Guest shiloh357 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Mark's writings (assuming they are directly from Mark) are not first-hand accounts. Mark cannot have been an eyewitness to events that he wrote about. Why could he not have been an eyewitness? Dear EricH, Thanks for your question. I shall attempt to answer: If Mark was writing down the accounts of Peter, Mark was not writing from his own (first-hand, primary) account. Hence, Mark could not be the eyewitness. Peter would be the alleged eyewitness. Example: You claim you saw an accident on 5th and Main. You tell me the story. I write what you tell me down on paper. I am not the eyewitness of the accident. You are the alleged eyewitness. Hopefully I have clarified? Regards, UF I guess the question is (put anothe way) how do you know that both Peter and Mark were not both eye witnesses, but it was Peter who was dictating his account to Mark. Just because Mark was recording Peter's account does NOT mean that Mark was not also a contempary with Jesus and would not have also been a first hand witness. You need to keep in mind that Jesus had more than twelve disciples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted July 23, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. Dear nebula, Thank you for your responsese to my questions. But what if he was recording Peter's (firsthand) accounts? If Mark was recording Peter's accounts, we should not call Mark the eyewitness, should we? See my comments and the example to EricH above. Did you not read what I said about Matthew and John? Am I to understand from you then, that only 2 gospels of the NT are from primary, first-hand accounts? You also said that Matthew (and Luke) used Mark (who allegedly recorded from Peter) as source material. If Matthew used Mark as source material, it can hardly be called a primary, first-hand account. Hence, it whittles down to John that is really the primary, first-hand account? This cannot be correct. Surely, I am not understanding something. Please clarify or confirm my understanding here. I appreciate it. Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 23, 2009 If a reporter records and eye witnesses' account of a situation, how do you regard the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted July 23, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. I guess the question is (put anothe way) how do you know that both Peter and Mark were not both eye witnesses, but it was Peter who was dictating his account to Mark. Just because Mark was recording Peter's account does NOT mean that Mark was not also a contempary with Jesus and would not have also been a first hand witness. You need to keep in mind that Jesus had more than twelve disciples Dear shiloh357, Thank you for responding to my answer to EricH. I don't know that Mark was an eyewitness or not. Since Mark was writing for Peter, and to my knowledge does not have writings for himself, we can not know if he was an eyewitness or not. Yes, I am aware that Jesus probably had loads (more than 13) of disciples. However, I am not sure how many of them wrote anything down. Do you? Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted July 23, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. If a reporter records and eye witnesses' account of a situation, how do you regard the source? Dear nebula, Thank you for your response to my comments. If an unbiased reporter from a reputable news agency reported what an alleged eyewitness told him, and the reported sourced it to the alleged eyewitness, I would consider this a reported second-hand account from an unbiased source. If a biased co-disciple, Brigham Young wrote down the words of Joe Smith, reporting what Joe had seen, I would consider this a reported second-hand account from a biased source. If the alleged eyewitness himself wrote down what he saw, I would consider this a primary, first-hand account. I hope this clarifies. Regards, UF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. I guess the question is (put anothe way) how do you know that both Peter and Mark were not both eye witnesses, but it was Peter who was dictating his account to Mark. Just because Mark was recording Peter's account does NOT mean that Mark was not also a contempary with Jesus and would not have also been a first hand witness. You need to keep in mind that Jesus had more than twelve disciples Dear shiloh357, Thank you for responding to my answer to EricH. I don't know that Mark was an eyewitness or not. Since Mark was writing for Peter, and to my knowledge does not have writings for himself, we can not know if he was an eyewitness or not. Yes, I am aware that Jesus probably had loads (more than 13) of disciples. However, I am not sure how many of them wrote anything down. Do you? Regards, UF The point is, if Mark is also an eye witness anyway, then it pretty much deflates any argument against His gospel not being an eyewitness account. It may not have been Mark's eyewitness account, but it may likely have been Peter's. Besides, even Peter and John in the New Testament claim to be eye witnesses to Jesus's ministry. Paul claims to have encountered Jesus first hand on the Road to Damascus. The book of Acts shows these men willing to suffer and die for their testimony that they had encountered the ressurrected Jesus. No one would die for something they lied about. The fact that they were willing to face imprisonment, torture and even death for simply claiming they are witnesses of the resurrected jesus was alive is a powerful indicator to the truthfulness of that claim. The ressurection of Jesus turned them from being cowards afraid for their lives, to men willing to face down the most brutal torture and demise man would throw at them. The difference is that while many will die for a belief or a faith, the apostles were not dying for that. They were not dying for a religion, either. They were dying for refusing to be silenced about their eyewitness testimony that Jesus was ressurrected. Either they were lying or they were telling the truth. In fact, the NT claims that at least 500 people witnessed Jesus after his ressurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted July 24, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted July 24, 2009 UF, I don't know what your purpose is with this. As I mentioned, Mark could have been recording sermons that were already written down, thus compiling first hand recordings. You see, as a traveling rabbi, Jesus would repeat sermons. Thus you the Beatitudes that are recorded in Matthew also recorded in Luke, but at a different point in time. That said, if you don't consider newspaper reports as primary sources, how do you research primary sources for current news events, for many of them are recordings from what people have said rather than their own eye witness? Luke was straight forward that he was recording what he researched when writing the Gospel. Acts, however, is a mixture of research and first-hand account (when "they" is changed to "we" it is first hand.) Matthew was indeed an eye witness. If he borrowed from what Mark wrote, why does that change his being a primary source? There are recordings of Jesus given by Matthew that are not recorded in Mark. But it is also likely that if the sermons of Jesus had been written down previously, Matthew could have used these as well, thus the overlap between Mark and Matthew but with variations in the presentation, plus the many additions and the few eliminations. (Why would Matthew have not recorded all of the things that Mark recorded if he was copying Mark's work?) But the fact that Matthew contains many things that Mark does not should give it credence as first-hand, don't you think? And as previously agreed upon, John was first hand. So, to go back this claim we are arguing: 2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses) True for Luke May or may not be true for Mark, we don't know False for Matthew - even if he borrowed from Mark for his writing, that does not negate his own first hand accounts False for John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 But the fact that Matthew contains many things that Mark does not should give it credence as first-hand, don't you think? I think Nebula brings up a good point here, and that is variations between accounts. The accounts do not read as if one person simply copied off the other. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have different accounts that emphasize different aspects about Jesus' ministry. Mathew and John the only confirmed eyewitnesses would naturally have different memories. Things that perhaps stood out in John's memory wold be different than the things that Mathew felt were the most memorable. Matthew emphasizes Jesus teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven. John stresses Jesus' Divinity. Luke places a lot of emphasis on Jesus' purposes relative to redemption and Mark emphasizes Jesus as pure and sinless. Together, we see Jesus as God who left His Kingdom, took on the form of man, was sinless and gave his life to redeem mankind. Assuming Mark is simply dictating from Peter, then it would be natural for Mark's gospel to be reflective of what stood out in Peter's mind. Matthew, Peter and John each had unique relationships with Jesus. Peter and John were part of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John). They were privileged to see and hear things Matthew did not. Luke is collecting eyewitness accounts and compiling them. Here is what it says in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Luke's Method. Luke has announced his methods of work in a most classic introduction (Luk_1:1-4). Here we catch a glimpse of the author's personality. That is not possible in Mark nor in Matthew, and only indirectly in passing shadows in the Fourth Gospel. But here the author frankly takes the reader into his confidence and discloses his standpoint and qualifications for the great task. He writes as a contemporary about the recent past, always the most difficult history to interpret and often the most interesting. He speaks of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfBitn Posted July 24, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 483 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them. ...Why re-invent the wheel indeed. As long as we can be honest about labeling what is first-hand primary accounts and what are really reproductions of "the wheel", and not consider the latter as "independent" sources. Regards, UF Hi good to meet you Let me first address the good Doctor's credentials... first of all, no number of degrees guarantees 'no bias', would you agree? Neither do the number of credentials guarantee 'no agenda' other than presenting the truth... again can we agree on these 2 points? Edited July 24, 2009 by WolfBitn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 .... Professor Ehrman makes several claims: 1) Gospels were written 35-65 years after Jesus' death 2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses) 3) They are not disinterested accounts of what really happened. (implying that the writers had an agenda beyond recording history) 4) Gospels are not independent, Mark was used as source for Matthew and Luke.... The LORD Jesus Christ Makes Several Claims: 1) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, 2) he shall teach you all things, 3) and bring all things to your remembrance, 4) whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26 Which Makes The Four Gospels True And Bart A Highly Educated Unbelieving Man Of Shame Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Mark 8:38 >>>>>()<<<<< As Mr. Ehrman Is Not Here To Defend His Attempts At Discrediting The Power Of The Holy Ghost And The Truthfulness Of God's Holy Bible I Have A Question For Mr. Frog Are You Going To Sit In That Hot Water Until You Die? He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36 Or Are You Going To Hop On Out Of There Before It Boils Over? >>>>>()<<<<< Love, Joe Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:25 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deuteronomy 12:32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts