Biblical inerrancy

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Also, with regard to Mark vs Luke and which was written first... The reason why so many scholars agree that Mark was written first is because the story originally ends at Mark 16:8 (visitation of the empty tomb...and that's it). The verses 9-20 were added at a later date. .

The rest is GIGO, as your premise is wrong. And a good demonstration of the point I was making about how skeptics and unbelievers and psycho-babblists and others unsure in faith combine the textual (snipping) of the Mark ending with the error of Markan priority to attack the fundamentals of Christian faith and the pure Bible.

99.9% (999 out of 1000) of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mansucripts have the resurrection appearances in Mark. It is frequently referred to, even by Ante-Nicene church writers like Irenaeus.

The 12 verses are clearly Markan scripture. If you want to presume otherwise, any argument you build on it is to me simply GIGO.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Luke - seemed good to me ... perfect understanding of all things from the very first

Hi,

Nice post, fresh air, and a fine emphasis on the Lukan Prologue. The

seemed good to me also... perfect understanding of all things from the very first

is truly key, and I appreciate the focus.

Based on what Luke says about his perfect understanding about the events, I believe Luke was actually a disciple of Jesus (but not mentioned as one of the 12), but others who followed Christ.

Amen. There is also a good possibility that Luke was one of these early disciples, from the earliest days after the resurrection, one who had watched closely Jesus. (In which case he likely would have known many of the main individuals personally.)

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased;
and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly;
and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

I would put it like this, if not actually walking with Jesus, very aware of all the events, and then a believer immediately after Pentecost. There is a recent book with the title "Luke, the Priest" by Rick Strelan. Luke may be one of those in the last part of the verse, the great company, not just the disciples. At least, it is clear that Luke was informed about the Hebrew Temple and priests.

All of this fits very well with the early dating and the Theophilus proposal.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Vanguard]

Hi,

The rest is GIGO, as your premise is wrong. And a good demonstration of the point I was making about how skeptics and unbelievers and psycho-babblists and others unsure in faith combine the textual (snipping) of the Mark ending with the error of Markan priority to attack the fundamentals of Christian faith and the pure Bible.

99.9% (999 out of 1000) of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mansucripts have the resurrection appearances in Mark. It is frequently referred to, even by Ante-Nicene church writers like Irenaeus.

The 12 verses are clearly Markan scripture. If you want to presume otherwise, any argument you build on it is to me simply GIGO.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

And by who's authority is my premise wrong? Your's?

You don't understand me at all. I know what the Bible says in a literal sense, and on the surface. That's where most people stop. I go well beyond that. I've studied hermeneutics. I look at every possible scenario, to include political, psychological, financial and other motives. There was a lot more going on during that time than what appears on the surface.

Human psychology has clear telltale signs of events happening beneath the surface. It doesn't matter if it is in the present or 2,000 years ago. It's part of what I do in my profession.

To say that a premise, a theory or whatever is GIGO because you don't agree with or like it is pure drivel. Unless you were there and witnessed the event for yourself, all you/we have are theories and speculation. Some just happen to be more popular than others.

If you want to truly understand the Bible, you need to be open minded and look at the bigger picture. Like the old saying, there are 2 sides to every coin.

Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Absolutely!

Beyond that...does it really matter?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Absolutely! Beyond that...does it really matter?

Yep.

 

[Vanguard]

Hi,

Yep.

To me it does not.

I believe in and worship God.
I believe that Jesus was His son, who died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
I try to live my life according to Jesus' commandments: love God, love your neighbor.

Beyond that it doesn't really matter. Who's right, who's wrong...who cares. Squabbling over semantics doesn't bring you any closer to God. No one has definitive answers that can be proven 100% beyond a doubt. When I die, I alone answer for my sins, and I stand by my convictions.

Edit: as I have said in other posts, what I do is in an effort to either try to educate people, get them to think on a deeper level, or answer some lingering questions someone may have had. I am fully aware that many will not agree with me. However, there are those that may read something I write, the light bulb goes on in their head, and they are like, "now that makes sense!"


totopic

 

[Grazer]

Couple of things;

There was a very strong tradition of spreading things orally at that time. Spreading the message wouldn't need it to be written down. Plus not everyone could read and write back then.

The opening of Luke makes it clear he investigated everything and that others had done so before him;

Luke 1:1-4 NIV

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke 1:1-4 NLT

Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.

Now, you might be able to conclude Luke was there or was first from the KJV version;

Luke 1:1-4 KJV

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

The ESV could be taken both ways;

Luke 1:1-4 ESV

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

This trap I've supposedly fell into. This wouldn't possibly be the case purely because I disagree? I get these kinds of retorts all the time and I let them go over my head. If I've fallen into the trap, so has virtually every historian. I respectfully suggest that I might not be the one who's wrong here.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2