dado

you're using a non-scriptural work to justify the inclusion of a text in your canon? that's quite a pandora's box you're opening up there...

dado

sorry, these are not correct.

apart from that, if Hebrew is so important, why was the text written in Greek? hebrew numerology doesn't work like this: if those are intended to be hebraically significant numbers, then it follows the original work is lost and all we have is a translation.

itsdatruth

It is described in a number of Christian works. The one I am using here is the Concordia NIV Study Bible, sold at bookstores throughout the nation. An apparent contradiction exists between John 19:14 and Mark 15:25. Jewish time starts at about 6:00 A.M., about at sunrise. Roman time started at about midnight.
Joh 19:14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, at about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!"
Mar 15:25 It was the third hour, and they crucified him.
Now, these two events are placed chronologically in my quotations. Notice the time seems to run backwards. Yet, if John was using Roman time, the time he gives is 6:00 A.M., while the Jewish reckoning or time in Mark would place the start of the crucifixion at 9:00 A.M., and the apparent contradiction is resolved.




I mean the apostle John. Not the man known as John-Mark The Gospel of John is used to teach NT Greek students Greek because of its simplicity in vocabulary.


My reply to that is more Bible quotes:
Luk 1:1 Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us,
Luk 1:2 even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus;
Luk 1:4 that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.
Luke speaks for himself here.

Now, for the others: Matthew was a tax-collector that Jesus recruited. John-Mark, who wrote Mark, was closely affiliated with Peter. Go to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html for references to early writings in the Church dealing that provide the basis for this belief. I will quote one of them here:
“Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.�

Now, for John. Notice that John does not like to refer to himself in the book he wrote. In other Gospels, the name John is readily referred to, however, in the Gospel of John, John refers to himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.
For example:
Joh 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. Joh 21:7 That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It's the Lord!" So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he wrapped his coat around him (for he was naked), and threw himself into the sea.
Luk 5:10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Jesus said to Simon, "Don't be afraid. From now on you will be catching people alive."
From here, you can see that James and John were the sons of Zebedee. The example later that day (in John) is just one of those many times where whom Jesus loved is used for John’s name, as John didn’t want to make himself famous.


I didn't say that the Gnostics were ignorant. I said thar their faith appealed to the ignorant. They did not have the knowledge of Christ from the eyewitnesses. You can still be highly educated, in say, rhetoric, yet lack an understanding of the Gospels. They were ignorant of the eyewitness accounts doctrine, and were drawn to incorrect explanations.


It was not bogus. Please use the term catholic, yes with a small c. I am not refering to the laying on of hands by current Eastern Orthodox churches. It doesn't mean Roman Catholic. The word catholic means universal. As the early Church gained in popularity, evil people who wanted to claim popularity for themselves tried to imitate Christianity and devise faith for their own benifit. The early Church used the term to distinguish themselves from the Gnostics and other heretics and apostates (heretic simply means somebody who believes different, an apostate believe differently and is obviously not under the grace of Christ). They already had priority over the gnostics. Gnosticism, in the first place, dates before Christ. Leaders in the Gnostic belief system evidently started to add elements of Christianity to it. Those who didn’t know what Christianity was already could be deceived into thinking they have the real information about Christ. Gnostics, in general, denied creation, the incarnation of Christ as God-Man, and the resurrection. They put out their own books about Christ much later than the catholics. At the same time was a man named Maricon. He started an anti-semetic church of his own founding, also using an edited Gospel of Luke and edited epistles of Paul, claming that anything else was polluted by Jewish-ness. He preached that God would forgive everybody for anything under any set of circumstances. And that the Christian God was not the God the Jews had worshiped for millennia. His church was even organized with bishops. He was an even greater threat to the Church than the Gnostics. His was the first official cannon ever of NT books. The catholic Church was disturbed greatly, began to inform people that the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were true, and relied on not just one apostle for information, but on a number of Jesus’ early followers. John, written slightly later, and for, yes, a different purpose than the others, was slightly slower in gaining acceptance. John saw the threat to the future of the Church that Gnosticism posed, and emphasized with simply clarity that Jesus was God. A verbal symbol was used to affirm that everybody believed the same thing. The Apostle’s Creed, named so after the teachings of the Apostles, was put together in about A.D. 150. Neither Marconites, Gnostics, or other heretics would affirm this creed. The word creed means symbol. It was soon used to affirm faith at baptisms, although in a question and answer format.


I actually DO! check it out:
Act 1:1 The first book I wrote, Theophilus, concerned all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
Act 1:2 until the day in which he was received up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
He continues with the same honesty of his 1st book!
Unlike his first book, notice how this time Luke is an eyewitness:
Read it carefully. The pronoun “we� indicates that at that time, Luke was with them. It is a discreet and humble was to do it. This we that you see in this passage is the first in the book. There are more, too…
Act 16:7 When they had come opposite Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit didn't allow them.
Act 16:8 Passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.
Act 16:9 A vision appeared to Paul in the night. There was a man of Macedonia standing, begging him, and saying, "Come over into Macedonia and help us."
Act 16:10 When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go out to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.
Act 16:11 Setting sail therefore from Troas, we made a straight course to Samothrace, and the day following to Neapolis;
Act 16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the foremost of the district, a Roman colony. We were staying some days in this city.
The book is again addressed to good ol’ Theo… just like “Luke, the doctor� ‘s first book. Early church leaders were unanimous in giving Luke the authorship of the book. The Muratorian Canon, A.D. 170, and Irenaeus, about A.D. 180 are referred to in the Concordia NIV Study Bible.
If it WAS actually a historical novel, I suggest that the following passage would have been written differently.
Act 26:23 how the Christ must suffer, and how, by the resurrection of the dead, he would be first to proclaim light both to these people and to the Gentiles."
Act 26:24 As he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are crazy! Your great learning is driving you insane!"
Act 26:25 But he said, "I am not crazy, most excellent Festus, but boldly declare words of truth and reasonableness.
Act 26:26 For the king knows of these things, to whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him, for this has not been done in a corner.
Act 26:27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe."
Act 26:28 Agrippa said to Paul, "With a little persuasion are you trying to make me a Christian?"
Notice the King Agrippa NEVER tries to refute Paul on the grounds that the miraculous events didn’t occur. In a good rational novel, that would have been the first thing that comes to mind. Instead, as the king actually WAS familiar (remember, silence has always conveyed acceptance) he doesn’t refute what he knows is true. Instead he asks a sarcastic question.



Not true at all. Instead, the word bishop was used interchangeably presbyter. No one had more authority than another.
1Ti 4:14 Don't neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elders.
Notice that any special recognition or office came through the agreement of a GROUP-not the whims of a pope or bishop. That was later, when selfish leaders sought power for themselves.

And the doctrine wasn’t trash, either:
1Ti 4:16 Pay attention to yourself, and to your teaching. Continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

Here, Paul shows how important the doctrine was:
1Co 15:1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
1Co 15:8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am. His grace which was bestowed on me was not futile, but I worked more than all of them; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
1Co 15:11 Whether then it is I or they, so we preach, and so you believed.
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised.
1Co 15:14 If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain.
1Co 15:15 Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn't raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead aren't raised, neither has Christ been raised.
1Co 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.
1Co 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep.
1Co 15:21 For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
1Co 15:30 Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour?
1Co 15:32 If I fought with animals at Ephesus for human purposes, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, then "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

In this highly reduced Chapter 15 in Paul’s Letter the people of Corinth, note that he shows his willingness to DIE for his faith-mentioning the gladiatorial games in which many Christians died. So, here, Paul shows that his doctrine is true because the source is true, and that he is sure of it and proves his certainty by his actions. Note with the 500 people who saw Jesus at the same time. Paul cites those who are still living as proof of the truth. The people evidently could inquire of a number of people who had seen Christ after he died for verification of the resurrection. If this wasn’t true, Paul’s letter certainly wouldn’t have been copied by many people in so short a time. It would have been dismissed.

Note: the World English Bible is quoted here, and is in the Public Domain. Download it at http://www.worldenglishbible.org

Vorkosigan

Itsdatruth:

Please do not cite reams of verse without discussing them. Simply listing verses from Acts does not tell us anything about their historicity or sources, and long lists of verses may be treated as spam and deleted. Bandwidth, sadly, costs money.

You could simply have saved a lot of bandwidth by reference 1 Cor and then writing what you actually did:

In this highly reduced Chapter 15 in Paul’s Letter the people of Corinth, note that he shows his willingness to DIE for his faith-mentioning the gladiatorial games in which many Christians died..... If this wasn’t true, Paul’s letter certainly wouldn’t have been copied by many people in so short a time. It would have been dismissed.

Most of the discussants here are (intimately) familiar with 1 Cor and it has been dissected many times here. For future reference, unless you are talking about the exact wording of a passage, it is best to simply give the verse reference.

Vorkosigan

Toto

This does not solve all contradictions.

Please do not waste our bandwidth with extensive Bible quotes. In the first place, we can read the Bible for ourselves. In the second place, you cannot prove anything external about the Bible by quoting it.

Does that site claim that Mark was written by an eyewitness? (hint: no) Does the document that Eusebius describes Mark as writing (based on what he heard from Peter) sound at all like the gospel we know as the second gospel or the gospel according to Mark? (hint: no, it does not sound like a narrative at all, but like a collection of sayings.)

Sorry, this is only one reason against assuming that John wrote the gospel.

"Anti-Semitic" is a modern term which refers to people who consider Jews a race. Marcion was not anti-Semitic, but anti-Judaism, or anti-Torah.

We've been through all this before. The use of "we" in a few passages may have just been a literary device, or those passages may have been incorporated from another work. There are other good reasons to think that Luke-Acts was not written by a companion of Paul, and was not written until the second century. Your idea that Luke was too modest to identify himself does not hold any water.

Irenaeus decided that Luke must have written Luke-Acts based on his analysis of the text. You would think that a person who wanted the story to be accepted as true would have put their own name on it.

Novels are not rational. Novelists always write scenes like this, with just enough tension to keep interest, but the hero wins in the end.

Willingness to die for a doctrine does not make it true (witness the Islamic suicide bombers.)

The alleged 500 people (who saw the risen Jesus - or more likely just had visions of him) were probably added to Paul's letter at a later date. There are no copies of this letter from the first century, so we don't know who copied it or who read it, and it is doubtful that anyone checked on those anonymous 500.

dado

you aren't going to like this, but the only Romans who kept track of hours midnight-to-midnight where the ones in Shakespeare's plays. of course, those Romans also had clocks, unlike the real ones who only had sundials. the historical Romans used dawn-to-dusk timekeeping, which should be obvious since with a sundial there is no way to tell time in the dark.

itsdatruth

Europe kept a general system of hours before John Harrison and affordable accurate clocks came about. People estimate. Now, as for the exact Roman methods-they WEREN"T exact, but if the guard was to be changed in the middle of the night, someone had to decide when. If one looks at the sky, they see the stars and moon do change position. Sure, the Romans were not using exact measurements or devices as complex as the Arabs later had, but people who are out side a lot learn to read to signs roughly for their own purposes. The sources I have looked at seem to indicate that the Romans assigned the sunrise time to a rough 6 o'clock. The sun could be read the rest of the day.

I doubt most people actually set up sun dials. They simply read the sky as they saw fit. In the Bible, day work-men were normally paid and released after it was dark. Pay was by day, not hour, for people surely knew such methods were imprecise.

dado

the romans of that era had a biurnal "clock": they counted 12 hours from dusk to dawn and then restarted from scratch and counted 12 hours from dawn to dusk. this is very well established through both written and physical artifacts. the "sixth hour" is roughly noon.

what evidence is Concordia citing?

itsdatruth

I discuss the text I paste! Maybe it needs re-reading for added clarity of my points. Some people do not own a Bible. I don't want to discriminate against them. Online Bible are aften tedious to use.

dado

Concordia is not a primary reference on roman timekeeping. an example of a primary reference would be an historical reference cited by Concordia.