No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Good first round you two!
    Oh, and thanx.


    • #62
      Dee Dee,

      Hi. Long-time no-see. Been away for a while. Three weddings (two brothers and my oldest son) and three funerals (including my dad and my wife’s mom) in ten months. Whatta work-out. Is it time to get normal yet?


      Last edited by Knight; August 27th, 2002, 07:02 PM.


      • #63
        As to those who say Mark is dated after 70 AD, do you have proof for that? The way the book is written, and prevailing manuscript evidence, would tend to point the other direction.
        For Greek conversion,


        • #64
          Last edited by Paradõsis; August 27th, 2002, 08:54 PM.

          "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." - Schopenhauer


          • #65
            Date for Mark


            I will agree that it is difficult to put a specific date on Mark. However, I do assert that the overwhelming consensus among scholars puts Mark between 70 to 75 C.E. (For a complete
            review of scholarly research on Mark as of 1997 see Introduction to the New Testament, by Raymond E. Brown (1997) Doubleday.)

            There are several reasons for this conclusion. First, While Mark is an anonyms work it was attributed to Peter’s scribner by the mid to late 2nd. The earliest written assertion of this position
            is a by Eusebius (EH 3.39.15-16) who claims to have been told this by Papias an associate of Mark. If this claim is true, the best estimate for a writing date would be after Peter’s death by
            Nero in the late 60s when Mark would seek to collect all of Peter’s recorded recollections into a workable narrative. This would put Mark no earlier then 70 C.E..

            There is, however, substantial challenge to the Papias tradition, and a large group of scholars (including many Evangelical Scholars - is that an oxymoron?) conclude that Mark was authored
            by someone other then Mark, Peter’s scribner. If this were the case, it is still likely that Mark was written no earlier then 70 C .E.

            Specifically, prior to 70 C.E. the early Christians believed that Jesus was coming back in their life time. Paul alludes, several times, to this belief, and in Corinthians makes this belief a cornerstone for his conclusions that single women and widow should - if possible - remain single, and slaves should not seek their freedom. (See generally 1st Corinthians Chapter 7.) This all change over a period of ten years - i.e., 60 C.E. to 70 C.E.

            By 70 C.E., Paul and Peter had just been martyred - along with the Roman Christian community - in Nero’s persecution. Rome had leveled Jerusalem, destroyed the Jewish Temple and cause the nation of Israel to cease to exist. Further, the Jerusalem church, led by Jesus’ brother James, was forced to relocate during Rome’s attack, and James was martyred a year later. So, to a large degree 70 C.E. represents the end of the first generation of Christians.

            Given these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that it began to dawn on the 1st Century Church in 70 C.E. that there was no guarantee that Jesus would be returning soon. Therefore, in the period of 70 to 80 C.E. the first steps were taken to preserve, in written form, Christian teaching and doctrine.

            In this light, an attempt by the 1st Century Church to memorialize an oral account of Jesus life seems logical. And to a large extent that is just what Mark is; that is, an oral account of Jesus’s
            life (with possible additions by the still elusive Q) used to win souls to Christ. This is then followed by Luke and Matthew who rely on Mark in the drafting of their Gospels.

            Anyway, that is the reason why Mark is dated as it is. As for your statement “that prevailing manuscript evidence points to an earlier date then 70 C.E.” I know of no such evidence.
            Although, if you have a citation to such evidence I would be more then willing to look at it.



            • #66
              (including many Evangelical Scholars - is that an oxymoron?)
              Ouch, I consider myself an Evangelical scholar. the real question is do liberals let the Bible speak or do they try to shout it down?

              Anyway, I would refer to Carson, Moo, and Morris' Intro to the NT, as well as Mann's commentary in the AB series. He even goes on to state that concensus of all scholars is that Mark was written pre-70AD, as it is one of the earliest books of the NT, along with numerous other reasons. Considering it comes from the AB, it certainly would have to be grounded solidly, if liberally.
              For Greek conversion,


              • #67
                I'll paint a fuller picture and defense of my position sometime later this week. I am out of town tomorrow and Thursday.
                For Greek conversion,


                • #68
                  Evangelicals and Scholarship - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

                  A few short comments.

                  First, the comment about Evangelicals and scholarship is also held by prominent Evangelicals - although it is not stated in the crude manner I used (for laughs only). (See The Scandal of the
                  Evangelical Mind, mark A. Noll, (1995) William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Dr. Noll is a professor of history at Wheaton College).

                  As for Jaltus’ implied comment that I am a liberal when it comes to the Bible. I am not. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I will state unequivocally, however, that I am not an Evangelical.
                  The primary reason for this statement is that I believe proof texting is a vaporous act of idiocy.

                  As for what Jaltus comment about liberal theology has to do with the date Mark was written, I am unable to shed any light on that one. Perhaps he can, or perhaps not - after all he appears to
                  be an Evangelical (again a sarcastic comment made only for the purpose of humor - or perhaps not).



                  • #69

                    As usual it will be fun to see the self=proclaimed literalist, Jerry in this case, run and hide from M 24;34.


                    • #70
                      Mark the oldest book in the NT - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

                      You know I missed one very odd comment by Jaltus. He said, “it [,Mark] is one of the earliest books of the NT.” This is odd because there is no one - I am aware of - who holds this position.

                      Mark is the oldest of the Gospels. But the oldest books of the New Testament are the Pauline writings some of which date to the mid-40s, and have references to early Christian hymns which
                      may date back to the late 30s. (See Philippians Chapter 2:6-11.).

                      But since Jaltus is an Evangelical Scholar we will forgive him (again, a totally gratuitous and sarcastic comment .... ).
                      Last edited by RCS126; August 27th, 2002, 10:19 PM.


                      • #71
                        Dear Soulman:

                        I am really sorry to hear about your parents, that must be really tough.


                        • #72
                          Dear Hitch:

                          Yeah, funny how futurists aren't quite so literal when it comes to the timing verses, huh? That is why I have learned to frame my argument in a way now that it thrashes them either way. Check, checkmate.


                          • #73

                            King David: And the final return of Christ is yet to occur, and this IN PERSON, as he comes to save the Jews, as they expected He would the first time he came.
                            Jesus Christ is coming to save those that BELIEVE on Him, and they are not all Jews! Jewish expectation was wrong in the first century, and it's STILL wrong, just as wrong as dispensationalism. As a mof, disp doctrine is derived from the same heresy, and supposes that God's plan revovles entirely around the Jews rather than around Jesus Christ and those faithful to obey Him!

                            Scripture clearly says what happens to those who don't obey the gospel at the second coming:

                            2 Thessalonians 1
                            7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
                            8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
                            9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
                            10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
                            Now I think we will see Jerry try to make the point that the Jews will all be saved at the second coming (which he says is "pretrib", as if the trib of Matt 24 and Luke 21 is yet future), but the scripture above refutes that vain idea; neither does Romans 11 say they will either, regardless of how many try to say that it does. "All Israel" was defined in Rom 9:6-8, and a true "Jew" was defined in Rom 2:28,29. Only a REMNANT of Jews will ever repent and believe the gospel, and it'll be TOO LATE at the second coming to do that!

                            Revelation 22
                            14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

                            15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.


                            • #74

                              After looking this over I am patiently waiting for Jerry to come out as a KJV Onlyist... This is the sort of obscuratanist methodology that causes apostasies to happen.




                              • #75
                                Dee Dee,

                                Actually, I had more to say, but Knight prudently (or is is prudishly?) edited it out. I was trying to be clever, and meant no disrespect, but have to admit it was a little risqué, especially in here.

                                Keep up the good work. You are my hero.