Earliest Gospel of Mark Found?

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by rebellender

 

Let me guess this is another bible bashing thread?

Why don't people create a few threads disproving buddism or taoism?

Just wondering.

Not my thread and the Holy Scriptures do a good job of disproving themselves, they need no help from me.

But since we are here lets talk about what might be added by yet another Gospel of Mark.
Nothing would be added. The Catholics wouldn't endorse it. The Protestants wouldn't endorse it.
There is no truth in Faith, or can you show me a faith healed "WITHERED HAND"?

Funny how you single me out. This thread has no substance. Nothing new has been brought in for basis of theological discussion. This thread was DOA from the start. There is nothing there.

Originally posted by rebellender

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by rebellender

 

Let me guess this is another bible bashing thread?

Why don't people create a few threads disproving buddism or taoism?

Just wondering.

Not my thread and the Holy Scriptures do a good job of disproving themselves, they need no help from me.

But since we are here lets talk about what might be added by yet another Gospel of Mark.
Nothing would be added. The Catholics wouldn't endorse it. The Protestants wouldn't endorse it.
There is no truth in Faith, or can you show me a faith healed "WITHERED HAND"?

Funny how you single me out. This thread has no substance. Nothing new has been brought in for basis of theological discussion. This thread was DOA from the start. There is nothing there.

edit on 23-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

Meanwhile at the legion of atheist.

Dates? That is wht is new
This thread isn't dead, if the frag date is correct, the creation of Mark would be closer to the year of Jesus. meaning everything that the church endorses (scripture) becoming more authenticate, Historically of course .,..

mark was created anywhere between 50-70. THUS far . en.wikipedia.org...

Mark has been considered the earliest, and now we have found something far earlier , will see

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by rebellender

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by rebellender

 

Let me guess this is another bible bashing thread?

Why don't people create a few threads disproving buddism or taoism?

Just wondering.

Not my thread and the Holy Scriptures do a good job of disproving themselves, they need no help from me.

But since we are here lets talk about what might be added by yet another Gospel of Mark.
Nothing would be added. The Catholics wouldn't endorse it. The Protestants wouldn't endorse it.
There is no truth in Faith, or can you show me a faith healed "WITHERED HAND"?

Funny how you single me out. This thread has no substance. Nothing new has been brought in for basis of theological discussion. This thread was DOA from the start. There is nothing there.

edit on 23-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

Meanwhile at the legion of atheist.

Dates? That is wht is new
This thread isn't dead, if the frag date is correct, the creation of Mark would be closer to the year of Jesus. meaning everything that the church endorses (scripture) becoming more authenticate, Historically of course .,..

mark was created anywhere between 50-70. THUS far . en.wikipedia.org...

Mark has been considered the earliest, and now we have found something far earlier , will see

edit on 23-2-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

So finally we get a reference to some "proof" -- did you say there was extensive proof that the gospels were written by the Apostles? So here's the proof you provide:

The gospel was written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, possibly in Syria.[5] [edit] Authorship and sources Mantegna's St. Mark. According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark,[7] the companion of Saint Peter in Rome, who "had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it."[13] Most modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).[5] Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.[5]

Yet I already provided the evidence that debunks this "early" claim about Mark from the review of Dr. Price's book on the origin of the Gospels:

Other of Price's more interesting and surprising conclusions appear under the section exploring the date and authorship of the Gospel of Mark, concerning which Price states: Like the other gospels, Mark seems to come from the mid-second century CE. Probably the crucial piece of evidence for dating the book is the Olivet Discourse, or the Little Apocalypse as Timothee Colani dubbed it, constituting chapter 13 of the gospel. It appears to have been an independent apocalyptic pamphlet circulating on the eve of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Mark picked it up and made it part of his text; but which destruction and which temple were portrayed? As Hermann Detering has shown, the warnings of dangers and dooms outlined in the text fit better the destruction of city and temple during the Roman campaign against the messianic King Simon bar-Kochba in CE 136 than in CE 70 as is usually assumed. This means that Mark has absorbed an earlier document that already stemmed from the third of the second century CE. (p. 69) (Emphasis added.)

So much for "proof."

In supporting this late dating of the canonical gospels, Price cites various anachronisms within Mark, such as "the depiction of synagogues scattered throughout Galilee when in fact they seem to have been largely confined to Judea before 70 CE…" (pp. 69-70) Dr. Price further makes the startling but logical connection between the "heretic" Marcion and the evangelist Mark. In his association of Marcion with Mark, Price comments: We may also note the clear Marcionite tendency of the gospel, with its unremittingly scathing portrayal of the disciples of Jesus as utter failures to carry on the Christian legacy. Indeed, it is not unlikely the subsequent choice of the ascription "Mark" reflects the name of Marcion, the early-to-mid second century champion of Paulinism. (p. 70) It is interesting that the word for "Mark" in Greek is Markos and in Latin Marcus, the latter being the name of "three leading Gnostics," one of whom is depicted by Church father Adamantius (4th cent.) as a Marcionite defender. Moreover, in his Dialogue Adamantius concurred with the assertion of early Church father and bishop Papias (fl. c. 130 CE) that the evangelist Mark had never heard or been a follower of Christ. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "St. Mark")

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong




People must be ghost writing for me, or delusional. Yes mark probably was a 2nd century piece. This fragment would place it into first century. As far as anything else? I never said there was proof of apostle writing the books, also interesting enough, you are stereotyping my thoughts

edit on 23-2-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

tut tut.more fantasy that people will eat up like a stale shiver cake.The gospel of whatever is all chinese whispers...kay?