D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Oh, and thanx.
BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Oh, and thanx.
Date for Mark
Date for Mark
Joltus,
I will agree that it is difficult to put a specific date on Mark. However, I do assert that the overwhelming consensus among scholars puts Mark between 70 to 75 C.E. (For a complete
review of scholarly research on Mark as of 1997 see Introduction to the New Testament, by Raymond E. Brown (1997) Doubleday.)
There are several reasons for this conclusion. First, While Mark is an anonyms work it was attributed to Peter’s scribner by the mid to late 2nd. The earliest written assertion of this position
is a by Eusebius (EH 3.39.15-16) who claims to have been told this by Papias an associate of Mark. If this claim is true, the best estimate for a writing date would be after Peter’s death by
Nero in the late 60s when Mark would seek to collect all of Peter’s recorded recollections into a workable narrative. This would put Mark no earlier then 70 C.E..
There is, however, substantial challenge to the Papias tradition, and a large group of scholars (including many Evangelical Scholars - is that an oxymoron?) conclude that Mark was authored
by someone other then Mark, Peter’s scribner. If this were the case, it is still likely that Mark was written no earlier then 70 C .E.
Specifically, prior to 70 C.E. the early Christians believed that Jesus was coming back in their life time. Paul alludes, several times, to this belief, and in Corinthians makes this belief a cornerstone for his conclusions that single women and widow should - if possible - remain single, and slaves should not seek their freedom. (See generally 1st Corinthians Chapter 7.) This all change over a period of ten years - i.e., 60 C.E. to 70 C.E.
By 70 C.E., Paul and Peter had just been martyred - along with the Roman Christian community - in Nero’s persecution. Rome had leveled Jerusalem, destroyed the Jewish Temple and cause the nation of Israel to cease to exist. Further, the Jerusalem church, led by Jesus’ brother James, was forced to relocate during Rome’s attack, and James was martyred a year later. So, to a large degree 70 C.E. represents the end of the first generation of Christians.
Given these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that it began to dawn on the 1st Century Church in 70 C.E. that there was no guarantee that Jesus would be returning soon. Therefore, in the period of 70 to 80 C.E. the first steps were taken to preserve, in written form, Christian teaching and doctrine.
In this light, an attempt by the 1st Century Church to memorialize an oral account of Jesus life seems logical. And to a large extent that is just what Mark is; that is, an oral account of Jesus’s
life (with possible additions by the still elusive Q) used to win souls to Christ. This is then followed by Luke and Matthew who rely on Mark in the drafting of their Gospels.
Anyway, that is the reason why Mark is dated as it is. As for your statement “that prevailing manuscript evidence points to an earlier date then 70 C.E.” I know of no such evidence.
Although, if you have a citation to such evidence I would be more then willing to look at it.
Thanks.
Date for Mark
Joltus,
I will agree that it is difficult to put a specific date on Mark. However, I do assert that the overwhelming consensus among scholars puts Mark between 70 to 75 C.E. (For a complete
review of scholarly research on Mark as of 1997 see Introduction to the New Testament, by Raymond E. Brown (1997) Doubleday.)
There are several reasons for this conclusion. First, While Mark is an anonyms work it was attributed to Peter’s scribner by the mid to late 2nd. The earliest written assertion of this position
is a by Eusebius (EH 3.39.15-16) who claims to have been told this by Papias an associate of Mark. If this claim is true, the best estimate for a writing date would be after Peter’s death by
Nero in the late 60s when Mark would seek to collect all of Peter’s recorded recollections into a workable narrative. This would put Mark no earlier then 70 C.E..
There is, however, substantial challenge to the Papias tradition, and a large group of scholars (including many Evangelical Scholars - is that an oxymoron?) conclude that Mark was authored
by someone other then Mark, Peter’s scribner. If this were the case, it is still likely that Mark was written no earlier then 70 C .E.
Specifically, prior to 70 C.E. the early Christians believed that Jesus was coming back in their life time. Paul alludes, several times, to this belief, and in Corinthians makes this belief a cornerstone for his conclusions that single women and widow should - if possible - remain single, and slaves should not seek their freedom. (See generally 1st Corinthians Chapter 7.) This all change over a period of ten years - i.e., 60 C.E. to 70 C.E.
By 70 C.E., Paul and Peter had just been martyred - along with the Roman Christian community - in Nero’s persecution. Rome had leveled Jerusalem, destroyed the Jewish Temple and cause the nation of Israel to cease to exist. Further, the Jerusalem church, led by Jesus’ brother James, was forced to relocate during Rome’s attack, and James was martyred a year later. So, to a large degree 70 C.E. represents the end of the first generation of Christians.
Given these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that it began to dawn on the 1st Century Church in 70 C.E. that there was no guarantee that Jesus would be returning soon. Therefore, in the period of 70 to 80 C.E. the first steps were taken to preserve, in written form, Christian teaching and doctrine.
In this light, an attempt by the 1st Century Church to memorialize an oral account of Jesus life seems logical. And to a large extent that is just what Mark is; that is, an oral account of Jesus’s
life (with possible additions by the still elusive Q) used to win souls to Christ. This is then followed by Luke and Matthew who rely on Mark in the drafting of their Gospels.
Anyway, that is the reason why Mark is dated as it is. As for your statement “that prevailing manuscript evidence points to an earlier date then 70 C.E.” I know of no such evidence.
Although, if you have a citation to such evidence I would be more then willing to look at it.
Thanks.
Ouch, I consider myself an Evangelical scholar. the real question is do liberals let the Bible speak or do they try to shout it down?
Anyway, I would refer to Carson, Moo, and Morris' Intro to the NT, as well as Mann's commentary in the AB series. He even goes on to state that concensus of all scholars is that Mark was written pre-70AD, as it is one of the earliest books of the NT, along with numerous other reasons. Considering it comes from the AB, it certainly would have to be grounded solidly, if liberally.
Evangelicals and Scholarship - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Evangelicals and Scholarship - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
A few short comments.
First, the comment about Evangelicals and scholarship is also held by prominent Evangelicals - although it is not stated in the crude manner I used (for laughs only). (See The Scandal of the
Evangelical Mind, mark A. Noll, (1995) William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Dr. Noll is a professor of history at Wheaton College).
As for Jaltus’ implied comment that I am a liberal when it comes to the Bible. I am not. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I will state unequivocally, however, that I am not an Evangelical.
The primary reason for this statement is that I believe proof texting is a vaporous act of idiocy.
As for what Jaltus comment about liberal theology has to do with the date Mark was written, I am unable to shed any light on that one. Perhaps he can, or perhaps not - after all he appears to
be an Evangelical (again a sarcastic comment made only for the purpose of humor - or perhaps not).
Thanks.
Evangelicals and Scholarship - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
A few short comments.
First, the comment about Evangelicals and scholarship is also held by prominent Evangelicals - although it is not stated in the crude manner I used (for laughs only). (See The Scandal of the
Evangelical Mind, mark A. Noll, (1995) William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Dr. Noll is a professor of history at Wheaton College).
As for Jaltus’ implied comment that I am a liberal when it comes to the Bible. I am not. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I will state unequivocally, however, that I am not an Evangelical.
The primary reason for this statement is that I believe proof texting is a vaporous act of idiocy.
As for what Jaltus comment about liberal theology has to do with the date Mark was written, I am unable to shed any light on that one. Perhaps he can, or perhaps not - after all he appears to
be an Evangelical (again a sarcastic comment made only for the purpose of humor - or perhaps not).
Thanks.
Mark the oldest book in the NT - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Mark the oldest book in the NT - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You know I missed one very odd comment by Jaltus. He said, “it [,Mark] is one of the earliest books of the NT.” This is odd because there is no one - I am aware of - who holds this position.
Mark is the oldest of the Gospels. But the oldest books of the New Testament are the Pauline writings some of which date to the mid-40s, and have references to early Christian hymns which
may date back to the late 30s. (See Philippians Chapter 2:6-11.).
But since Jaltus is an Evangelical Scholar we will forgive him (again, a totally gratuitous and sarcastic comment .... :doh: ).
Mark the oldest book in the NT - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You know I missed one very odd comment by Jaltus. He said, “it [,Mark] is one of the earliest books of the NT.” This is odd because there is no one - I am aware of - who holds this position.
Mark is the oldest of the Gospels. But the oldest books of the New Testament are the Pauline writings some of which date to the mid-40s, and have references to early Christian hymns which
may date back to the late 30s. (See Philippians Chapter 2:6-11.).
But since Jaltus is an Evangelical Scholar we will forgive him (again, a totally gratuitous and sarcastic comment .... :doh: ).
Last edited:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Soulman:
I am really sorry to hear about your parents, that must be really tough.
I am really sorry to hear about your parents, that must be really tough.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Hitch:
Yeah, funny how futurists aren't quite so literal when it comes to the timing verses, huh? That is why I have learned to frame my argument in a way now that it thrashes them either way. Check, checkmate. :thumb:
Yeah, funny how futurists aren't quite so literal when it comes to the timing verses, huh? That is why I have learned to frame my argument in a way now that it thrashes them either way. Check, checkmate. :thumb:
"
"
Jesus Christ is coming to save those that BELIEVE on Him, and they are not all Jews! Jewish expectation was wrong in the first century, and it's STILL wrong, just as wrong as dispensationalism. As a mof, disp doctrine is derived from the same heresy, and supposes that God's plan revovles entirely around the Jews rather than around Jesus Christ and those faithful to obey Him!
Scripture clearly says what happens to those who don't obey the gospel at the second coming:
Now I think we will see Jerry try to make the point that the Jews will all be saved at the second coming (which he says is "pretrib", as if the trib of Matt 24 and Luke 21 is yet future), but the scripture above refutes that vain idea; neither does Romans 11 say they will either, regardless of how many try to say that it does. "All Israel" was defined in Rom 9:6-8, and a true "Jew" was defined in Rom 2:28,29. Only a REMNANT of Jews will ever repent and believe the gospel, and it'll be TOO LATE at the second coming to do that!
"
Jesus Christ is coming to save those that BELIEVE on Him, and they are not all Jews! Jewish expectation was wrong in the first century, and it's STILL wrong, just as wrong as dispensationalism. As a mof, disp doctrine is derived from the same heresy, and supposes that God's plan revovles entirely around the Jews rather than around Jesus Christ and those faithful to obey Him!
Scripture clearly says what happens to those who don't obey the gospel at the second coming:
Now I think we will see Jerry try to make the point that the Jews will all be saved at the second coming (which he says is "pretrib", as if the trib of Matt 24 and Luke 21 is yet future), but the scripture above refutes that vain idea; neither does Romans 11 say they will either, regardless of how many try to say that it does. "All Israel" was defined in Rom 9:6-8, and a true "Jew" was defined in Rom 2:28,29. Only a REMNANT of Jews will ever repent and believe the gospel, and it'll be TOO LATE at the second coming to do that!
King David
New member
Rapt,
Who says that the REMAINING Jews whom he will save at Jerusalem do NOT or will NOT believe on or in Him (the Messiah)? They only will not know who He was or is UNTIL He reveals himself to them, and thusly fulfill Zechariah's prophecy. That is why Isaiah explains that those who are alive will be holy. All of the wicked Jews will have been killed off (see a precursor parallel among the "Jews" of ancient America when Christ appeared to them in like manner after his resurrection (3rd Nephi, 11 in The Book of Mormon)).
Regarding "Israel", there are those who are more full-blooded literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the promises were made, and there are those who are either of a thinner blood (blood or lineage of Israel mixed with gentile blood), or are adopted into Israel, who are so according to the covenant (they make) to keep God's law and to be counted among His children (and those of Abraham). Its NOT an either or situation -- there are and will be some of BOTH original Israel and of the gentiles (or nations) among "ultimate Israel".
--KING DAVID
Who says that the REMAINING Jews whom he will save at Jerusalem do NOT or will NOT believe on or in Him (the Messiah)? They only will not know who He was or is UNTIL He reveals himself to them, and thusly fulfill Zechariah's prophecy. That is why Isaiah explains that those who are alive will be holy. All of the wicked Jews will have been killed off (see a precursor parallel among the "Jews" of ancient America when Christ appeared to them in like manner after his resurrection (3rd Nephi, 11 in The Book of Mormon)).
Regarding "Israel", there are those who are more full-blooded literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the promises were made, and there are those who are either of a thinner blood (blood or lineage of Israel mixed with gentile blood), or are adopted into Israel, who are so according to the covenant (they make) to keep God's law and to be counted among His children (and those of Abraham). Its NOT an either or situation -- there are and will be some of BOTH original Israel and of the gentiles (or nations) among "ultimate Israel".
--KING DAVID
Commemorative Battle Royale III shirts now available!
Commemorative Battle Royale III shirts now available!
Commemorative Battle Royale III shirts now available!
GET YOURS HERE!!!!!
Commemorative Battle Royale III shirts now available!
Commemorative Battle Royale III shirts now available!
GET YOURS HERE!!!!!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
That is wayyy coooollll!!!
C
cirisme
Guest
Are you gonna get a shirt with your name on it?
- Status