Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

BS = Bible Study... Get it?

Moderator: BaldySlaphead

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby rufustfirefly » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:39 am

I didn't intend to get stuck on this point other than to agree with what Milo wrote, but I have to ask,
does it really matter who wrote what first?


Not if you believe this. . .


To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
rufustfirefly
 
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:49 am

rufustfirefly wrote:
I didn't intend to get stuck on this point other than to agree with what Milo wrote, but I have to ask,
does it really matter who wrote what first?


Not if you believe this. . .


To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived



I do believe what the Bible says, but not everything that mans says that it says. Who wrote what first has never been a stumbling block
for me. As it says, men are naturally prone to error.
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby BaldySlaphead » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:20 am

With respect, that's a very handy Get Out of Jail Free(d) card - it means that you could - I'm not suggesting you do - move your definitions as scientific/archaelogical etc knowledge increases and believe utterly differently that you used to believe, yet claim that the inerrancy of the Bible has not altered.
User avatar
BaldySlaphead
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:04 am
Location: Somewhere Else

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby E-lad » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:47 am

freed wrote:I do believe what the Bible says, but not everything that mans says that it says. Who wrote what first has never been a stumbling block
for me. As it says, men are naturally prone to error.


Yeah, discernment and all that. I wonder why there are so many Theologians and Bible Scholars with hundreds of different interpretations.
The reason the order of when the gospel was written is important, as far as I can tell, is that textual analysis has shed a lot of light on the haphazard way the bible was slapped together.

I suppose that someone who chooses to believe that the bible is literal and infallible based on the faith in which the bible asks one to believe upon might say that only their choice of bible interpreters is the correct bible interpreter. Since you have not cited any credentials in bible scholarship, how is your choice of bible interpreters any less flawed that anyone else's choice of bible interpreters? And if men are so prone to errors then it must be concluded that no man is actually interpreting the bible correctly.

Look at Ken Ham, who shoehorns science into obscure bible verses to prove a young earth, then along comes Hugh Ross who shoehorns science into obscure bible verses to prove an old earth, when, in fact, the bible was never intended, by any of it's writers to be a science book. Then you have may Christians, that trust science and conclude God must have used evolution to create man, from the dust of the earth, but on a different time scale that some people read into the scriptures. All that when, in fact, we may find that life was seeded onto the earth from early comets.

So, do we decide who's interpretation is correct by their level of popularity? By their credentials as a theologian? Or perhaps we should devise a method where logic and reason should prevail and become the standard method. Maybe we could call it the scientific method or something like that. Just sayin'. Maybe we could use that method to study the bible. Oh! they already did that, and they found that the bible is merely a cultural artifact just like many other ancient writings!

So, I think that is why we might spend some time looking at how and why and in what order the bible was put together.
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby zilch » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:15 pm

This has gotten off to a great start. Thanks, Milo.

Freed (nice avatar! You look much younger than I imagined you!)- you ask, why is it important in what order the Gospels were written. I'll second what Froggie said- even if your main concern is finding out what the Bible "really" means so you can take it to heart, isn't it at least of passing interest how such an important document came to be? Okay, I'm a freak, but I'm interested in the provenance and evolution of texts.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15240
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby Milo » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:58 pm

Hey freed,

Sorry, didn't mean to throw the spotlight on you so soon. I misunderstood your comment.
But to throw coals on the fire, Mark first is important because Matthew, Luke and John are based on Mark according to current thinking.
Stop doubting and beleive Milo. Then everything will make sense.
User avatar
Milo
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby E-lad » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:29 pm

Milo wrote:Hey freed,

Sorry, didn't mean to throw the spotlight on you so soon. I misunderstood your comment.
But to throw coals on the fire, Mark first is important because Matthew, Luke and John are based on Mark according to current thinking.


I think you mis-spoke in including "John" in that. The "synoptic" Gospels are Mark Matthew and Luke. John is a horse of a different nature.
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:51 pm

BaldySlaphead wrote:With respect, that's a very handy Get Out of Jail Free(d) card - it means that you could - I'm not suggesting you do - move your definitions as scientific/archaelogical etc knowledge increases and believe utterly differently that you used to believe, yet claim that the inerrancy of the Bible has not altered.



I understand what you mean. When I am studying the Bible and read what man has to say about dates, culture, people, etc. I find it fascinating at times and interesting
all of the time. Knowledge of these things can put a new light on interpretation of phrases, etc. I know this, but at the same time
the main theme running thru the entire Bible is the sonship of Christ and salvation. One doesn't need to have scientific/archaelogical
knowledge to have faith, or should I make that more personal and say "I" don't need it. The Bible, on its own, is capable of conviction.
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:53 pm

zilch wrote:This has gotten off to a great start. Thanks, Milo.

Freed (nice avatar! You look much younger than I imagined you!)- you ask, why is it important in what order the Gospels were written. I'll second what Froggie said- even if your main concern is finding out what the Bible "really" means so you can take it to heart, isn't it at least of passing interest how such an important document came to be? Okay, I'm a freak, but I'm interested in the provenance and evolution of texts.



Yes - what I said to Baldy.
Thanks for the compliment. I don't mind looking younger than I am ;)
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Introduction to the Gospel of Mark

Postby freed » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:57 pm

Milo wrote:Hey freed,

Sorry, didn't mean to throw the spotlight on you so soon. I misunderstood your comment.
But to throw coals on the fire, Mark first is important because Matthew, Luke and John are based on Mark according to current thinking.




It's ok Milo. I cringe every time I post something. :D
To avoid deception, Christianity instructs people to study the Bible and believe what God says. Religion requires belief in what man says God says. When people without discernment, submit to men who are naturally prone to error, they are easily deceived
User avatar
freed
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: Arkansas

PreviousNext

Return to SMRT BS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron