets as examples Matt. 5:12 5:12 Against oaths Matt. 5:33-37 www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1361 gnsb: If we accept Wallace's date of c. 44-45 CE as the date of the composition of James, then this could push the date of Matthew and Mark before 44 A.D. possibly even to 40 A.D. Of course, Wallace believes the tradition was oral at this time. I reject that view. I see no reason why the gospels of Matthew and Mark could not have been written down at that time. Especially from the fact that Jesus originally spoke his sayings in Hebrew/Aramaic and the parallels between the epistles and gospels are so close in Greek that it seems that the gospels of Matthew and Mark had to have been already written down in greek by this time. eurythumis: Again, it remains inconclusive, and at best you (or anyone else) can state a theoretical preference, but not much else. gnsb: You are right in the sense that I can't prove my point with infallible proof. However, I do not understand the insistence of certain scholars that the Gospel tradition at that time was "oral tradition" and not written. What "proof" do they have that it was "oral?" If the sayings of Jesus were just "oral tradition" at that time I would imagine translating those sayings from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek "orally" for 20 years or more would have produced so many different forms of the sayings of Jesus that it would simply "boggle" our minds. The true words of Christ would never be known even as some of the Neo-orthodox and Liberal theologians have been arguing for for decades now. I say, no, a thousand times no!!!!!!!!1 However, if the sayings of Jesus [Gospels of Matthew and Mark] were in written form at that early time as I believe they were this would much better explain the close parallels between say Mk.16:15 and Col. 1:23, etc, etc, etc. Then Paul & James would be quoting, alluding to, and reproducing "written" Gospel accounts in their epistles. The "written" accounts would "preserve" the integrity, accuracy, and truth of the Gospel for all generations.
Euthymius	Re: Early date of Mark	#1	[-]
Posts: 1657 (08/23/2007 05:40:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Wallace's ca. 45 date for James is within the same range I wuold take (45-50). So no problem there. Regarding questions of orality, you really should read Gerhardsson's Memory and Manuscript to see why oral tradition could easily function within a first century atmosphere, particularly within the Jewish-Christian circles. Also, you need to consider Luke's prologue, where he states that by whatever time he wrote, "many" had "taken in hand" also to produce a written narrative, but equally he mentions the accuracy of oral tradition passed down by eyewitnesses and "ministers of the word". So there is a place for such to be considered.
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#2	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/23/2007 16:37:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	eurythimus: Also, you need to consider Luke's prologue, where he states that by whatever time he wrote, "many" had "taken in hand" also to produce a written narrative, but equally he mentions the accuracy of oral tradition passed down by eyewitnesses and "ministers of the word". So there is a place for such to be considered. gnsb: Yes, I read Luke's prologue, though I really don't see anywhere in that passage that Luke says anything about the "accuracy" of "oral tradition" being "passed down" for 20,25,30,35,or even 40 or more years after the ascension of Christ before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John decided for the first time to begin writing it down in the 50's, 60's, or 70's or even later which seems to be the position advocated by most biblical scholars today. No, I don't see Luke saying that at all. I don't even see Luke mentioning "the accuracy of oral tradition passed down by eyewitnesses and "ministers of the word" which you advocate here. Luke never even mentions "oral tradition" in this passage. It is an interpretation of those who believe that Luke is talking about oral tradition. Quite honestly, I don't see that in the passage. I believe a more accurate and straight forward rendition of what Luke says here is found in the following quote from the "People's New Testament" [PNT] found in the commentary section of E-Sword bible program on the internet. Luk 1:1 - "Forasmuch as many. Luk_1:1-4 are an introduction. They explain that already many narratives of Christ had been written, that these were by eye witnesses and ministers of the word, that Luke had made a careful examination of all these sources of information, and thought it good, "having traced all things accurately from the first, to write them out in order." We thus learn that at least as early as twenty-seven years after the death of Christ (see Introduction to Luke) many histories of eye witnesses and ministers had already written, of which only two, Matthew and Mark, have come down to us." gnsb:This quote I believe more accurately represents what Luke is saying in this passage. He's talking about the fact that it was eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who had written the first accounts of the narratives of Christ. This would certainly include Matthew [eyewitness, minister of the word] and Mark[eyewitness, minister of the word, interpreter of Peter], and yes, even John,[though some scholars would disagree] if he had taken notes during Jesus' teachings and sermons [see Rabbiis and their scribes how the Rabii's followers would write down their Rabbi's sayings as they were speaking. Jesus was called Rabbi by his followers and certainly had at least Matthew as well as others writing down Jesus' words as he was teaching and preaching.] and besides these many more who had written 'from the beginning' and notice not 20,25,30,35,40 years after the fact relying on "oral tradition." I also quote from "Robertson's Word Pictures" again found in E-sword program: Luk 1:1 - Forasmuch as (epeidēper). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (epei = since, dē = admittedly true, per = intensive particle to emphasize importance). Many (polloi). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias)[gnsb: I don't know much about this "Logia of Jesus" though I have heard of it. Of course, what about the greek gospel of Matthew, didn't Luke use that?] and Marks Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. Have taken in hand (epecheirēsan). A literal translation of epicheireō (from cheir, hand and epi, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Marks Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus.[gnsb: I need to find out more about this "Logia of Jesus" and whether or not I believe it is a valid concept] There was still room for Lukes book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made." gnsb: From this study I am more convinced that the ''oral tradition" view of modern scholars and theologians is in exact contradiction of what Luke is saying here. The facts of the Gospel was being "written" down by "many" from the "beginning" who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. That is what Luke says. Luke does not say that the facts of the Gospel were passed along by "word of mouth" or "oral tradition" for 20,30,or 40 years and then finally committed to writing in the 50's. 60's, or 70's.
Hieronymus 2k5	Early date of Mark	#3	[-]
Posts: 67 (08/25/2007 09:57:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* If we accept Wallace's date of c. 44-45 CE as the date of the composition of James, then this could push the date of Matthew and Mark before 44 A.D. possibly even to 40 A.D. I would say they all date much earlier than even that, but I am not bound in slavery to theories of dependency. *Quote:* Especially from the fact that Jesus originally spoke his sayings in Hebrew/Aramaic and the parallels between the epistles and gospels are so close in Greek that it seems that the gospels of Matthew and Mark had to have been already written down in greek by this time. (1) If Jesus really spoke Aramaic primarily, why the few literal occurrences of Aramaic in the Greek text? These few literal occurrences of Aramaic in the Greek text argue that Jesus spoke primarily in Greek with only a few phrases in Aramaic and that the apostles, therefore, felt it important to keep the words he spake in Aramaic in Aramaic with a Greek translation afterwards "which being interpreted is..." (2) Even if we accept your first premise, your theory requires that we completely discount the Holy Spirit's role in translation and go for the cockeyed theory that Mark looking at Matthew or Matthew looked at Mark to determine the best way to render Aramaic into Greek. Perhaps the similarities in their translations (if they are translations) are caused by their having been produced via the gift of tongues. But of course, all the above will be repugnant to the non-believers we have on here masquerading as great "textual critics," but you, gnsb, I believe are a man who can see reason.
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#4	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/25/2007 13:10:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hieronymus: (1) If Jesus really spoke Aramaic primarily, why the few literal occurrences of Aramaic in the Greek text? These few literal occurrences of Aramaic in the Greek text argue that Jesus spoke primarily in Greek with only a few phrases in Aramaic and that the apostles, therefore, felt it important to keep the words he spake in Aramaic in Aramaic with a Greek translation afterwards "which being interpreted is..." gnsb: You may have something there. I have at times wondered about that myself. I guess I have been given the party line of "Aramaic", "Aramaic", for so long now that I really didn't think of the possibility of Jesus speaking greek. It's something to at least think about. I don't know about the tongues thing there, but it is worth looking into what language Jesus spoke while teaching and what language the Gospels were first written into. You might possibly have something there. Quite frankly, although I have been giving early dates for Mark of 37 A.D. -38A.D. or earlier, I really see no reason why Matthew and even Mark could not have been writing down Jesus' travels, miracles, teachings and sermons from the very beginning of Christ's ministry. [See my post on prologue of Luke where Luke says that many including "eyewitnesses" and "ministers of the word" had undertaken to do this from the beginning. This would certainly include Matthew and Mark, and possibly even John if he was also taking notes of Jesus' teachings and sermons. Somehow it always bothered me to hear theologians say that John didn't write his gospel until the 90's. Are we reeeeally to believe and accept the hypothesis that John at an age in his 60's or 70's would be able from memory to accurately write down the details of Jesus's ministry that happened 50 to 55 years ago? I've always had doubts about that hypothesis. It seems possible to me that Peter had knowledge of the Gospel of John. 1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. He seems to be alluding to Jn. 3:3 at this point in his epistle. Being born and being born again is such a stong Johannine theme perhaps Peter is referring to that in his epistle. Especially the relationship between 1 Pe 1:23 and Joh 1:13. This would at least lower the date of John's gospel by 30-35 years. This would mean the gospel of John could have been existence before the 60's. I believe it is earlier though I really don't know how to prove it.. Hey, thanks for your comments. You have really made me re-evaluate some of my thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hieronymus 2k5	Re: Early date of Mark	#5	[-]
Posts: 67 (08/25/2007 14:49:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek is of no great importance to me, because the Greek we have is still inspired Scripture and I find all "well, what WOULD it have said in Aramaic" arguments totally specious as they amount to nothing more than the primal "yea, hath God said?" of the serpent in the garden. Such as the Catholic argument that the distinction between Petros and Petra is of no importance because they conjecture that in Aramaic Jesus WOULD have said Kepha in both places. The Holy Spirit inspired the Greek to say Petros and Petra, and that is enough for me. But the general theory on timing is that John's gospel was written last and he only included things the others left out. However, it could just as well be the opposite too, that his was first and that the others (for example) do not give the encounter with Nicodemus because John had already written it. I have no definite theories on the dates of the gospels, other that this, that all of the New Testament was written before 70 AD. The last book to be written could have been written no later than 68-early 69. None of the NT writers mentions Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple as having been fulfilled already (an "I told you so" I dare say none of them could have resisted mentioning if they wrote so late), not even John, which makes a 90 AD date for either his gospel or for Revelation totally unbelievable to me. The book of Hebrews, of course, says "every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins" which clearly shows that the temple was still standing when it was written. Of course, I also see a connection between 1 Cor 13:8 and Dan 9:24, and believe that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (the end of the 70 weeks prophecy) was a sign of the completion of the written Word and of the sealing of the office of prophet.
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#6	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/25/2007 18:03:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Quote: Whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek is of no great importance to me, because the Greek we have is still inspired Scripture and I find all "well, what WOULD it have said in Aramaic" arguments totally specious as they amount to nothing more than the primal "yea, hath God said?" of the serpent in the garden. gnsb: Well, that certainly seems true today with so much of modern Neo-orthodox and Liberal theologians. They are always saying "yea, hath God said?" Hey guys, check out my post on Bible Versions and History Forum on this site Re: JD Price's 1987 "Complete Equivalence" vs & - gnsb - 8/25/07 11:59 am
greenbranch	Re: Early date of Mark	#7	[-]
Posts: 2838 (08/25/2007 19:54:06) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* Somehow it always bothered me to hear theologians say that John didn't write his gospel until the 90's. Are we reeeeally to believe and accept the hypothesis that John at an age in his 60's or 70's would be able from memory to accurately write down the details of Jesus's ministry that happened 50 to 55 years ago? I've always had doubts about that hypothesis. He'd have had to be more than his 60's and 70's if the gospel of John wasn't written until the 90's. Jesus' crucifixion happened around 30-33 AD, if John were born in 30AD, he'd be 60 in 90 AD, so he had to have been more than 60's or 70's when he wrote, IF he waited until around 90AD to write, which I don't believe he did. *Quote:* Being born and being born again is such a stong Johannine theme perhaps Peter is referring to that in his epistle. Especially the relationship between 1 Pe 1:23 and Joh 1:13. This would at least lower the date of John's gospel by 30-35 years. This would mean the gospel of John could have been existence before the 60's. I believe it is earlier though I really don't know how to prove it.. Um.... I don't think we can go by this as a proof or evidence. Being born again is a JESUS theme, not a Johannine theme, Peter would have heard Jesus talk about it plenty of times. Sometimes I get a little frustrated with commentaries who call things Johannine themes, or Pauline themes, or Petrine themes, and say they wrote such and such for this or that reason. They are God/Jesus themes, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written for God's reason and purpose, not John, Paul or Peter's reason and purpose!
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#8	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/26/2007 13:54:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	greenbranch: He'd have had to be more than his 60's and 70's if the gospel of John wasn't written until the 90's. Jesus' crucifixion happened around 30-33 AD, if John were born in 30AD, he'd be 60 in 90 AD, so he had to have been more than 60's or 70's when he wrote, IF he waited until around 90AD to write, which I don't believe he did. gnsb: You are right, of course. If John was the young man in the garden of gethsemene who ran away naked[John's Gospel] then he could have been 15 maybe 20 years old. At 95 AD he would be appr. 80-85 years old. Which makes it even much more harder to believethat he could write down Jesus' words, sermons,miracles,etc in the Gospel of John that happened 65 years before. What proof is there that he wrote the Gospel and the 3 epistles that late? As far as I know, none at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gnsb:Being born and being born again is such a stong Johannine theme perhaps Peter is referring to that in his epistle. Especially the relationship between 1 Pe 1:23 and Joh 1:13. This would at least lower the date of John's gospel by 30-35 years. This would mean the gospel of John could have been existence before the 60's. I believe it is earlier though I really don't know how to prove it.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- greenbranch: Um.... I don't think we can go by this as a proof or evidence. Being born again is a JESUS theme, not a Johannine theme, Peter would have heard Jesus talk about it plenty of times. Sometimes I get a little frustrated with commentaries who call things Johannine themes, or Pauline themes, or Petrine themes, and say they wrote such and such for this or that reason. They are God/Jesus themes, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written for God's reason and purpose, not John, Paul or Peter's reason and purpose! gnsb: Excellent reply!!!!!! Yeah, I get your point. Probably a poor choice of words. Of course born and born again are Jesus terms and yes I also get fustrated with commentaries who call things Johannine themes,etc, etc, for they sometimes seem to imply that Jesus didn't really say those things. I would never intentionally imply such a thing. I just got caught up in theological jargon. Hey, thanks for the correction, my brother.
greenbranch	Re: Early date of Mark	#9	[-]
Posts: 2838 (08/26/2007 19:45:40) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* gnsb: You are right, of course. If John was the young man in the garden of gethsemene who ran away naked[John's Gospel] then he could have been 15 maybe 20 years old. At 95 AD he would be appr. 80-85 years old. Which makes it even much more harder to believethat he could write down Jesus' words, sermons,miracles,etc in the Gospel of John that happened 65 years before. What proof is there that he wrote the Gospel and the 3 epistles that late? As far as I know, none at all. You are a bit mistaken, it was in Mark's gospel that the young man ran away, and scholars believe that it was Mark who was the young man. *Quote:* gnsb: Excellent reply!!!!!! Yeah, I get your point. Probably a poor choice of words. Of course born and born again are Jesus terms and yes I also get fustrated with commentaries who call things Johannine themes,etc, etc, for they sometimes seem to imply that Jesus didn't really say those things. I would never intentionally imply such a thing. I just got caught up in theological jargon. My main point was that Peter would have heard the born again theme from Jesus, the same time John did, so we can't conclude that the gospel of John was written before Peter's letters based on the fact that being born again is a theme in John. You could almost say that the Holy Spirit used Peter's epistles to remind John of what Jesus said about being born again so that he would include that theme in his gospel. I think the Holy Spirit reminded each of them independently of Jesus' words concerning being born again. *Quote:* Hey, thanks for the correction, my brother. Well, one small additional correction - I'm a sister.
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#10	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/27/2007 06:28:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Quote: You are a bit mistaken, it was in Mark's gospel that the young man ran away, and scholars believe that it was Mark who was the young man. gnsb:I stand corrected. I really did know that. But sometimes I get it confused because of the name John Mark. Of course, you are right it was John Mark in the garden. But I still believe John could still have been that young anyway, so it doesn't really affect my argument of John's age at 95AD. Quote: My main point was that Peter would have heard the born again theme from Jesus, the same time John did, so we can't conclude that the gospel of John was written before Peter's letters based on the fact that being born again is a theme in John. You could almost say that the Holy Spirit used Peter's epistles to remind John of what Jesus said about being born again so that he would include that theme in his gospel. I think the Holy Spirit reminded each of them independently of Jesus' words concerning being born again. gnsb: Let's look at the passage in question: Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. gnsb: Since it is recorded here that Nicodemus came to Jesus in the night, and there is no mention of the discples being there. I am assuming that Jesus and Nicodemus had a private meeting. It would seem to me if all the disciples had knowledge of this discourse of Jesus [as vital and important as this passage is for theology and salvation] then why does only John record it? Why then did not Matthew, Mark [Peter's interpreter], and Luke record these words in their Gospels. I believe their silence could be an indication that they were not familiar with these words of Jesus. And since it is known that John the beloved disciple who laid on Jesus' breast certainly had a relationship to Jesus that the other disciples apparently did not have, I do not find it hard to believe that either John, after all, was there with Nicodemus and Jesus and heard the discussion, or Jesus shared it with John later. And if John did write his gospel before the time of Peter's epistles, and Peter was familiar with John's Gospel then it is possible that Peter is quoting Jesus' words "born again" from John's Gospel after all. I realize I can't prove this theory of mine at this point with solid proof. However, I will continue to research it more extensively. gnsb: Hey, thanks for the correction, my brother. quote: Well, one small additional correction - I'm a sister. gnsb: Hey, that's great!!!!!! I was wondering if there were any sisters on this board. Sorry for the misidentification blooper!!!!!
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#11	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/27/2007 07:00:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Quote: But the general theory on timing is that John's gospel was written last and he only included things the others left out. However, it could just as well be the opposite too, that his was first and that the others (for example) do not give the encounter with Nicodemus because John had already written it. gnsb: I have heard of that theory. Perhaps the following quote from Tertullian may shed some light on the subject. "Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith in us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it after. The Five Books Against Marcion. Book 4 Chp. 2 The Ante- Nicene Fathers Volume 3 Tertullian Parts 1-3. gnsb: Could Tertullian here be giving the time order of the compositions of the Gospels?[John, Matthew, Luke, Mark] Ih I guess it could be a possibility. However,I myself tend to doubt it. I more strongly believe Tertullian is referring to the order of the Gospels that he found in the NT manuscripts that were available to him. What do you think?
greenbranch	Re: Early date of Mark	#12	[-]
Posts: 2838 (08/27/2007 09:02:02) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* gnsb: Since it is recorded here that Nicodemus came to Jesus in the night, and there is no mention of the discples being there. I am assuming that Jesus and Nicodemus had a private meeting. It would seem to me if all the disciples had knowledge of this discourse of Jesus [as vital and important as this passage is for theology and salvation] then why does only John record it? Why then did not Matthew, Mark [Peter's interpreter], and Luke record these words in their Gospels. I believe their silence could be an indication that they were not familiar with these words of Jesus. And since it is known that John the beloved disciple who laid on Jesus' breast certainly had a relationship to Jesus that the other disciples apparently did not have, I do not find it hard to believe that either John, after all, was there with Nicodemus and Jesus and heard the discussion, or Jesus shared it with John later. There again, their silence could merely be because the Holy Spirit chose to reveal this incident through John, and not through the others. True there is no mention of the apostles being there, but, Jesus had to have told them of it - at the very least Peter, James and John, whom He seems to have often singled out for more discipling time. If it had been Paul who appears to be referencing this theme, you might have a point, but since it is Peter, it is more likely Peter heard this at the same time John did. *Quote:* gnsb: Hey, that's great!!!!!! I was wondering if there were any sisters on this board. Sorry for the misidentification blooper!!!!! It's totaly understandable, you can't tell from my screenname, although I don't think a brother would use it. I think I am the only sister who participates here regularly right now.
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#13	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/27/2007 10:35:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Quote: There again, their silence could merely be because the Holy Spirit chose to reveal this incident through John, and not through the others. True there is no mention of the apostles being there, but, Jesus had to have told them of it - at the very least Peter, James and John, whom He seems to have often singled out for more discipling time. If it had been Paul who appears to be referencing this theme, you might have a point, but since it is Peter, it is more likely Peter heard this at the same time John did. gnsb: Hey, I really have no problem with your scenerio above. It's a subject I can't really be dogmatic about because the Scriptures are silent on this subject at this point. I only suggested it as a possibility which I still think could be true. However, I did take your suggestion and I searched Paul's letters and came up with the following parallel: Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: Of course, Paul here could be referring to the Gospel Of John by using the phrase "children of light". Also Jesus called his disciples the "light" of the world in Matt. So Paul could actually be referring to Matt. and John. It is also possible Paul could be referring to Luke instead of John: Luk 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light Or Paul could be referring to both Luke and John [children of light]. It's hard to say. At least Paul, theoretically could be referring to the Gospel of John thus showing that John's Gospel could have been already written and in existence before Paul wrote Ephesians [say early 50's.] This would knock off app. a little more than 40-45 years off the 90-95AD date for Gospel of John. I will continue more study on it. What do you think?
greenbranch	Re: Early date of Mark	#14	[-]
Posts: 2838 (08/27/2007 15:37:49) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* Of course, Paul here could be referring to the Gospel Of John by using the phrase "children of light". Also Jesus called his disciples the "light" of the world in Matt. So Paul could actually be referring to Matt. and John. It is also possible Paul could be referring to Luke instead of John: Luk 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light Or Paul could be referring to both Luke and John [children of light]. It's hard to say. At least Paul, theoretically could be referring to the Gospel of John thus showing that John's Gospel could have been already written and in existence before Paul wrote Ephesians [say early 50's.] This would knock off app. a little more than 40-45 years off the 90-95AD date for Gospel of John. I will continue more study on it. Now here you could have a point. On the other hand, this COULD just be because this is what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. God is the real author of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the writings of Paul. It would not be surprising if He told these men to write on the same themes without any of them having seen what the other wrote down. True?
gnsb	Re: Early date of Mark	#15	[-]
Posts: 561 (08/27/2007 20:51:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	quote: Now here you could have a point. On the other hand, this COULD just be because this is what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. God is the real author of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the writings of Paul. It would not be surprising if He told these men to write on the same themes without any of them having seen what the other wrote down. True? gnsb: Yes, that would be true. I would not deny that. However, if there is a recurring pattern of quotations or allusions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John that continue to pop up in Paul's epistles the possibility grows greater with each allusion or quotation that Paul is actually quoting from the Gospels. True? So, I will continue to study Paul's letters to see if there are any more allusions, or quotes from the Gospels!!!!!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Early date of Mark

Early date of Mark

Quick Reply