tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post6306290048888964682..comments2023-11-09T05:50:27.936-08:00Comments on The Facts About Islam: Martin Luther: Jesus Committed Adultery Thrice (Refuted!!!)Yahya Snowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-7640990023824637142011-06-21T22:15:56.383-07:002011-06-21T22:15:56.383-07:00unlock iphone 4
how to unlock iphone 4
My comp...unlock iphone 4<br />how to unlock iphone 4<br /> <br />My computer was running just fine until I visited a normal, news website, one that I visited a 1000 times, and my computer became infected with one of those Fake "Anti-Spyware" viruses. I used both Super Anti-spyware and Malwarebyte's malware programs to finally get rid of that virus, and I rebooted my computer. The virus is gone, my computer is running fine again, except I can't use the Internet Explorer or Safari web browsers (I'm using Netscape now). Whenever I open a window in IE or Safari, I get an error message, "Cannot display web page." This happened once before, and I used the System Restore function to take my computer back to a time before a virus hit. But now, System Restore won't start, nor can I get my computer to work in Safe Mode. How do I get System Restore to start up again? I tried several different ways, but nothing is working. Help! (I have an HP Pavilion Desktop PC with Windows XP Media Edition). Thanx in advance! <br /><a href="http://theunlockiphone4.com" rel="nofollow">unlock iphone 4</a> unlock iphone 4 how to unlock iphone 4 <br />is this a virus attack. what should i do now? unlock iphone 4 <br /> <br />unlock iphone 4 how to unlock iphone 4 [url=http://theunlockiphone4.com]unlock iphone 4 [/url] how to unlock iphone 4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-16714636178032182932011-04-10T21:53:40.674-07:002011-04-10T21:53:40.674-07:00radical moderate ,
Yes , the numbers I posted is ...radical moderate ,<br /><br />Yes , the numbers I posted is my work.<br /><br />A cursory glance at the numbers you posted is enough to make one realise that the numbers you posted is not accurate.<br /><br />Where do we go from here??sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-51220433191060342762011-04-10T19:34:40.725-07:002011-04-10T19:34:40.725-07:00Sam1528
If you say it is your work I will believ...Sam1528 <br /><br />If you say it is your work I will believe you unless I have evidence that says other wise. <br /><br />So is it your work or not?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-8662462092087256782011-04-10T19:31:48.756-07:002011-04-10T19:31:48.756-07:00radical moderate ,
Like I stated , if I answer ye...radical moderate ,<br /><br />Like I stated , if I answer yes - would you believe me?<br /><br />If its not your work , the very least , you should check the accuracy of the numbers. You did not do that plus you were in full support of the numbers from that website. Now you appear 'not so sharp'.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-13155350098023217222011-04-10T16:57:02.940-07:002011-04-10T16:57:02.940-07:00Yahya Snow said...
"I have Geza Vermes' ...Yahya Snow said...<br /><br />"I have Geza Vermes' 'The Resurrection' to get through. Let me get through it and move onto another topic rather than babysitting your unregulated comments."<br /><br />Let me put that in my snowman taquiya translator<br /><br />Yahya snow said...<br /><br />"I have a book written by a Islamic scholar who attacks Christianity and selectively quotes from Gezza Vermes The Reserection, so please stop pointing out how illogical my position is and stop embarrassing me in front of my friends ... or I will tell my Mommy on you"Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-31163269249397122612011-04-10T16:50:57.870-07:002011-04-10T16:50:57.870-07:00@Yahya Snow Part 2
This next statement is classi...@Yahya Snow Part 2<br /><br /><br />This next statement is classic, and really highlights the problem you have.<br /><br />"Arab oral tradition is enough to tell us (prove) Arabs came from Ishamael."<br /><br />I am not arguing that Arabs came from Ishmael, this has been proven to me by Abdul I believe.<br /><br />The question is "PROVE THAT MECCA EXISTED IN THE TIME OF ISMAEL, PROVE IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FIRST BC?"<br /><br />Now you used as a example of my family tradition on where my ancestors came from. As i stated if they were supposed to be on the May Flower and there is no evidence on that, then my Family Tradition is just wrong.<br /><br />The same for your Arab Tradition that Mecca existed in the time of Ishmael. If all the evidence says that Mecca did not come into existence until the 4 century AD then your Arab traditions are just wrong. If all the evidence points to the fact that the Arabs from the 4th MIL BC on worshiped multiple Gods, none of them a single monotheistic God named Allah. Then that says that Arab Tradition is wrong. <br /><br />Jesus said, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? "<br /><br />In the same way I point out to you that you forsake the word of God for your traditions.<br /><br />Yahya you bleieve this Arab tradition that has no supporting evidence, and all the evidence points to the opposite. <br /><br />But you disregard the evidence that MARK WROTE MARK, even though there is no evidence that points to the contrary. Only the opinions of Atheist scholars or Heritcs that you would reject if they held the view on Islam.<br /><br />Amazing what you Muslims have to do to deny the truth. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and false religions even stranger.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-88684610459049072582011-04-10T16:48:55.248-07:002011-04-10T16:48:55.248-07:00@Yahya Snow Part 1
I let you up for air and this ...@Yahya Snow Part 1<br /><br />I let you up for air and this is how you respond,<br /><br />You said...<br />"Papias was NOT talking about your mark. Ehrman states Iraneus is the FIRST one to call it by "Mark"."<br /><br />Looks like I'm going to have to knock you back down again.<br /><br />This is what Papias wrote.<br /><br />""Mark became Peters interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order of things said or done by the Lord. For Mark had not heard the Lord nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter who used to give teachings as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements to them."<br /><br />So how do you come to the conclusion that Papias is not talking about Mark?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-50910716871992340372011-04-10T11:38:43.700-07:002011-04-10T11:38:43.700-07:00Radical Moderate. STOP annoying me. PLEASE.
Papia...Radical Moderate. STOP annoying me. PLEASE.<br /><br />Papias was NOT talking about your mark. Ehrman states Iraneus is the FIRST one to call it by "Mark".<br /><br />Who am I going to believe you or Ehrman? <br /><br />And before I go. Mike Licona states "prove" is to establish something with reasonable and adequate certainty (for historians).<br /><br />Arab oral tradition is enough to tell us (prove) Arabs came from Ishamael.<br /><br />PLEASE stop showing yourself up.<br /><br /> I have Geza Vermes' 'The Resurrection' to get through. Let me get through it and move onto another topic rather than babysitting your unregulated comments.<br /><br />PLEASE. <br /><br />Thanks.Yahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-50343826889818449942011-04-10T11:22:45.092-07:002011-04-10T11:22:45.092-07:00@Yahya Snow
You said...
"I bet you KNOW your...@Yahya Snow<br /><br />You said...<br />"I bet you KNOW your heritage and which part of Europe your forefathers migrated from to America. Do you need archaeological evidence to discern such? No."<br /><br />If lets say it was my family tradition that my great great great great grand father came over on the May Flower, but there was no record of my ancestor on the May Flower what would that tell you about my family tradition?<br /><br />If lets say my family tradition said that my Ancestors came from a town in Germany, but that town either never existed or came into being 100's if not thousands of years after the time of my ancestor. What would that tell you about my family tradition?<br /><br />So the answer to your question is not NO, the answer is yes. If i want to accuretly and honestly represent where my ancestors came from then yes I would need documentation or archeological evidence that the town were they came from existed during the time of my ancestors. <br /><br />But accuracy and honesty is not something you Muslims seem to be interested in because all you have is your quran and that is good enough for you. LOLRadical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-85353223367992767542011-04-10T10:50:21.644-07:002011-04-10T10:50:21.644-07:00@Yahya Snow
You said "Please Stop"
Had ...@Yahya Snow<br /><br />You said "Please Stop"<br />Had enough I see throwing in the towel, waving the white flag, tapping out.<br /><br />Don't worry I will stop pummeling your brain with logic. But the pain will continue. <br /><br />You said...<br /><br />"Iraneus (ca. 180) is the FIRST recorded person to call the gospel by "Mark". 100 years after it was written!"<br /><br />Wrong Papias wrote his work long before Iraneus.<br /><br />You then go on to site Bart Ehrman as well as Crossan as "EXPERTS" and ask the question "Who am I going to believe, the experts or you?"<br /><br />I am asking you to look at the evidence and not dismiss it based on two people who hate God who is Christ more then you do. They dismiss the evidence based on their pre presuppositions. That there is either No God, or that there is a God but he doesn't care or speak to his people. You on the other hand are a Muslim, you believe the opposite of what they believe.<br /><br />But since you are appealing to the "EXPERTS" and you believe them over the evidence. Then I guess you also believe that Christ was crucified.<br /><br />Both Ehrman and Crosson believe that Christ was crucified. I believe it was Ehrman who said "It is a undeniable fact of history that Jesus Christ was crucified. We are as sure of this as anything from History" or words to that effect.<br /><br />Crossen also believes that Christ was crucified, buried in a shallow grave, and his body dug up and eaten by wild dogs. <br /><br />So you believe them right? Because they are as you say "THE EXPERTS"<br /><br />But I will stop beating you on this topic, and let you come up for air. <br /><br />So now lets move on to your other nonsense regarding that Mark did not belelieve Christ to be God. <br /><br />I asked you this question in a previous comment. Can you please answer it now.<br /><br />Then can you explain to me Mark 1:2-8Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-57150374719639008172011-04-10T10:45:47.888-07:002011-04-10T10:45:47.888-07:00Radical Moderate, are you deliberately being obtus...Radical Moderate, are you deliberately being obtuse?<br /><br />You wrote: Think about this for a second. You made the claim on a previous post that "WE KNOW" in regards to Ishmael inhabitting Mecca, and the Arabs worshiping a single unitarian God named Allah.<br /><br />When I asked for you or any one else to provide any proof of this, none was ever given. And thats becasue there is no evidence for the existance of a town called Mecca until around 4 AD. Yahtrib is mentioned, in 200 BC, but no Mecca.<br /><br />But you believe this claim even though there is absolutely no EVIDENCE for the existence of Mecca prior to 4 AD. <br /><br /><br />Me: Uh? I have already explained this to you. The Arab oral traditions teach of Mecca and of Ishmael being their forefather. <br /><br />This is BASIC info that you would expect the Arabs to know as it concerns their place of residence and their genealogy - we do not need external evidence (you were asking for archaeological) for such basics.<br /><br />Perhaps you don't consider such as basic and easily discernable amongst those who should know (ie those whom it concerns) as your gospel accounts give TWO (yes TWO) differing lineages for Jesus.<br /><br />Please don't use the blunders amongst the Gospel writers/scribes as a standard to judge others.<br /><br />I bet you KNOW your heritage and which part of Europe your forefathers migrated from to America. Do you need archaeological evidence to discern such? No.<br /><br />Please stop with the feeble argumentation - you do yourself no favours at all.<br /><br />The reason why your arguments are so wanting in depth and consistency is because of what you are working with - Christianity and the Bible alongside Christian apologetics.<br /><br />Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.Yahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-65881409220461947792011-04-10T10:28:31.054-07:002011-04-10T10:28:31.054-07:00Radical Moderate, please stop!
Iraneus (ca. 180) ...Radical Moderate, please stop!<br /><br />Iraneus (ca. 180) is the FIRST recorded person to call the gospel by "Mark". 100 years after it was written!<br /><br />Bart Ehrman has said ALL the Gospels are anonymous. None of the gospels claim to be written by the name they have been appedned with!<br /><br />As for Papias, Ehrman tells us there are solid reasons for believeing Papias was NOT referencing your Mark!<br /><br />Now that's Bart ehrman - an authority. Crossen is an authority too.<br /><br />Who am I going to believe, the experts or you?<br /><br />PLEASE stop showing yourself up. <br /><br />Your apologetics is straight out of the 1900's. Get up to date, if you do you will realise the Bible has more problems than originally thought.<br /> <br /><br />Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.Yahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-45815554151173103702011-04-10T10:08:54.413-07:002011-04-10T10:08:54.413-07:00@Sam1528
Man I didn't know this would be so d...@Sam1528<br /><br />Man I didn't know this would be so difficult for you. Is this your own work or not, its no big deal. The math I posted I very clearly said was not my own when I posted it. I provided a link to the site where I copied it from. It's not that big of a deal, I am just wondering if it is yours or someone else's.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-72090183571254245692011-04-10T10:07:28.727-07:002011-04-10T10:07:28.727-07:00@Yahya Snow
You appealed to some guy on the inter...@Yahya Snow<br /><br />You appealed to some guy on the internet, sorry don't know who he is, found a website of his "Fishing In Thai land" or something like that. Either way he appeals to John Dominick Crossen. No friend of Christ, a non believer, a heritic at best, apostate at worse.<br /><br />John Dominick Crossen writes...<br />"has pointed out that verse 14:9: And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her" may well be a slyly ironic reference to the author herself."<br /><br />So based on this Mark could be written by a woman. <br /><br />Talk about speculation, well if you will believe this speculation then you should believe this as well.<br /><br />Mark 14:51-52<br />"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." this "may well be a slyly ironic reference to the author" himself who is John Mark.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-76737523346466824072011-04-10T09:58:11.261-07:002011-04-10T09:58:11.261-07:00@Yahya Snow
Think about this for a second. You ma...@Yahya Snow<br /><br />Think about this for a second. You made the claim on a previous post that "WE KNOW" in regards to Ishmael inhabitting Mecca, and the Arabs worshiping a single unitarian God named Allah.<br /><br />When I asked for you or any one else to provide any proof of this, none was ever given. And thats becasue there is no evidence for the existance of a town called Mecca until around 4 AD. Yahtrib is mentioned, in 200 BC, but no Mecca.<br /><br />But you believe this claim even though there is absolutely no EVIDENCE for the existence of Mecca prior to 4 AD. <br /><br />Now let's contrast this with your claim that the Gosple of Mark is written Anonymously.<br /><br />I provide you with evidence that Mark wrote Mark, evidence that if we were disusing something in Islam you would accept. Esubious quotes Papias, he quotes Ireneous, and Clement of Alexandria. If this was any other book of antiquity that would be enough. <br /><br />An example, Homer's Illiad, no one doubts that Homer wrote it. But there is no manuscript that has his name on it.<br /><br />Second, I provide you with internal evidence that this Mark is none other then John Mark. It was his mothers house that Jesus and the disciples were in, it is John Mark cousin of Barnabas, who goes off with Paul and Barnabas on a early Mission trip. It is John Mark who then goes off with Barnabas, then later reconciles with Paul, and then winds up with Peter in Rome. (Yes it says Babalyon, thats code for Rome)<br /><br />But you reject this evidence and accept the belief that Ishmael settled in Mecca even though there is no evidence for Mecca or the worship of a Single Monotheistic God named Allah. <br /><br />A Muslim on paltalk told me that Atheists and Muslims are very similar, he went on to say how they both use their brains. He was wrong on that but he was right on the fact that Atheists and Muslims are the same. You will believe anything but God.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-72854831749430920022011-04-10T04:56:23.761-07:002011-04-10T04:56:23.761-07:00@Radical Moderate
You wrote: Like I said "It...@Radical Moderate<br /><br />You wrote: Like I said "It's not that you Muslims do not believe in God, it's that you will believe anyone or anything other then God"<br /><br />Me: Uh? Are you for real? Who in the world wrote John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? NOT even the author of Mark (whoever he/she was) even wrote such.<br /><br />So, in our very sensible claims of the authorship being anonymous you somehow level the allegation of "believing anything other than God".<br /><br />Did God state John Mark wrote Mark? No.<br /><br />did Jesus state this? No.<br /><br />Did Mark state this? No.<br /><br />The reason why you struggle in these discussions is due to what you are working with - Christianity and the Bible.<br /><br />I understand you were taught this as a youngster but you need to begin to look into the work of Bart ehrman amongst others.<br /><br />Your dismissal of Crossen is superficial too. <br /><br />Is there any real evidence for John Mark writing Mark? No.<br /><br />So in stating it is anonymous I am being fair!<br /><br />I would not be surprised if you are amongst those who still believe John som of Zebedee wrote the gospel of john!<br /><br />Stop with the fundamentalism of the 1900's and look into things on a more scholarlay level. <br /><br />Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens anotherYahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-55808130941023224682011-04-10T01:22:35.595-07:002011-04-10T01:22:35.595-07:00radical moderate ,
If I answer yes , would you be...radical moderate ,<br /><br />If I answer yes , would you believe me? Don't ask what you have already made up your mind not to believe in the answer.<br /><br />Its better for you to disprove what I stated. By all means , do that.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-48599819836729660932011-04-09T23:10:36.157-07:002011-04-09T23:10:36.157-07:00@Sam1528
You said...
I am challenging you. If you...@Sam1528<br /><br />You said...<br />I am challenging you. If you claim its not my maths , show me the website where I copied it.<br /><br />I have made no such accusation, I am just asking you a yes or know question. Is this your own work or did you copy it from someone else? I didn't think it was that difficult of a question.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-23210782413100017322011-04-09T22:32:34.149-07:002011-04-09T22:32:34.149-07:00radical moderate ,
From you '..First what doe...radical moderate ,<br /><br />From you '..First what does "the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor."..'<br /><br />That is the issue that I want you to clarify. The first part of the statement is '..Although we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel..'. The author of the book admitted that it cannot be proven that john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark. Then he goes on to say there is evidence firmly in favour of such. This is maximum silliness. He is contradicting himself. <br /><br />Pages 3 - 6 - there is no concrete evidence , internal nor external , to support the assertion that john mark was the author of the said gospel. Like I said , you scour for non existent evidence to justify your faith. This is extremely poor.<br /><br />I am challenging you. If you claim its not my maths , show me the website where I copied it. The very least , challenge the numbers that I posted.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-2069023581495328462011-04-09T20:32:11.603-07:002011-04-09T20:32:11.603-07:00@Sam1528
You have not answered any of my question...@Sam1528<br /><br />You have not answered any of my questions.<br /><br />First what does "the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor."<br /><br />Mean to you. <br /><br />Do you have evidence to contrary?<br /><br />Second you said...<br />If you think its not my maths , show me the website that I copied such maths. My challenge to you. The very least , challenge the numbers I posted - can you do that??"<br /><br />I never said or accused you of anything. Sir I only asked you if this was your work yes or no?<br /><br />So what is it?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-75519407053400855412011-04-09T20:10:24.849-07:002011-04-09T20:10:24.849-07:00radical moderate ,
From you '..the weight of ...radical moderate ,<br /><br />From you '..the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor..What does firmly in his favor mean, to you?..'<br /><br />Lets quote it in full , pg 6 '..Although we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel , the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favour..'<br /><br />You suffer from selective reading or what? The author admitted that it cannot be proven john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark despite his so call evidence. This means that his evidence is not good enough to qualify john mark to be the author of the said gospel.<br /><br />This confirm what I stated earlier. Fundies like you are not the sharpest. You scour for non existent evidence to support the notion that john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark.<br /><br />The gospel according to mark is equivalent to hadith that muslims classify as Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged).<br /><br />If you think its not my maths , show me the website that I copied such maths. My challenge to you. The very least , challenge the numbers I posted - can you do that??sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-13265885680592789732011-04-09T20:01:09.335-07:002011-04-09T20:01:09.335-07:00@radical
Even NT Wright praises John Dominic Cros...@radical<br /><br />Even NT Wright praises John Dominic Crossan as an expert in the study of the historical Jesus and the gospels. Even though he disagrees with Crossan's conclusions, Wright has a lot of respect for him. <br /><br />NT Wright > Acts17 sycophantsWhatsYourDealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12164472867571716120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-46721040438611635542011-04-09T19:09:57.878-07:002011-04-09T19:09:57.878-07:00@Snowman
You quoted and even put it in bold.
&qu...@Snowman<br /><br />You quoted and even put it in bold.<br /><br />"only by conservative exegetes today"<br /><br />So you site the opinion of a liberal, who disregards the evidence for Mark writing Mark, but gives no other evidence except to just deny the evidence in favor of Mark.<br /><br />Secondly he appeals to John Dominick Crossen, a man who believes that Christ was crucified and his body was dug up and eatin by wild dogs.<br /><br />Like I said "It's not that you Muslims do not believe in God, it's that you will believe anyone or anything other then God"Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-1449745209831887072011-04-09T15:04:16.015-07:002011-04-09T15:04:16.015-07:00Radical Moderate, here is some copy and psting for...Radical Moderate, here is some copy and psting for you from Michael Turton as to why the Gospel of Mark is in fact anonymous – we DON’T KNOW who wrote it:<br /><br />The author of Mark has traditionally been identified with the early disciple John Mark, based on a citation of the writer Papias in Eusebius. The citation is usually dated around 125 CE, though some have moved it back to 100 CE. Eusebius writes:<br /><br />"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 thus 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." (Papias, ECW) <br /><br />This view is adhered to <b>only by conservative exegetes today</b>, as it has been <b>clear for a couple of centuries that the Gospel we know as Mark cannot possibly be the Gospel Papias is referring to</b>, even assuming that the citation itself is genuine and not a later forgery either made or discovered by Eusebius. As you read the Gospel, the complexity of its references, allusions, and constructions off the Old Testament, its attitude toward the disciples, its use of Cynic sayings and constructions, its familiarity with Greek literary conventions, and other factors will make it clear to you why few scholars today accept the traditional view. For a vigorous defense of the traditional view, see Robert Gundry's Mark. <br />The reality is that today <b>no one can say who wrote the Gospel of Mark</b>. <b>Not even the writer's gender is known</b>, though traditionally it is ascribed to a man. However, John D. Crossan (1991, p416) has pointed out that verse 14:9: And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her" may well be a slyly ironic reference to the author herself.<br /><a href="http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_intro.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_intro.html</a>Yahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-7394377274541412162011-04-09T14:44:46.851-07:002011-04-09T14:44:46.851-07:00Sam1528
Like I said your always good for a laugh....Sam1528<br /><br />Like I said your always good for a laugh.<br /><br />First, what I quoted from the book was the information the evidence, not the authors opinion.<br /><br />As such I'm not entitled to quote the authors opinion.<br /><br />Second, although I did not quote the authors opinion, the authors opinion backs up my claim that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, since he states that "the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor" Something you fail to quote at least 50 percent of the time.<br /><br />What does firmly in his favor mean, to you?<br /><br />Either way you beleive what you want to believe. It's not that you do not beleive that John Mark wrote Mark, or that Christ was crucified, or that Christ is God incarnate. You simply will believe any thing but, in spite of any evidence, regardless of how foolish it makes you.<br /><br />So I will ask you again, your Math, is that your own work? Or did you copy and paste it from someone else?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.com