rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Hey guys! 
Did you miss me?
raas; I'm gonna break down my Jesus Fesus to give you a better chance at coherently refuting what I say.. And only post one part at a time..
Luke and Matthew copied Mark while adding their own bits and pieces here and there - Therefore Mark is the only story with any credit.
Evidence:
And
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:9-14;Mark 3:1-6;Luke 6:6-11&version=ASV
and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:1-8;Mark 2:23-28;Luke 6:1-5&version=ASV
and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 15:32-39;Mark 8:1-10&version=ASV
And hundreds and hundreds more: http://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html
You can see that the incomplete copies of Mark both include the first detail and not the other, while the other gospel will include the other without the first.
There are also clues in the order of events that happen within the first 3 gospels. When Matthew and Luke disagree on the order of events, Mark will agree with one of them, other than that they all agree on the order, again suggesting Mark was the first gospel written and Matthew, Luke and later John used Mark's writings to write their own.
So - Luke and Matthew's gospels are mere rip off's of Mark's.
Agreed? Yay? Nay?
Ah sorry you did address this point before:
But this doesn't take into consideration the amount of word for word copies of Mark's work. And there are a lot of clues suggesting they were copying Mark's work, not other texts, as i mentioned earlier the examples of when Luke would use half the words of Mark while Matthew would use the other half..
You are right, though, about the authors differing agenda.. How does this not completely destroy the gospels hope of being looked at as a factual, historical account? They are written differently as to target a different audience.. And because of this there are some events written in the gospels that we know are false or would have to be false, such as;
The date of Jesus' birth..
Matthew says it was during the reign of Herod, Luke says it was during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria.. OK.. Herod died in 4BC and the census took place in 6 and 7AD.. 10 years between them. At least one of these account have to be false.
The place..
Matthew and Luke both say Bethlehem, in accordance to prophecy. Luke says Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem while Matthew says it was only after Jesus' birth that they resided in Nazareth because they were too afraid to return to Judea. At least one of these accounts have to be false.
The trial.. The priests that questioned Jesus..
Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.
Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.
Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.
And hundreds more.. When we know that some of the gospels are false accounts, but we don't know what one or what parts, what makes you think they are trust worthy? This is not just the author simply emphasizing certain parts of the story or even an author missing bits out.. this is an author purposely and obviously making stuff up to support their agenda or just to make it a better story.
None of these stories are eye witness accounts.. if you think they are you are purposely ignoring the piles of evidence that they are not. Where in the gospels do you read of Jesus addressing the author or the author speaking at all?
We can go over the virgin birth next, if you'd like?

Did you miss me?

raas; I'm gonna break down my Jesus Fesus to give you a better chance at coherently refuting what I say.. And only post one part at a time..
Luke and Matthew copied Mark while adding their own bits and pieces here and there - Therefore Mark is the only story with any credit.
Evidence:
NSFW:
Mark 11:28 "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"29 Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"31 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
Matthew 21:"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"24 Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 26 But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."
Luke 20:2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?"5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."
"When it was evening, after sunset"[Mk 1:32]
When it was evening"[Mt 8:16]
"As the sun was setting"[Lk 4:40]
"the leprosy left him and he was cleansed"[Mk 1:42]
"the leprosy left him"[Lk 5:13]
"his leprosy was cleansed"[Mt 8:3]
And
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:9-14;Mark 3:1-6;Luke 6:6-11&version=ASV
and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:1-8;Mark 2:23-28;Luke 6:1-5&version=ASV
and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 15:32-39;Mark 8:1-10&version=ASV
And hundreds and hundreds more: http://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html
You can see that the incomplete copies of Mark both include the first detail and not the other, while the other gospel will include the other without the first.
There are also clues in the order of events that happen within the first 3 gospels. When Matthew and Luke disagree on the order of events, Mark will agree with one of them, other than that they all agree on the order, again suggesting Mark was the first gospel written and Matthew, Luke and later John used Mark's writings to write their own.
So - Luke and Matthew's gospels are mere rip off's of Mark's.
Agreed? Yay? Nay?
Ah sorry you did address this point before:
NSFW:
raas said:There is good evidence that both Luke and Matthew may have used Mark's gospel as a source (or a common corpus of material which preceded Mark), as well as other oral or written sources.
However, despite all 4 gospels having an objective of verifying the historical existence of Jesus, their aims differentiate. They are not intended to be 4 composite, precise, stories. They have different aims, and selectively include what text is necessary to realise these aims. What is covered in Matthew, for instance, may have been deliberately left out of Luke if it does not suit it's purpose.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...rgin_Birth.htm
The four gospels are eyewitness portraits of the life and events of Jesus Christ. They do, however, reveal somewhat different purposes with respect to emphasis. The Gospel of Matthew without doubt was intended for the Jewish community and a primary focus on Jesus as the Messiah who historically fulfilled the prophetic predictions and promises mentioned throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.
The Gospel of Luke portrays Christ as the "Son of Man," that is, with an emphasis on the humanity of Christ, and it was written primarily to the Gentile world.
The Gospel of John has yet a different focus. John clearly identified that his primary purpose was to prove that Jesus was God Himself. When John wrote his gospel near the end of the first century, Gnostics and other sects were beginning to question the divine nature of Christ, and John's major intent in his Gospel was to answer these critics.
The Gospel of Mark was written to demonstrate Christ as the Servant: "For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke make sense, because they would be important to establish both Messianic and human lineage. It does not, however, suit Mark's purpose, as the lineage of a "slave" or a "servant" is unimportant. This answers your question about why one would not expect Mark to mention the virgin birth in his gospel. It did not suit his purpose.
But this doesn't take into consideration the amount of word for word copies of Mark's work. And there are a lot of clues suggesting they were copying Mark's work, not other texts, as i mentioned earlier the examples of when Luke would use half the words of Mark while Matthew would use the other half..
You are right, though, about the authors differing agenda.. How does this not completely destroy the gospels hope of being looked at as a factual, historical account? They are written differently as to target a different audience.. And because of this there are some events written in the gospels that we know are false or would have to be false, such as;
The date of Jesus' birth..
Matthew says it was during the reign of Herod, Luke says it was during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria.. OK.. Herod died in 4BC and the census took place in 6 and 7AD.. 10 years between them. At least one of these account have to be false.
The place..
Matthew and Luke both say Bethlehem, in accordance to prophecy. Luke says Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem while Matthew says it was only after Jesus' birth that they resided in Nazareth because they were too afraid to return to Judea. At least one of these accounts have to be false.
The trial.. The priests that questioned Jesus..
Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.
Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.
Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.
And hundreds more.. When we know that some of the gospels are false accounts, but we don't know what one or what parts, what makes you think they are trust worthy? This is not just the author simply emphasizing certain parts of the story or even an author missing bits out.. this is an author purposely and obviously making stuff up to support their agenda or just to make it a better story.
None of these stories are eye witness accounts.. if you think they are you are purposely ignoring the piles of evidence that they are not. Where in the gospels do you read of Jesus addressing the author or the author speaking at all?
We can go over the virgin birth next, if you'd like?
Last edited: