Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 07-18-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

This topic has not yet been exhausted, here, I think.
Allow me to ask again:
Is there enough internal evidence to call it a forgery?
[I need to know it from the experts, please. Thanks.]

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." KJV

I would say that it's impossible to know whether or not the earliest author included this or not, though I am certainly no expert. I'm not buying the uniqueness argument, since it makes the anachronistic assumption that an editor would be concerned with concealing the edits. The 4 gospels are obviously massive reworks of the same ideas, and they don't show much concern at all with trying to mask this. It's only a very late editor....after the gospels had come to be known as scripture....that might be concerned about masking edits.

Julio · 07-19-2010, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

This topic has not yet been exhausted, here, I think.
Allow me to ask again:
Is there enough internal evidence to call it a forgery?
[I need to know it from the experts, please. Thanks.]

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." KJV

I would say that it's impossible to know whether or not the earliest author included this or not, though I am certainly no expert. I'm not buying the uniqueness argument, since it makes the anachronistic assumption that an editor would be concerned with concealing the edits. The 4 gospels are obviously massive reworks of the same ideas, and they don't show much concern at all with trying to mask this. It's only a very late editor....after the gospels had come to be known as scripture....that might be concerned about masking edits.

Good point.
We also know that the Catholic Church curses anyone who discredits this passage in Matthew.
Why would the Magisterium depend upon a clearly forged interpolation to legislate its supreme authority over the adherents?

aa5874 · 07-19-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

This topic has not yet been exhausted, here, I think.
Allow me to ask again:
Is there enough internal evidence to call it a forgery?
[I need to know it from the experts, please. Thanks.]

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." KJV

In the widest net for the term "forgery", yes this part is a forgery. The entire gospel of Matthew is a "forgery" of Mark.

It cannot be shown that gMatthew is a "forgery" of gMark when gMark's audience or readers appear to have been aware of a character called Jesus the Messiah.

It is hardly likely that the author of gMark wrote a story about a character without having an INKLING of the origin of his MAIN character Jesus the Messiah.

It would appear that the author of gMark was SIMPLY writing about the supposed GOSPEL of Jesus the Messiah.

Mr 1:1 -

Quote:

[b] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.....

It must be expected that the author of gMark could have answered the most fundamental questions.

"Who exactly is your Jesus Christ?"

"When and where was he born?"

"Is he Jewish?"

And it is most absurd to expect the author of gMark to say "I really don't know!!" I never knew the man!!! Never seen him!!

Julio · 07-19-2010, 10:43 AM

But if the writer indeed never saw the main actor of his drama, WHAT then can we consider accurate?
Surely, Mark is not a reliable witness to support Matthew endowing Peter as the supreme authority of the coming Jewish cult.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2010, 10:43 AM	#24
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	But if the writer indeed never saw the main actor of his drama, WHAT then can we consider accurate? Surely, Mark is not a reliable witness to support Matthew endowing Peter as the supreme authority of the coming Jewish cult.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.