Spenser

Double standard? I read Doherty's work and he sites references. I cannot say the same about you. How can you expect us to simply believe you by nothing more than your word? (Most scholars, most scholars, only a true Scottsman) That is not scholarly nor a means of "free thinking". It is arrogance and nothing more. I am willing to listen but not to dogma...

Postcard73

Hey folks- please watch the personal comments and insults. I've edited several in this thread. If it keeps happening then I'll have to close it.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

Vinnie

Doherty has a few references. Nothing like that which you find in many other books by credentialed academicians in the field on this. Check the bibliographies too. Even Carrier pointed this out in his review of Doherty's work, IIRC.

And I have posted large amounts of material on various subjects here. Your caricaturing of all my posts as "most scholars" is ridiculous. Please point out where I made actual arguments in this thread based upon consensus. Show where I said, "Most scholars believe x so x is true."

You may want sources and cites for everything but sorry, in this six or so on one debate in here I just don't have as much time as everyone else in here. I don't have time to thoroughly evaluate every post or give them more than a casual treatment.

Though if anyone here wants a formal debate. here I am.

Not to mention you accuse me of both ARGUING from authority and of NOT CITING sources in the same post. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't :notworthy

Vinnie

Thugpreacha

{Post deleted}

Vinnie

The board recently encountered some copyright heat for material in the humor forum that parodied copyright materials. Mageth may just have the board's best interest in mind and maybe that site is strict about their material? I dunno.

Since most of your post will probably be edited I won't respond to specific statements

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I'm aware of what I typed but you have clearly missed the point. While it is true that Koester suggests a "rather early date" should be given to Mark, he does not offer anything more specific than that. I certainly don't see where he states it should be "considerably earlier" than the relatively late date he gives to the other two. The point you have missed is that Koester does not embrace the c.70CE dating you insist upon. It is possible that he might apply this date to the source text used by Mark for the prophecies of Mk13 but it does not appear he considers this to be the date of authorship for the Gospel.


Funny but clearly irrelevant personal jibes edited later.

Spenser

OK Vinnie, I'll try and work with you here sine I am interested in what you have to say.

Looking at this timeline , would you say it is fairly accurate or not? (I have no idea why it turned up under agnosticism / atheism but it did).

Oh, and I merely wished you site all you arguments from authority so that us 'amature' bible scholars could look into what is being said.

Spenser

rlogan

Very Slippery Vinnie. But we have pincer grips.


You are saying that the HB tie is very tenuous, and made up after the fact by Christians.

You have to deal with this point Vinnie: According to the gospels, Jesus uttered those words himself. About fulfilling scripture.


Which is it:

1) Jesus uttered the words, but was wrong in his interpretation of the HB.

2) Jesus did not utter those words. The gospel writers lied.

Amaleq13

Repeating an unsubstantiated assertion does not constitute substantiation. There is no evidence in Paul's letters that he found the concept "difficult to cope with". He proudly proclaimed it as central to his theology.

There is no evidence in Paul's letters that he or those who shared his beliefs found it embarrassing.

It is attested nowhere in Paul's letters regardless of the social context. In fact, Paul appears to take pride in the fact that his beliefs are contrary to the social norms of his day. That Christians were ridiculed for their "foolish" beliefs does not make them embarrassed. Are you embarrassed when your beliefs are ridiculed?

Paul doesn't appear to have considered them "tenuous". He apparently believed in them so strongly that he radically changed his life as a result.

Prove it.

Vinnie

"""""I'm aware of what I typed but you have clearly missed the point. """"""""

Actually I missed your point because you fumbled it as I will demonstrate.


"""""While it is true that Koester suggests a "rather early date" should be given to Mark, he does not offer anything more specific than that."""""

The Gospelof Mark had to be written and become popular enough for two later evangelists to incorporate substantial portions of it into their own Gospels. If you don't think Koester is in the ballpark by this fact alone you are mistaken.

"""""I certainly don't see where he states it should be "considerably earlier" than the relatively late date he gives to the other two."""""

To prove my point I just made (not that it needs it), in another work (history and lit 170) he says Mark must be dated no later than 70-80.

And Papias attests to Mark before Martyr. But Matthew and Luke before Papias.

""""The point you have missed is that Koester does not embrace the c.70CE dating you insist upon. """""""

I said CA 70 c.e. That means circa = around 70. C.E. and Koester certainly does embrace the dating I give. I stated that lyrcist was incorrect in that "Everyone knows Mark dates after 70 C.E
." That was the context of the "ovice" comment. Now I do remember you mentioning something about reading comprehension in your latest response


"""""It is possible that he might apply this date to the source text used by Mark for the prophecies of Mk13 but it does not appear he considers this to be the date of authorship for the Gospel."""""""

Mark may have been redacted after Matthew and Luke used it but as is evident by the large amount of materials shard by Matthew, Luke and extant canonical Mark, they were very similar.

And I am well aware of Koesters views. I wote a paper documenting them entitled "The Corrupt Text of Canonical Mark."

Vinnie