tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post6818402405626674376..comments2023-11-09T05:50:27.936-08:00Comments on The Facts About Islam: KeithTruth Defends the Indefensible + Sam Shamoun's Friend SpeaksYahya Snowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-40505311070652338462010-11-18T20:22:30.739-08:002010-11-18T20:22:30.739-08:00yfc777 ,
First you talk about different literary ...yfc777 ,<br /><br />First you talk about different literary styles and now context. I don't have an issue with context. However I have an issue with the character development of biblical jesus as we move from mat26 to mark14 to luke22 to john18. It is actually an addition to the so called ability of biblical jesus. It fits your claim of 'chinese whispers' - things that has been added or deleted from the original 'whisper'.<br /><br />Modern scholarship to the Quran / hadiths? For starters why don't you read<br />(1) sciences of the Quran - Yasir Qhadi<br />(2) cambridge companion to the Quran - Angelika Neuwirth<br />(3) Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and modern World (Oneworld, Foundations of Islam series, 2009). - Jonathan Brown<br />(4) The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunni Hadith Canon (Leiden: Brill, 2007). - Jonathan Brownsam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-48664420977880568432010-11-18T07:42:12.451-08:002010-11-18T07:42:12.451-08:00Sam1528,
You said - "The author by modern sc...Sam1528,<br /><br />You said - "The author by modern scholarship standards was anonymous.I don't have to quote Bart Ehrman or Raymond Brown who affirmed that the author for the gospel according to mark was anonymous."<br /><br />What modern scholarship standards have been applied to the Quran and Hadits ? It is only a self proclaimed claim from Muslims that they can trace both to Muhammad.YFC777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13498650362972997685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-20427945590669808122010-11-18T07:34:12.884-08:002010-11-18T07:34:12.884-08:00Matthew only mentions Jesus and his disciples were...Matthew only mentions Jesus and his disciples were in Gethsemane and then moves to Jesus taken to pilot. So does this mean Jesus was not arrested ? No, it means he is being brief in his narration of the incident.<br /><br />Luke narrates the incident where a disciple cuts of the ear of the servant of the high priest and Jesus heals the servant. Notice Luke 22:52 is same as Mark 14:48. However Mark does not give the context of 14:48 which is included by Luke. <br /><br />John 18:10 mentions the incident and also names the servant.<br /><br />From the above we see that all authors agree about that Jesus was in Gethsemane, Matthew and Mark are brief in their description of what happened while Luke and John are detailed. <br /><br />I do not know Hadit sciences but I know that no liberal or critical work has been done to check the historical accuracy of the hadits. Most Muslims even agree that even in the hadits they claim to be authentic there are authentic and not authentic topics.YFC777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13498650362972997685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-75756812317157988962010-11-18T07:32:15.657-08:002010-11-18T07:32:15.657-08:00anonymousing ,
Your response is based on the assu...anonymousing ,<br /><br />Your response is based on the assumption that the gospel according to mark was written by a person named mark who was peter's interpreter.<br /><br />You drop names like Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement claiming they all affirm that it was peter's interpreter who wrote the gospel according to mark. I guess you don't read modern scholarship then. I don't have to quote Bart Ehrman or Raymond Brown who affirmed that the author for the gospel according to mark was anonymous.<br /><br />Interesting point , you quote mark14:51 '..A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind..'. Was there a pervert running around in loin clothes?<br /><br />You still could not provide the 'chain of narrators' for mark 16. The author by modern scholarship standards was anonymous. Nobody knows who , where and how the stories got handed down. In essence you have nothing but blind faith. The anonymous author could very well got the marketplace gossip and decided to pen it as gospel according to mark.<br /><br />Its even funnier that you claim christians don't consider it important that the ending of mark 16 has been proven to be a later date insertion. This reflects the fact that there has been so many changes to the gospels that you now don't really care. Yet some christians claim it to be the inerrant word of god. You have stumbled even before you started.<br /><br />You want to 'turn the tables' and talk about the Quran? The Quran was documented immediately by the scribes of Prophet Muhammad(saw) and read back for counter check. 1400 yrs ago the methodology surpassed ISO standards for documentation. Don't bring up the issue of preservation. Your hero Nabeel Qureshi got hammered by Bro Bassam Zawadi debating on this topic last year in London.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-5758392954419164132010-11-18T06:38:26.954-08:002010-11-18T06:38:26.954-08:00those christians who preach that thier form of chr...those christians who preach that thier form of christianity spread by peace and love are so full of it.after jesus there was a whole swath of sects that were preaching about the coming redemption of israel some were followers of jesus and some were not. Paul who was most definietly a agent of rome,saw an oppurtunity to try and suppress the jewish rebellion against rome and started preaching a completely different message.if you read his letters you can see the differences he has with others that are preaching,he is always telling people to follow him and no one else. just take a look at the difference between his doctrine of justification by faith alone and the james 's letter were he emphasises oh work and faith (no wonder luther disliked that letter so much) he had a argument with the jerusalem church which was never resolved despite what church historians try to tell everyone. the many sects had absolutely no power to do anything, especially against rome(who paul was an agent for). they were busy quarelling amongst each other and when finally pauls religion won out with its inclusion of the many pagan element which no doubt converted many pagan romans,what did they start doing? oh yes persecuting those they deemed as heretics and apostates, expanding under the name of the cross,trying to completely annihialte indigenous people and so forth. Yes muslims armies conqured,that was prophetic but they most certainly did not make people convert at the end of the sword,dumbo's who still peddle this myth really need an education.<br />as for the authorship of the new testament, noone knows who wrote the gospels, and personally i do not believe a illeterate fisherman who fishes naked (peter) could write in koine greek. so there you have it nothing was written by the apostles but over half ofit was authored by a agent of rome who had major differences with the actual apostles.maratsafinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02804504001196215323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-85285732776623493672010-11-18T05:57:31.418-08:002010-11-18T05:57:31.418-08:00Anonymous: Christianity already dominated the worl...Anonymous: Christianity already dominated the world<br /><br />Are you on crack? If Christianity dominated the world before Constantine, then what was the religion of, say, Japan in 200 AD?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-58687878807893436732010-11-18T05:54:19.700-08:002010-11-18T05:54:19.700-08:00Anonymous, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me...Anonymous, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. You wrote, "Like I said, EVERY HISTORIAN agrees that Islam spread through THE SWORD, through CONQUESTS!"<br /><br />You wrote earlier, "It spread by FORCE IMPOSED on others" which implies that you believe Islam spread by forced conversions. The reality is, although Muslim conquests did happen, the non-Muslim populations were not forced to convert to Islam. There is a big difference between saying Islam was spread by the sword (which implies forced conversions) and Muslim rule was spread by the sword (which doesn't necessarily imply forced conversions). <br /><br />Anonymous: Lol, and notice your author says “systematic”sacking of cities. Oh really Mr. Brown, so a “regular” sacking of cities occurred? And isn’t that the fictional author who wrote the Davinci Code and not a real historian anyway?<br /><br />Lol! You're such an idiot. Do you think there is only one Daniel Brown in the world? The person I quoted is a scholar of Islam, not the same guy who wrote Angels and Demons and the Davinci Code. You can find his book here <br />http://books.google.com/books?id=ViTmBB8DQNcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+New+Introduction+to+Islam&hl=en&ei=tS_lTIeGNtGahQfli_H0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />At least read the book before opening your hole!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-22750832465809496322010-11-18T03:48:56.806-08:002010-11-18T03:48:56.806-08:00yfc777 ,
I differ in opinion. From you '..The...yfc777 ,<br /><br />I differ in opinion. From you '..The Gospel writers had different styles of writing and were writing for different audiences..'.<br /><br />Lets take a specific example. In mat26 / mark14 there is no such thing as biblical jesus healing the ear as in luke22. You define this as different writing style? Highly likely it is not. Its more like the lack of information in mat26 / mark14 when compared to luk22. Therefore this lack of information fits your claim of information loss due to 'chinese whispers'.<br /><br />You can claim 1500 mss for the gospel of john. Are those mss originals from different authors? Highly likely they are not but only copies from one another. Again this fail the multiple attestation methodology. For the multiple attestation methodology to work for the gospel of john (for example) you must be able to show that the gospel of john has been derived from multiple independent sources.<br /><br />Therefore the methodology of 'isnad' is for superior. It traces the 'chain of narrators' , and can be divided to 'multiple attestation' , 'broken chain' , 'lone attestation' , 'fraud' etc. Historical / multiple attestation methodology is a subset of the methodology of 'isnad'.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-73408887235274146192010-11-18T02:24:05.240-08:002010-11-18T02:24:05.240-08:00Sam1528,
Once again a weak argument in my opinion...Sam1528,<br /><br />Once again a weak argument in my opinion. Taking your example of the events from the garden of Gethsemane. All four gospels mention the incident. The Gospel writers had different styles of writing and were writing for different audiences. Just because Mark is very brief in his writing of an incident while John gives more details it does not mean John is not historically accurate. We have about 1500 manuscripts of the Gospel of John and guess what, they all read the same. Ignatius of Antioch is believed to be the disciple of John and was appointed Bishop by Peter himself. We have the writings of Ignatius and the Gospels date prior to his writings. Thus we can surely conclude that Ignatius would have read the Gospel of John while John himself was alive and would have discussed it with him.<br /><br />These are merely a few examples and there are many such factors why the Bible OT and NT is considered a historically accurate book.YFC777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13498650362972997685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-38612649866272268022010-11-17T21:22:02.594-08:002010-11-17T21:22:02.594-08:00anonymousing ,
Why do you flood this comment sect...anonymousing ,<br /><br />Why do you flood this comment section with repeated response? Why don't you copy your response , save it in a words file. Just publish it once and check after 5 hrs. If it does not appear , copy paste again.<br /><br />You are answering with an assumption that it was mark (peter's interpreter) wrote the gospel according to mark. However the majority of modern NT scholarship agree that the gospel according to mark was written by an anonymous author. I don't think I need to quote scholars like Bart Ehrman / Raymond Brown on this issue.<br /><br />Whaat?? There is no issue with you / christians that mark16:9-20 was a later insertion? What standard of textual integrity you people have? <br /><br />You have stumbled before you even started. No wonder you don't need verification of 'isnads' as the gospels themselves are written buy anonymous authors. For all you know , they got the stories from the marketplace. Textual and linguistical comparison is done because you don't have the 'chain of narrators'. You keep on saying multiple eyewitnesses but what is the use of such as modern scholarship confirmed that the authors of the gospels were / are anonymous.<br /><br />The Quran when revealed to Prophet Muhammad(saw) was immediately documented and then read back to the Prophet(saw) to ensure no documentation error. No need for chain of narrators as documentation was done on an immediate basis.<br /><br />Don't bring up the issue of preservation of the Quran. Your hero Nabeel Qureshi was decimated by Bro Bassam Zawadi in the debate regarding this topic in london last yer.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-63898192410007838462010-11-17T20:44:03.563-08:002010-11-17T20:44:03.563-08:00yfc777 ,
From you '..Anyone who has played a ...yfc777 ,<br /><br />From you '..Anyone who has played a game of Chinese whisper knows that a chain of oral transmission can be lost..'<br /><br />You just killed the reliability of the gospels. An example is the biblical incident at gethsemene. Compare <br />(1) mat26:47-55<br />(2) mark14:43-50<br />(3) luk22:47-53<br />(4) joh18:5-11<br />You can see the story moving in a different direction. For example , striking off the ear , no names in mat / mark / luke. However a 'new story' inserted in luke of biblical jesus healing the ear. In joh , it gets better , names were mentioned and the soldiers / chief priests / Pharisees fell backwards when biblical jesus said 'i am'. Your 'chinese whisper' analogy fits exactly with the bible if we compare the same incident across the 4 gospels.<br /><br />In the science of hadiths , there are classifications such as 'attested by many' , 'broken chain' , 'lone attestation' , 'weak' , 'fabricated'.<br /><br />Therefore we muslims know such and such a hadith falls under which classification and it is treated as such. However its not the case for the bible. Everything is treated as the word of god , even though it fails the 'chinese whisper' test.<br /><br />When you claim of historical / literary attestation , it does fit into any one of the classification of the hadiths. Nothing new about that. You try to downplay the 'chain of narrators' as you know the bible does not have it. 'chain of narrators' is one step higher than historical / literary attestation as one can actually trace the event and actually deternime if there was / were any changes and classify the hadith in its proper classification.sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-14870893740029785832010-11-17T18:01:28.882-08:002010-11-17T18:01:28.882-08:00Why is David Wood always on about sex and women in...Why is David Wood always on about sex and women in Islam? I'm assuming he has a slight penchant for vulgarity and lies.<br /><br />RefutingRefutingActs17https://www.blogger.com/profile/10917688813639047243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-9036311451671071862010-11-17T17:10:00.410-08:002010-11-17T17:10:00.410-08:00Ibn,
I feel you are leaving things out about tha...Ibn, <br /><br />I feel you are leaving things out about that hadit. I had already read through all the ones where aisha is in the room and Muhammad is praying, i understand that. But that would be more of a problem for you than me since your hadit contradict eachother and there are Muslims who agree that women nullify salat. <br /><br />But i will look into this a little bit, cause it does seem Aisha was talking to Muhammad and you say no, so i will check.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-60472960229738410882010-11-17T17:00:30.034-08:002010-11-17T17:00:30.034-08:00Ibn,
do you at least understand what context eve...Ibn, <br /><br />do you at least understand what context even is? I know you cannot grasp a simple syllogism from our prior interactions but dang - this aint rocket science. <br /><br />you proved my point. <br /><br />I don’t care about your historians theory on “how Islam acted” AFTER it conquered a peoples, your author CLEARLY states that Islam had CONQUERED! Like I said, EVERY HISTORIAN agrees that Islam spread through THE SWORD, through CONQUESTS! <br /><br />Lol, and notice your author says “systematic”sacking of cities. Oh really Mr. Brown, so a “regular” sacking of cities occurred? And isn’t that the fictional author who wrote the Davinci Code and not a real historian anyway?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-45177343714682377022010-11-17T16:45:50.213-08:002010-11-17T16:45:50.213-08:00And here was my comment to yahya,
When I tried to...And here was my comment to yahya,<br /><br />When I tried to post my comment for the first time yesterday it went through just fine. I reloaded the page, it was still there, I navigated away from the page, it was still there, I read comments for about 10 minutes, came back to the page, it was still there. <br /><br />All of a sudden about 5 after im reading some other comments on the same thread and notice it was gone. After that anytime I tried to post a comment it relocated me to a different page which said “Database Error 505”, and whenever I clicked back it would say “script error”. I don’t know what is up with your settings on the filter or if you are just up to your old devilish tricks, but these types of experiences ONLY happen to me on your blog. Interesting huh? ONLY your blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-7980211625716832092010-11-17T16:44:34.983-08:002010-11-17T16:44:34.983-08:00Sam,
In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter...Sam,<br /><br />In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) <br /><br />In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.<br /><br />Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament. <br /> <br />But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-79307733948544071022010-11-17T16:43:08.290-08:002010-11-17T16:43:08.290-08:00As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses ...As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.<br /> <br />Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript. <br /><br />Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. <br /><br />Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus' resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended<br /><br />We have many manuscripts from multiple eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-63363401693517762332010-11-17T16:41:37.437-08:002010-11-17T16:41:37.437-08:00Sam,
You can read where Mark leaves clues about h...Sam,<br /><br />You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.<br /> <br />You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-20835542742982512922010-11-17T16:40:10.028-08:002010-11-17T16:40:10.028-08:00Maybe if i post them in parts...
Sam,
We do not...Maybe if i post them in parts...<br /><br />Sam, <br /><br />We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world.<br /><br />Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing.<br /><br />Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..<br /><br />Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-6163456900294482442010-11-17T16:38:16.853-08:002010-11-17T16:38:16.853-08:00Ibn,
Everything you said is basically a joke, an...Ibn, <br /><br />Everything you said is basically a joke, and your one mean person. <br /><br />Christianity already dominated the world before Constantine could even declare it the State religion. <br /><br />It had spread like a wildfire in the year 100-200, all during times of persecution. <br /><br />And my comment describing Mark and the authenticity of the Gospels would also help refute everything you said but Yahya will hide that comment indefinately so it seems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-20677575114613148692010-11-17T16:35:28.999-08:002010-11-17T16:35:28.999-08:00Like i said,
I refuse to post on this cheap nazi...Like i said, <br /><br />I refuse to post on this cheap nazi blog until yahya approves my refutations of Sams misconceptions. <br /><br />3 whole comments are missing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-9252560946354773992010-11-17T16:34:37.240-08:002010-11-17T16:34:37.240-08:00Sam,
We do not need any such chain of transmissi...Sam, <br /><br />We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..<br />Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words. <br />You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark. <br />You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter. <br />As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration. <br />Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript. <br />Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended<br />W have many manuscripts from multiple different eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other. <br />In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.<br />Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament. <br />But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-65511599496870279592010-11-17T16:34:35.010-08:002010-11-17T16:34:35.010-08:00Sam,
We do not need any such chain of transmissi...Sam, <br /><br />We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..<br />Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words. <br />You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark. <br />You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter. <br />As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration. <br />Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript. <br />Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended<br />W have many manuscripts from multiple different eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other. <br />In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.<br />Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament. <br />But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-81726287035711435722010-11-17T16:34:32.871-08:002010-11-17T16:34:32.871-08:00Sam,
We do not need any such chain of transmissi...Sam, <br /><br />We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..<br />Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words. <br />You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark. <br />You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter. <br />As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration. <br />Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript. <br />Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended<br />W have many manuscripts from multiple different eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other. <br />In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.<br />Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament. <br />But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-89530730373327195532010-11-17T16:33:16.286-08:002010-11-17T16:33:16.286-08:00Sam,
We do not need any such chain of transmissi...Sam, <br /><br />We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. <br /><br />Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. <br /><br />Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. <br /><br />For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..<br /><br />Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. <br /><br />Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words. <br /><br />You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark. <br /><br />You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter. <br /><br />As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration. <br /><br />Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript. <br /><br />Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. <br /><br />Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended<br /><br />We have many manuscripts from multiple eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.<br /> <br />In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) <br /><br />In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.<br /><br />Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament. <br /><br />But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com