|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 27, 2018 18:09:06 GMT -5
Oct 26, 2018 intelchips said:
Follow up to several quips here-to-for mentioned:
If one grows up in a family without a critical middle eastern historian in it then what you will grow up believing is the traditional dogma of the Christian faith. And when you meet a professional who has studied Greek, Latin and Hebrew and various other languages for 20 to 30 years or has dug in the ground seeking anthropological answers you will think them false at the get go. You will close your ears and mind to them for they can’t possibly have anything you need because you already know what is right and correct. It does not matter to you that the very first time the name Mark was connected to Mark's Gospel was 180 years after it was circulating by Irenaeus. Imagine that if no one knew who Mark Twain was (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and 180 years after it was written someone claimed Tom Sawyer was written by John Wilkes Booth.
We use to say that Papias of Hierapolis (c. 100) provides the earliest account of who wrote the Gospels and ascribes authorship to Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter. Jerome (c. 400) suggests that Mark was the same person as John Mark, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but this remains a minority view. In Antiquity, only Jerome (AD 347-420) suggests that Mark the Evangelist may be the John Mark of whom the Apostle Paul speaks. The earlier patristic tradition commencing with Papias makes no such link with Paul.
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 this 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."
Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.
However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter. In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Mark's authorship is to be taken seriously.
Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Markneedn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. Thus the "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."
So in Total what we have here is a bunch of church fathers who were just guessing at what they thought best support the party line and had no sources for their position.
I stand by my position that some unknown author created Mark's Gospel whole cloth based on stories from the old testament and Homeric influences to explain what to do after the temple was destroyed. A new faith to help make sense of the loss for all that the Jews held dear. This doesn't mean it had to have any bearing on reality!
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 27, 2018 18:14:29 GMT -5
Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?
~~ NathanB: Like I wrote in my previous posts, the person who wrote gospel of Mark was John Mark, his uncle was Barnabas, the older co-worker of Paul. Barnabas was 1 of 70 apostles in Luke 10:1 whom Jesus sent forth.
John Mark was a younger companion to Paul, later companion with his uncle Barnabas and also companion to Peter. Read Acts 15:36-40 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
~~ Papias (120 A.D.) "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 this 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."
~~ Clement of Alexandria (193 A.D.) Mark was the follower of Peter, Peter publicly preached the gospel at Rome. Before some of Caesar's equestrian knights, and adduced many testimonies to Christ. In order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter. Mark wrote entirely what is called the gospel according to Mark.
Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.) The mind of Peter's hearers, that they were NOT satisfied with the a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all manner of entreaties , they pleaded with Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, he companion to Peter to leave in writing a record of the teaching that had been delivered to them verbally. And they did NOT let the man alone until they had prevailed upon him. And so to them we owe the Scripture called the "Gospel of Mark." On learning what had been done, through revelation of the Spirit, it is said that the apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men and approved the composition for reading in the churches.
~~ NathanB: I have a Dictionary book of early Christians beliefs overs 700s topics discussed by the early church fathers for over 400 yrs after the apostles had died. Many of these early church fathers had been co-workers with the 12 and 70 apostles.
According to the early church fathers: Barnabas was one of SEVENTY apostles Jesus sent out in Luke 10:1.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 28, 2018 10:48:50 GMT -5
Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?
Early church fathers belief: Papais (120 A.D.) Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.
Irenaeus (180 A.D.) Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid particular stress upon the fact that Christ is is the seed of David. Therefore, Matthew begins with Jesus genealogy.
Origen (228 A.D.) Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, who looked for the Messiah to come from the line of Abraham and of David. Therefore, he says, "the book generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. We will begin the Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have PUBLISHED his Gospel before the others. He wrote to the Hebrews, namely, those of the circumcision who believed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 28, 2018 11:08:21 GMT -5
Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?
Irenaeus (180 A.D.) Luke also, the companion of Paul, inseparable from him, recorded the Gospel in a book. Luke was Paul fellow-worker in the Gospel.
Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.) By the style of writing, Luke may be recognized both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles and to have translated Paul's epistles to the Hebrews. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Now, Luke himself did NOT see the Lord Jesus in the flesh, And he according as he was able to accomplish it, began his narrative with the birth of John the Baptist. Moreover, the Acts of all Apostles are comprised by Luke in ONE book of Acts because these different events took place when he was personally present.
The principle on which he wrote was to write only of what fell under his own notice. And he shows his clearly by the omission of the martyrdom of Peter, and also of the journey of Paul went from the city of Rome in Spain.
~~ NathanB: We read in the book of Acts, Luke Joined Paul and his co-workers as WE in Acts 16: 10-12 0 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 28, 2018 11:10:10 GMT -5
Who wrote the Gospel of John?
~~ Irenaeus (180 A.D.) John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself PUBLISH a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus. The church at Ephesus founded by Paul, and John remained among them permanently until the time of Trajan. It is true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
~~ Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.) To James the Just, John and Peter, the Lord imparted knowledge after His resurrection. These imparted it to the REST of the apostles. And the rest of the apostles to the SEVENTY, of whom Barnabas was ONE.
Listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the apostle John. On the tyrant's death, John returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos. He then traveled to the adjoining territories of the nations, being invited, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order the whole churches, there to ordain such men as were marked out by the Spirit.
~~ Tertullian (197 A.D.) Rome is where the apostles John was first plunged into boiling oil, but was unhurt. He was then banished to his land of exile (Patmos).
~~ Muratorian fragment (200 A.D.) The fourth Gospel is that of John one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us." One the same night, it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things on his own name. as they called them to mind.
~~ Origin (222 A.D.) He left ONE Gospel, although he declared that he could make so many that the world could NOT contain them. Again, in the second epistle, which is ascribed to John the apostle, and in the third epistle thought they are indeed brief, John is NOT set before by name. Rather, we simply find the anonymous name.
~~ Victorious (280 A.D.) When John said these things in Revelation he was on the island of Patmos, condemned by Caesar Domitian to labor in the mines. Therefore, it was there that he saw the Apocalypse. When he had grown old, he thought that he would eventually meet his end through suffering. However, Domitian was killed and all his judgment were thrown out. After he was released from the mines, John later delivered to the churches this same Apocolypse that he had received from God. He later wrote the Gospel of John the complete faith for the sake of our Salvation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 17:17:34 GMT -5
don't worry nathan they will find fault somewhere in your posts even though they are facts....
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 28, 2018 17:23:04 GMT -5
I read somewhere that John was in Ephesus after his freedom came but when he was asked to write his gospel to clarify Jesus' gospel he went back to Patmos to do it.
Also, I read it'd been written after Paul's death? I can't find that article, but it supposedly is from Iraneous which had heard it from Pollycarp.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 28, 2018 17:31:29 GMT -5
don't worry nathan they will find fault somewhere in your posts even though they are facts....
The Dictionary of early Christians belief by David W. Bercot is VERY GOOD! It gives me a good insight of the 1-4th century of the disciples or the next generation of apostles and the problems they were facing back then. Over 700s of different topics they dealt with 2000 yrs ago, are the same ones we are asking today! |
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 28, 2018 17:51:01 GMT -5
I read somewhere that John was in Ephesus after his freedom came but when he was asked to write his gospel to clarify Jesus' gospel he went back to Patmos to do it. Also, I read it'd been written after Paul's death? I can't find that article, but it supposedly is from Iraneous which had heard it from Pollycarp.
Paul the apostle:
~~ Clement of Rome (96 A.D.) After preaching both in the east and the west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith. For he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and he came to the extreme limit of the west. He finally suffered martyrdom under the Emperor Nero.
~~ Latantinus (320 A.D.) It was Nero who first persecuted the servants of God. He crucified Peter and beheaded Paul. Peter and Paul preached in Rome.
Paul's Fourth Mission Journey from the Bible and early church history:
It is clear from (Acts 13:1-21; 17) that Paul went on three journeys. There is also reason to believe that he made a "Fourth" journey after his "Release" from the Roman imprisonment recorded in (Acts 28). The conclusion that such a journey did, indeed, take place is based on: 1) Paul's declared intention to go to Spain (Romans 15:24,28). 2) Eusebius' implication that Paul was released following his first Roman imprisonment (Ecclesiastical History, 2.22.2-3). 3) Statements in early Christians literature that he took the gospel as far as Spain (Clement of Rome, epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5: actus Petri Vercellenses, chapter 1-3; Muratiorian Canon, lines 34-39).
1. Rome--- released from prison (Acts 28) in A.D. 62
2. Spain--- 62-64 (Romans 15:24,28)
3. Crete---64-65 (Titus 1:5)
4. Miletus--- 65 (II Timothy 4:20)
5. Colosse---66 (Philemon 22)
6. Ephesus---66 (I Timothy 1:3)
7. Philippi--- 66 (Philippians; I Timothy 1:3)
8. Nicopolis---66, 67 (Titus 3:12)
9. Rome again---67
10. Martyrdom --- 67/68 Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero in Rome.
After the church had received the power of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), it began, at once, to greatly multiply, and 8,000 souls were saved (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4), to extend itself to the different cities and town of Judea. At the close of the "apostolic period", the church had spread beyond the limits of Judea to Macedonia, Crete, Asia Minor (Turkey today), Pisidia, Greece, Italy, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Bithynia, Spain, Gaul (France) and Britain. The successors of the "Apostles," who were commonly called the "Apostolic fathers," were Polycarp, Hermas, Clement or Rome, Ignatius, and Papias.
The Apostolic Fathers were Christian theologians who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them.[1] Their writings, though popular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not included in the canon of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the Apostolic Fathers' seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings that became the New Testament.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers
Apostolic Fathers' Writings
~~ Clement of Rome 1st century. He may well have been a companion of both Peter and Paul (Phil. 4:3). On the behalf of the church in Rome, he wrote a letter to the Corinthian church, in aid the church leaders who had been ousted by a minority faction. Ignatius (A.D. 35-107) A personal disciple of one or more apostles. He was executed in Rome A.D. 107. On his way to Rome as a prisoner, Ignatius wrote letters to several churches; these letters give considerable insight into the structure and beliefs of the churches in Asia Minor (Turkey) at the close of the apostolic age.
~~ Papias (A.D.60-130) A disciple of John the apostle and a friend of Polycarp. He was a Bishop (pastor) of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (Turkey today). His testimony concerning the Gospels of Matthew and Mark has been invaluable to the church.
~~ Polycarp (A.D. 69-156) Another disciple of John apostle. He was faithful bishop (pastor) of Smyrna. He was arrested in his old age and was burned to death.
~~ Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) When the disciples had seen Jesus ascending into heaven, and had believed, and received the Power, He sent upon them from heaven, they went to Every race of men. And, they taught these things and were called apostles. These Twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and continued to show His greatness with all modesty and uprightness.
~~ Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Christ is said to have baptized Peter alone and Peter baptized Andrew; Andrew and, John. The two of them baptized James and the rest. To James the Just. John, and Peter, the Lord imparted knowledge after His resurrection. These imparted it to the rest of the apostles. And the rest of the apostles imparted it to the "Seventy" (in Luke 10:1-2), of whom Barnabas was one.
~~ Tertullian (A.D. 197) As their Divine Master commanded them, "When He, the Spirit of Truth will come, He will lead you into ALL truth." You have the work of the apostles also predicted: How beautiful are the feet of those who Preach the gospel of peace, which bring glad tidings of good NOT of war, nor evil tidings (Isa. 52:7). In response to which is the (Psalm 19:5) "Their voice is gone through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." We see the voice of the apostles have gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. His disciples, also spreading over the world, did as their Master commanded them.
~~ Origin (A.D. 245) On this account, the apostles LEFT Israel and accomplished that which had been commanded them by the Savior: "Make disciples of ALL the nations." It was by the help of a Divine power that these men taught Christianity, and succeeded in leading others to embrace the Word of God. For it was NOT any power of theirs speaking. At the request of their Master and God, the disciples scattered over the world and gave forth his teachings for Salvation.
~~ Lactantius (A.D. 304-313) At this time after the ascension, his apostles were 11 in number. To them was added Matthias, in the place of the traitor Judas Iscariot. And, afterward Paul was added. Then they were dispersed throughout ALL the earth to Preach the gospel of the Lord, as their Master had commanded them. For the next 25 years (until the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nero), they busied themselves in laying the foundations of the churches in every province and city.
Paul's Missions' Journey and his followers Vaudois Christians/Apostles. (Romans 15:24) Paul wrote approximately (A.D. 67) Whenever I journey to Spain, I shall come to you. (Col. 1:23) The gospel which you heard was preached to every creature under heaven.
~~~ Clement of Rome (A.D.96) After preaching both in the east and west, Paul gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extreme limit of the west [the extreme limit of the west refers to either Spain or Britain.] Irenaeus (A.D. 180) The churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul (France).
~~ Tertullian (A.D. 197)... By this time, the name of Christ has reached the manifold confines of the Moors, (Germany) all the limits of Spain, the diverse nations of the Gaul (France) and the haunts the Britons inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ... furthermore, there are Germans, Scythians, and persons of many remote nations and provinces and islands many to us unknown and which we can scarcely enumerate. In all the places, the name of Christ (who is already come) reigns. Christ's name extending everywhere, believed everywhere, worshiped by all the above-enumerated nations, and is reigning everywhere. Mutatorian Fragment (A.D. 200) The principle on which Luke wrote was to write only of what fell under his own notice. And, he shows this clearly by the omission of martyrdom of Peter, and also of the journey of Paul, when he went from the city of Rome to Spain.
The Historical Background of the book Revelation: The visions John saw while he was a prisoner on the island of Patmos. Christ gave John visions and the book was written, in the ghastly light of burning Martyrs. The church was 66 years old. It had grown enormously. It had suffered, and was suffering terrific persecutions.Emperor Nero in A.D 64-67 instigated the first imperial persecution of Christians, 30 years before this book was written. In that persecution many Christians were crucified, thrown to wild beasts, or wrapped in combustible garments and burned to death while Nero laughed at the pitiful shrieks of burning men and women. Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom in Nero's persecution.
The second imperial persecution was under Emperor Domitian (A.D. 95). It was short but extremely severe. More than 40,000 Christians were tortured and killed. It was during this period of persecution in which John was banished to Patmos. The third imperial persecution was that of Trajan and was soon to begin (A.D. 98). John had lived through the first two and was now about to enter the third of Rome's efforts to blot out Christian faith. Those were the dark days for the Church. Still, darker days were coming. But, persecution was NOT the only problem. The church itself, from within, was beginning to show signs of Corruption and Apostasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 28, 2018 18:14:28 GMT -5
ON LINE: The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent Chapter 10 Page 81-101
gutenberg.net.au/ebooks10/1000351h.htmlWho are the Vaudois and Where did they come from?
The Vaudois (A.D. 68-1800) are, in fact, "Descended" from those refugees from ITALY who after Paul (A.D. 68) apostle had there "Preached" the Gospel, abandoned their beautiful country and FLED, like the Woman mentioned in the Book of (Revelation, Chapter 12), to these Wild mountains (Swiss Alps), where they have to, this day, handed down the Gospel from "father to son," in the SAME purity and simplicity as it was preached by Paul apostle.
The Brethren in the valleys NEVER lost the knowledge and consciousness of their "Origin" and "Unbroken" history there. In the Alpine Valleys of Piedmont (Italy) there had been, for centuries, congregations of believers calling themselves brethren, who came widely known as "Waldenses or Vaudois," though they did NOT, themselves, accept the name. They trace their "Origin" in those parts, back to Apostolic times. Like many of the so-called Cathar, Paulican, and other churches, these were NOT "Reformed" NEVER having degenerated from the New Testament patterns, as had the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox and some others, but having ALWAYS maintained, in varying degree, the Apostolic tradition. From the time of the Emperor Constantine (3rd century) there HAD continued to be a "Succession" of those who preached the Gospel and founded churches, uninfluenced by the relations between Church and State existing at the time. This accounts for the large bodies of Christians, well established in the Scriptures, and free from idolatry and the other evils prevailing in the dominant professing Church, to be found in the Taurus Mountains and Alpine valleys. These latter, in the quiet seclusion of their mountains, had remained unaffected by the development of the Roman Catholic Church. The "Vaudois" considered the Scriptures, both for doctrine and church order, to be binding of their time, and NOT rendered obsolete by change of circumstances. It was SAID of them that their whole manner of thought and Action was an endeavor to "HOLD FAST" the character of Original Christianity.
When, from the 14th century onward, the valleys were invaded and the people had to negotiate with surrounding rulers, they always emphasized this to the Prince of Savoy, who had the longest dealings with them, they could "ALWAYS" assert without fear of contradiction the uniformity of their faith, from Father to Son through time immemorial, even the Very AGE of the Apostles. To Francis I of France they said, in 1544: "This confession is that which we have received from our ancestors, even from Hand to Hand, according as their predecessors in ALL time and EVERY Age have Taught and delivered. Let your Highness consider, that this Religion, in which we live, is NOT merely our religion of the present day, or a religion discovered for the FIRST time only a few years ago, as our enemies Falsely pretend, but it is religion of our fathers and of our grandfathers, yea, of our forefathers and of our predecessors still more remote. It is the religion of the Saints and of the Martyrs, of the Confessors and of the Apostles." When they came into contact with the Reformers in the 16th century, they said, "Our ancestors have often recounted us that we have EXISTED from the time of the Apostles. In all matters nevertheless we agree with you, and thinking as you think, from the Very days of the apostles themselves, we have ever been consistent respecting the faith."www.ccel.org/b/bevan/friends/friends.htm, The Three Friends of God in the 14th Century. The short account given in the following pages of Three of the "Friends of God" of the 14th century, is but a small fragment of a history which would form itself a voluminous library, the history of the "Brethren" of the Middle Ages known to us "Many names", but in England chiefly as the Lollards or Boni Homines.... In the 14th history of the "Friends of God" who stood in immediate connection with "Vaudois and Waldensian", the Brethren wrote: They said that about the year (A.D. 320) after Christ, the Church in Rome!! had fallen into worldliness, and was "Corrupted" through evil teaching. For the Roman emperor Constantine, instead of persecuting the Christians, had begun to honor them, and to give them "Worldly" Power and riches, and the "Bishops" became lords and princes, and the things of God were judged by worldly judges, and NOT by the Word of the Lord. And, because their fathers had "Held Fast" to the Ancient teachings of the apostles of the Lord, they had been KILLED. Many of them had FLED to the mountains in Italy, and Switzerland (Alps mountains), France and some to other countries. God had kept them as the apple of His eye, and they could "NEVER" be destroyed though they had to suffer hardship, persecution, death, from generation to generation. So, as time went on, they were found in many races, and in many lands, and wherever they went, they brought the Word of God, as they "Believed" the apostles taught it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 28, 2018 20:58:39 GMT -5
Some like to say that no proof be of Apostle John writing the fourth gospel. However it is a traditional story spread down from Pollycarp who was a disciple of Apostle John. This is much the same way that the Old Testament had been handed down to Moses, a traditional story from those who had been there whenever incidents happened. And we all know that some changes happen with the repeating of stories but hopefully the major information is kept.
Some consider it a tale not truth but then we have similiar happenings within countries and family traditions. These get handed down by oral methods. I know that I wished I had written down many things my Gram told about our antecedents but as all youngsters do, they don't think it important or that they'll forget. Some people remember things better then others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 28, 2018 21:23:28 GMT -5
Do you know how hard it is to keep records of things? First you have to keep a record and then you have to file it. Then you have to store it safely, and concoct some way to revisit it, which means transferring it in some cases, to strangers and next generationals. You have to be conscientious and deliberate at every step.
I'm very forgiving of errors in the compilation and authorship of the bible.
Read it for what it says. Read it intelligently.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 28, 2018 22:50:57 GMT -5
Do you know how hard it is to keep records of things? First you have to keep a record and then you have to file it. Then you have to store it safely, and concoct some way to revisit it, which means transferring it in some cases, to strangers and next generationals. You have to be conscientious and deliberate at every step. I'm very forgiving of errors in the compilation and authorship of the bible. Read it for what it says. Read it intelligently. I think we can get the message intended. God is love for he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth on him might know eternal salvation. You're right, we need to read it with care and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie1 on Oct 29, 2018 0:39:55 GMT -5
Nathan,does it matter?? IT WAS WRITTEN,AS THE EPISTLES WERE,WHO FOR,GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD,SO HE SENT US HIS ONLY SON,WHY?? MAGPIE. Thanks sharingtheriches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 0:58:28 GMT -5
Nathan,does it matter?? IT WAS WRITTEN,AS THE EPISTLES WERE,WHO FOR,GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD,SO HE SENT US HIS ONLY SON,WHY?? MAGPIE. Thanks sharingtheriches. well it does matter if you ever get questioned by someone about the authorship of the gospels, you wouldn't be that inspiring if you go around saying i don't know all the time about such matters...doesn't the bible also say to be in season and to be prepared to answer? 2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. Col_4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. 1Pe_3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: |
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 29, 2018 1:22:51 GMT -5
Nathan,does it matter?? IT WAS WRITTEN,AS THE EPISTLES WERE,WHO FOR,GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD,SO HE SENT US HIS ONLY SON,WHY?? MAGPIE. Thanks sharingtheriches. well it does matter if you ever get questioned by someone about the authorship of the gospels, you wouldn't be that inspiring if you go around saying i don't know all the time about such matters...doesn't the bible also say to be in season and to be prepared to answer? 2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. Col_4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. 1Pe_3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 29, 2018 18:45:16 GMT -5
Strangely enough, they don't seem to pick on Paul's Epistles so much. Wonder why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 19:01:50 GMT -5
Strangely enough, they don't seem to pick on Paul's Epistles so much. Wonder why? because many christians disregard Paul.... |
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 29, 2018 21:23:14 GMT -5
Strangely enough, they don't seem to pick on Paul's Epistles so much. Wonder why? because many christians disregard Paul.... |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 30, 2018 0:10:06 GMT -5
Strangely enough, they don't seem to pick on Paul's Epistles so much. Wonder why? because many christians disregard Paul.... It Seems I remember some have mentioned Paul changed Jesus' purpose or gospel? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 0:20:14 GMT -5
because many christians disregard Paul.... It Seems I remember some have mentioned Paul changed Jesus' purpose or gospel? that seems to be the current story that i have heard..... |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 30, 2018 14:26:23 GMT -5
Strangely enough, they don't seem to pick on Paul's Epistles so much. Wonder why? Because it seems that most think that Paul's contribution actually seems to be written by Paul. Unlike the gospels themselves. It's pretty much a universal knowledge that the gospels aren't written by the people they are named after. And we also know that Mark has been edited to include the resurrection story. Christianity is really a religion based on the Pauline doctrine over the Christ doctrine. That's one reason why Paul wasn't accepted by the original apostles, he taught a different gospel than the one they were familiar with and he allowed males to be in the religion without being circumcised. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie1 on Oct 30, 2018 16:05:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Oct 30, 2018 17:01:01 GMT -5
Oct 26, 2018 intelchips said: Follow up to several quips here-to-for mentioned: If one grows up in a family without a critical middle eastern historian in it then what you will grow up believing is the traditional dogma of the Christian faith. And when you meet a professional who has studied Greek, Latin and Hebrew and various other languages for 20 to 30 years or has dug in the ground seeking anthropological answers you will think them false at the get go. You will close your ears and mind to them for they can’t possibly have anything you need because you already know what is right and correct. It does not matter to you that the very first time the name Mark was connected to Mark's Gospel was 180 years after it was circulating by Irenaeus. Imagine that if no one knew who Mark Twain was (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and 180 years after it was written someone claimed Tom Sawyer was written by John Wilkes Booth. We use to say that Papias of Hierapolis (c. 100) provides the earliest account of who wrote the Gospels and ascribes authorship to Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter. Jerome (c. 400) suggests that Mark was the same person as John Mark, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but this remains a minority view. In Antiquity, only Jerome (AD 347-420) suggests that Mark the Evangelist may be the John Mark of whom the Apostle Paul speaks. The earlier patristic tradition commencing with Papias makes no such link with Paul.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 this 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." Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter. In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Mark's authorship is to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Markneedn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. Thus the "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day." So in Total what we have here is a bunch of church fathers who were just guessing at what they thought best support the party line and had no sources for their position. I stand by my position that some unknown author created Mark's Gospel whole cloth based on stories from the old testament and Homeric influences to explain what to do after the temple was destroyed. A new faith to help make sense of the loss for all that the Jews held dear. This doesn't mean it had to have any bearing on reality! The most helpful readings I have found thus far on the order of New Testament writings and authors of the NT writings are found in these two books. "From Torah to Paul", and from "Circumcision to Paul.' It is an excellent read and, I believe, most accurate. The writings are a result of 22 years of research by the author. These books are found on Amazon. You would conclude that the only writing after AD 70 was likely Revelation. The author traces the Schism within the early Christians to the beginnings of the Catholic church. From about AD 50 until AD 140 the Schism wrote many false narratives about Paul & Peter. Paul often refers to false doctrine which had crept in unaware among the Christians. Marcion, a Catholic, rejected all the gospels except Luke. He later recanted on that. The New Testament did not come together as the recognized NT until the end of the 1st century and was not certified to be such until well into the 4th century. By AD 500 the Bible had been written in 500 different languages but by AD 600 the Catholic church condemned all Bible translations and the only recognized translation was the Latin Vulgate. It was at this point that the Bible was corrupted by Catholics. You are 100% correct that those corrupting writings were out to support the "party line". As you know by the mid 1500 the party line corruption were successfully challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2018 23:55:02 GMT -5
The most helpful readings I have found thus far on the order of New Testament writings and authors of the NT writings are found in these two books. "From Torah to Paul", and from "Circumcision to Paul.' It is an excellent read and, I believe, most accurate.The writings are a result of 22 years of research by the author. These books are found on Amazon. You would conclude that the only writing after AD 70 was likely Revelation.The author traces the Schism within the early Christians to the beginnings of the Catholic church. From about AD 50 until AD 140 the Schism wrote many false narratives about Paul & Peter. Paul often refers to false doctrine which had crept in unaware among the Christians. Marcion, a Catholic, rejected all the gospels except Luke. He later recanted on that. The New Testament did not come together as the recognized NT until the end of the 1st century and was not certified to be such until well into the 4th century. By AD 500 the Bible had been written in 500 different languages but by AD 600 the Catholic church condemned all Bible translations and the only recognized translation was the Latin Vulgate. It was at this point that the Bible was corrupted by Catholics. You are 100% correct that those corrupting writings were out to support the "party line". As you know by the mid 1500 the party line corruption were successfully challenged.
I wasn't able to find him anywhere.
What are his credentials or expertise in the knowledge of the subject? |
|
|
|
Post by magpie1 on Dec 16, 2018 17:04:23 GMT -5
G'day, Luke wrote "Luke" and "The Acts". Mas
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 17, 2018 10:04:42 GMT -5
The most helpful readings I have found thus far on the order of New Testament writings and authors of the NT writings are found in these two books. "From Torah to Paul", and from "Circumcision to Paul.' It is an excellent read and, I believe, most accurate.The writings are a result of 22 years of research by the author. These books are found on Amazon. You would conclude that the only writing after AD 70 was likely Revelation.The author traces the Schism within the early Christians to the beginnings of the Catholic church. From about AD 50 until AD 140 the Schism wrote many false narratives about Paul & Peter. Paul often refers to false doctrine which had crept in unaware among the Christians. Marcion, a Catholic, rejected all the gospels except Luke. He later recanted on that. The New Testament did not come together as the recognized NT until the end of the 1st century and was not certified to be such until well into the 4th century. By AD 500 the Bible had been written in 500 different languages but by AD 600 the Catholic church condemned all Bible translations and the only recognized translation was the Latin Vulgate. It was at this point that the Bible was corrupted by Catholics. You are 100% correct that those corrupting writings were out to support the "party line". As you know by the mid 1500 the party line corruption were successfully challenged.
I wasn't able to find him anywhere.
What are his credentials or expertise in the knowledge of the subject?Karl Oakes was discussed here: professing.proboards.com/post/786565 |
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Dec 18, 2018 16:47:59 GMT -5
The most helpful readings I have found thus far on the order of New Testament writings and authors of the NT writings are found in these two books. "From Torah to Paul", and from "Circumcision to Paul.' It is an excellent read and, I believe, most accurate.The writings are a result of 22 years of research by the author. These books are found on Amazon. You would conclude that the only writing after AD 70 was likely Revelation.The author traces the Schism within the early Christians to the beginnings of the Catholic church. From about AD 50 until AD 140 the Schism wrote many false narratives about Paul & Peter. Paul often refers to false doctrine which had crept in unaware among the Christians. Marcion, a Catholic, rejected all the gospels except Luke. He later recanted on that. The New Testament did not come together as the recognized NT until the end of the 1st century and was not certified to be such until well into the 4th century. By AD 500 the Bible had been written in 500 different languages but by AD 600 the Catholic church condemned all Bible translations and the only recognized translation was the Latin Vulgate. It was at this point that the Bible was corrupted by Catholics. You are 100% correct that those corrupting writings were out to support the "party line". As you know by the mid 1500 the party line corruption were successfully challenged.
I wasn't able to find him anywhere.
What are his credentials or expertise in the knowledge of the subject?I think you can get those books on Amazon. Paperback editions are about $12.00 each. |
|
