# Did Matthew and Luke copy from Mark



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

I'll give a few examples, only a few from an overwhelming supply. I'll give different kinds of the examples that exist. 
Editorial fatigue. This happens when someone is copying something and making subtle changes, to make it "their own". They make changes at the front of the topic but resort back to just plain copying at the end. This type is the most common. Of the great amount found in Matthew, Luke doubles this number. Mark 6, Herod liked to listen to John, saw him as a righteous man but due to his oath, had John beheaded. vs 26, "he was greatly distressed". Now Matthew 14:5 Matthew says "herod wanted to kill John" but watch this, he resortsback to copying Mark, vs 9, "the King was greatly distressed". The author of Matthew has left a us a clue, he had Marks copy in front of him.
Another kind of example; mark misquotes Malachi 3:1 saying this in the greek, which you willnot see in your translation but is clear in the greek, MK 1:2 "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send the messenger of me before the face of thee, who will prepare the way of thee..." "before the face of thee" is a misquote. Interesting is that Matthew and Luke both share this misquote.
 Another example is that when we tell a story, we each have different ways of conveying our message. When Mark says "Let the reader understand"MK 13:14, he is adding his personal conveyance. Notice that Matthew and Luke adopt this same exact usuage in their discourse about the "Abomination..."
Here is another type of example, this one fixed by my NIV so you would never catch it unless you saw the original from which the NIV was interpreted. Marks gospel has the men trying to enter a house where Jesus was unsuccessfully, therefore they went up on the roof and lowered him down. Luke assuming that he was telling the story completly, but unaware that he was not putting to paper what he knew the story to be, falsely assuming that he had. He left us a clue that he had in front of him Marks gospel. Luke forgets to ever mention anything about a house. What he knew because it was right in front of him, never made it to his account. The NIV added house because they knew the story was imcomplete, and confusing about them going up on a roof, etc. 
These are just a one each of many different examples of which are many, many of each, especially "fatigue" examples. These are from my own recolection. Reading the scholars exact wording is much more clear than my own words. To be clear, to those whowill not accept this, the vast amount of this is overwhelming. Just set Matthew, Mark and luke side by side and I think it has a 75% overlap. This kind of scholarly work is quite impressive. We even know that Luke was missing a page from Mark. We know at which point his last sentence before the missing page and where his first sentence began after the missing page. He unknowingly linked together what was two different subjects as if they were originallycombined.
You can google "Did Luke copy Mark" and www.textexcavation.com, Mark Goodacre, Michael Goulder, Andrew D Benson. The evidence is Concrete


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

To be clear, I am a believer in the unadultrated gospel. But I do concede that man has left his trademark in the letters we call scripture.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

Without getting into the specifics of the OP, what if Luke and Matthew _did_ copy parts of Mark?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Without getting into the specifics of the OP, what if Luke and Matthew _did_ copy parts of Mark?



Doesn't the whole argument of 4 separate sources telling the same story which would add to the credibility of the events fall apart if the works are copies? Of those 3 Gospels now one is left that has any originality.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Without getting into the specifics of the OP, what if Luke and Matthew _did_ copy parts of Mark?


It is not a problem for my faith. It is just interesting that we bible students are in the dark about something in the book we claim to know so much about. I think it just goes to show that Matthew was not written by Matthew. That if they copied Mark, since he was a disciple of Peter and not an eyewitness, it helps to explain the contridictions in the gospel comparrisons due to the oral passing for a time period. It helps to determine when the gospels were written. It tells me not to sweat the details, but look at the message they sought to spread, thus making so much debate about bible issues null. It removes the inerrant problem because it shows it to be written by man of which we expect to make mistakes. The thing that makes it so interesting is how I, for example for 30 years, thought I knew my bible like the back of my hand yet somehow I was unaware of what scholars have known for a long time. I guess we seek out those scholars who tell us what we wish to hear.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Doesn't the whole argument of 4 separate sources telling the same story which would add to the credibility of the events fall apart if the works are copies? Of those 3 Gospels now *one* is left that has any originality.


I would call it 2. Marks and Johns. And the hypotetical Q that scholars assume was the other source that Matt/LK copied from. Luke told us in his opening line "that 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..." So I say that Luke never intended to imply that his account were anything but his best effort to convey what had been passed on to him. It is the church that later took his letter and called it inspired.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

One issue that arrises, Parables. If I tell you a joke, I can mess up the outcome if I don't tell it properly. Luke botched up some of the parables resulting in confussion. Luke and Matthew were both guilty of slightly changing Marks gospel in small forms of "upgrade"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

The writer of Matthew was zealous to convince his audience that Jesus was the Christ. Nothing wrong with his zeal. It was commendable. Did he and others look to the OT and try to apply every prophesy to Jesus? Yes. No problem with this although not everything was meant in the way they presented it. And in certain cases, they created circumstances in their effort to prove Jesus was the Christ. Take the author of Matthews genology of Jesus. He implies that 14 generations to 14 generations to 14 generations must be of God, but God did not need the help of Matthew to convince the world. If you go to 2 Chron 21-26 you can see the three generations that Matthew was unaware of. Meaning that the 14/14/14 from Matthew was his own incorrect observation. So when we address these problems and face them head on, acknowledging them, not claiming inerrancy, we remove one of the walls that seperates believers from athiest. Because we no longer play dumb to the facts that they are aware of


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I would call it 2. Marks and Johns. And the hypotetical Q that scholars assume was the other source that Matt/LK copied from. Luke told us in his opening line "that 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..." So I say that Luke never intended to imply that his account were anything but his best effort to convey what had been passed on to him. It is the church that later took his letter and called it inspired.



I said of the 3 One is left. Meaning out of those 3 one might be original. I did not include John.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The writer of Matthew was zealous to convince his audience that Jesus was the Christ. Nothing wrong with his zeal. It was commendable. Did he and others look to the OT and try to apply every prophesy to Jesus? Yes. No problem with this although not everything was meant in the way they presented it. And in certain cases, they created circumstances in their effort to prove Jesus was the Christ. Take the author of Matthews genology of Jesus. He implies that 14 generations to 14 generations to 14 generations must be of God, but God did not need the help of Matthew to convince the world. If you go to 2 Chron 21-26 you can see the three generations that Matthew was unaware of. Meaning that the 14/14/14 from Matthew was his own incorrect observation. So when we address these problems and face them head on, acknowledging them, not claiming inerrancy, we remove one of the walls that seperates believers from athiest. Because we no longer play dumb to the facts that they are aware of



Some cannot handle the fact that the Bible is not what they have always been told and have always believed. It won't change many's faith but much of the foundation is busted. The truth hurts.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I said of the 3 One is left. Meaning out of those 3 one might be original. I did not include John.


I did not catch that. I should read more closely. I read so many here and especially on another forumn that I tend to "scan" the post.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I did not catch that. I should read more closely. I read so many here and especially on another forumn that I tend to "scan" the post.



Consider me guilty also. I am half way through a reply sometimes and think that I better go back and re-read, then re-read again!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The writer of Matthew was zealous to convince his audience that Jesus was the Christ. Nothing wrong with his zeal. It was commendable. Did he and others look to the OT and try to apply every prophesy to Jesus? Yes. No problem with this although not everything was meant in the way they presented it. And in certain cases, they created circumstances in their effort to prove Jesus was the Christ. Take the author of Matthews genology of Jesus. He implies that 14 generations to 14 generations to 14 generations must be of God, but God did not need the help of Matthew to convince the world. If you go to 2 Chron 21-26 you can see the three generations that Matthew was unaware of. Meaning that the 14/14/14 from Matthew was his own incorrect observation. So when we address these problems and face them head on, acknowledging them, not claiming inerrancy, we remove one of the walls that seperates believers from athiest. Because we no longer play dumb to the facts that they are aware of



The first hurdle is getting over the fact that the Bible was not handed down to mankind and it is not the word of God but that the Bible(the stories within) was voted to be the Word of God.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 5, 2012)

I think you two are doing a great work getting to the bottom of this biblical plagiarism.

Your approach is scientific, and using the very best of human rational.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I think you two are doing a great work getting to the bottom of this biblical plagiarism.
> 
> Your approach is scientific, and using the very best of human rational.



Don't blame you, what else could you say, certainly not a denial with evidence to back it up.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ... certainly not a denial with evidence to back it up.



How about some evidence to back this:



bullethead said:


> the Bible(the stories within) was voted to be the Word of God.



... up?

When did the vote occur?
Where did it occur?
Who was in attendance at the vote?
Who counted the votes?
What was the final vote tally for each book?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> How about some evidence to back this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know as well as I do that there was no "official" Christian Bible until Constantine made it happen. The criteria for Canon is a stretch even for these writings, especially Matthew and Luke.

The councils made decisions(vote may not have been the right word)on which books made it.

If you want me to copy/paste as much info as I can find of who,what,where and when I'd be happy to play that game again.

Maybe you can tell me who the first person was that put the OT and NT together all in one book.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you want me to copy/paste as much info as I can find of who,what,where and when I'd be happy to play that game again.



Don't go to any trouble.  I'll take care of it:

When did the vote occur?  It didn't.
Where did it occur?  It didn't.
Who was in attendance at the vote?  Nobody.
Who counted the votes?  Nobody.
What was the final vote tally for each book?  See above.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The councils made decisions(vote may not have been the right word)on which books made it.



Nope.

See here for a summary of the issues discussed at the first seven councils:

http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/01/summary-of-seven-ecumenical-councils.html


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Nope.
> 
> See here for a summary of the issues discussed at the first seven councils:
> 
> http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/01/summary-of-seven-ecumenical-councils.html



http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttalunholybible.htm
This guy (With References) tells it well.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Don't go to any trouble.  I'll take care of it:
> 
> When did the vote occur?  It didn't.
> Where did it occur?  It didn't.
> ...



That settles it.
What sold me was the sources and references.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That settles it.
> What sold me was the sources and references.



My post is 100% accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> My post is 100% accurate.



You obviously did not read the link I posted.

At some point MEN had to decide, based on criteria thought up by men, what was Canon. Nothing magically appeared between the front and back covers. There were decisions that were made.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttalunholybible.htm
> This guy (With References) tells it well.



That link is long enough to be an "Asath post".  Two things jumped out at me:

1.  There's no vote mentioned at all (no surprise there.)

2.  There is, however, this:


_"Finally we see that Constantine specially ordered 50 copies of Scripture, we can infer that it probably contained the Septuagint, and at least the first category of Eusebius' classification, and possibly the second."_


Now, when it says "the first category" and "the second", he's talking about these categories of books (also taken from your link):


_"Cat. 1 -- (The Recognized Books) 4 gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John, all the epistles of Paul; "to these may be added (if thought proper) The Revelation of John".

Cat. 2 -- (The Disputed Books) James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, "(the work either of the Evangelist John or of someone else with the same name)"._

_Cat. 3 -- (The Spurious Books) Acts of Paul, the Shepherd [of Hermas], Epistle of Barnabas and the Teachings of the Apostles, the Revelation of Peter, and again, The Revelation of John "(if this seems the place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others include it among the Recognized Books)"._


So, the author of that link freely admits that Constantine's bibles contained the same books that the church had accepted all along.  There were disputed books, but the author admits he doesn't know if they were included or not.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You obviously did not read the link I posted.



I obviously did.  It just took me awhile.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

The post must be a darn good one if it is compared along the likes of Asath's posts.
Nothing else jumped out?
Lets go with the two that did.
1. You are still hung up on vote even after I have said decision. Did someone make a decision about what went in or not?

2.You didn't go far enough on highlighting what else was said in that paragraph.
I'll get the whole paragraph for you.
""The evidence shows that Constantine took over effective leadership of the Christian Church at the Council of Nicaea, as such his word on religion was law; to challenge it was a dangerous undertaking. His patronage influenced and controlled the men on the other end of it. The Creed which came out of that Council had been his doing; and it became the acid test of determining who was, and who was not, Orthodox. This paper has demonstrated that the idea of what was canonical, where scripture is concerned, was also largely formulated at that time and recorded by Eusebius. Finally we see that Constantine specially ordered 50 copies of Scripture, we can infer that it probably contained the Septuagint, and at least the first category of Eusebius' classification, and possibly the second. There can be no doubt that this order was for 50 bibles to be produced for "the Church ... [to] both have and use." This was not merely 50 copies being used, these were 50 copies specifically ordered, and paid for by the emperor for the use of the Christian Church; most disturbingly is that the books were to be delivered to Constantine to be "submitted to our inspection." Once these received imperial approval, they would become the standard for future copies; it was in a sense, an official Bible. Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use. It would have undoubtedly been considered the canon of its time.""


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The post must be a darn good one if it is compared along the likes of Asath's posts.



I didn't mean that as a compliment.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I didn't mean that as a compliment.



Like religion, it is all how the reader interprets it. Thank You anyway.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 5, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1. You are still hung up on vote even after I have said decision.



You picked the word, not me.  It's often used in this forum, and it's completely wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

Here is what was in the link before your limited copy/paste:
""The Question of the Canon

The next issue is the Canon. Canon means a rule of measure. In the sense of the Christian Bible, it means those books deemed divinely inspired, and to Roman Catholics, a partial rule of faith and morals. Canonical books are divided into two classes: protocanonical, those deemed inspired; and deuterocanonical, those denied or doubted by some as being inspired. In the Old Testament, the deuterocanonical books are the apocrypha; in the New Testament, the deuterocanonical books are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and the Book of Revelations. The Roman Catholic Church has declared all these books to be protocanonical; but some Catholic and non-Catholic scholars have different opinions on the matter. It was only at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church finally declared the Catholic Canon di fide [closed].

There is little doubt that the concept of the canon was around in Contantine's time. In Eusebius' History of the Church, he divided scripture into three categories, basing their value, or truthfulness, on how commonly used they were by Orthodox teachers -- whom he never identifies.



III.24:

Cat. 1 -- (The Recognized Books) 4 gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John, all the epistles of Paul; "to these may be added (if thought proper) The Revelation of John".

Cat. 2 -- (The Disputed Books) James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, "(the work either of the Evangelist John or of someone else with the same name)".

Cat. 3 -- (The Spurious Books) Acts of Paul, the Shepherd [of Hermas], Epistle of Barnabas and the Teachings of the Apostles, the Revelation of Peter, and again, The Revelation of John "(if this seems the place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others include it among the Recognized Books)".

III.3:

"As to the Revelation, the views of most people to this day are evenly divided." [17]

For the most part, Eusebius classification is what one now finds in the New Testament. So although it took a few more centuries to finally close the Canon by a number of Christian churches; an idea of an early canon at least existed in Eusebius' time. So what about the Bible?

In Theodoret's history of the Church, one finds this very revealing passage:

"Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious, to Eusebius.

"Adopt joyfully the mode of procedure determined upon by us, which we have thought expedient to make known to your prudence, namely, that you should get written, on fine parchment, fifty volumes, easily legible and handy for use; these you must have transcribed by skilled calligraphers, accurately acquainted with their art. I mean, of course, copies of the Holy Scriptures, which, as you know, it is most necessary that the congregation of the Church should both have and use. A letter has been sent from our clemency to the catholicus of the diocese, in order that he may be careful that everything necessary for the undertaking is supplied. The duty devolving upon you is to take measures to ensure the completion of these manuscripts within a short space of time. When they are finished, you are authorised by this letter to order two public carriages for the purpose of transmitting them to us; and thus the fair manuscripts will be easily submitted to our inspection. Appoint one of the deacons of your church to take charge of this part of the business; when he comes to us, he shall receive proofs of our benevolence. May God preserve you, beloved brother." [18]""


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You picked the word, not me.  It's often used in this forum, and it's completely wrong.



So now that "vote" is no longer the word......did someone decide what made it in and what didn't?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2012)

More:
""The Meaning of Inspiration

This single issue creates a great deal of confusion, for it is not clear how this inspiration works, or what is its final result. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to Roman Catholic publications, since Catholics are the vast majority of Christians, and their official views on "inspiration" can be rightly considered the majority view. Using The New American Bible [19] for standard information on the Roman Catholic perspective, one finds that indeed the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the Word of God.

In the Introduction of said Bible, we find this information under the subtitle: "Origin, Inspiration, and History of the Bible":

At the Council of Trent, the Church declared "she receives, 'All the books of the Testaments, Old and New, since the one God is the Author of both.'" At the first Vatican Council, "The Church holds those books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error; but because having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author." [20]

In the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the same bible, we find this definition for "Inspiration of Scripture":

"The supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit whereby the writers of the books of the Bible were supernaturally moved to write what God wished to be written. Thus, God is the principal author of the Bible. Because of this divine influence on the writers, they were unable to write anything except what God had predetermined would be written. Therefore, there are no errors in the divine revelations." [21]""


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> This paper has demonstrated that the idea of what was canonical, where scripture is concerned, was also largely formulated at that time and recorded by Eusebius.



It wasn't "formulated" at this time.  Eusebius just listed the books that were known to the church for two centuries and categorized them.  




bullethead said:


> This was not merely 50 copies being used, these were 50 copies specifically ordered, and paid for by the emperor for the use of the Christian Church; most disturbingly is that the books were to be delivered to Constantine to be "submitted to our inspection." Once these received imperial approval, they would become the standard for future copies; it was in a sense, an official Bible. Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use. It would have undoubtedly been considered the canon of its time."



This is hilarious.  The author refers to Constantine's bible as "the standard", the "official Bible" with "imperial approval", and (most importantly) says it "would become the standard for future copies" ... yet the author admits he doesn't know what books it included.  So, Constantine's Bible is the standard but nobody knows what books it contains.  That doesn't sound like much of a standard to me.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> It wasn't "formulated" at this time.  Eusebius just listed the books that were known to the church for two centuries and categorized them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what version was or did become the standard? When Constantine was running the show did the "Church" have it's own version that it used secretly?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> This is hilarious.  The author refers to Constantine's bible as "the standard", the "official Bible" with "imperial approval", and (most importantly) says it "would become the standard for future copies" ... yet the author admits he doesn't know what books it included.  So, Constantine's Bible is the standard but nobody knows what books it contains.  That doesn't sound like much of a standard to me.



Where in that paragraph that you quoted of mine did the Author say he didn't know what books it included?

Here is the entire paragraph again:
""The evidence shows that Constantine took over effective leadership of the Christian Church at the Council of Nicaea, as such his word on religion was law; to challenge it was a dangerous undertaking. His patronage influenced and controlled the men on the other end of it. The Creed which came out of that Council had been his doing; and it became the acid test of determining who was, and who was not, Orthodox. This paper has demonstrated that the idea of what was canonical, where scripture is concerned, was also largely formulated at that time and recorded by Eusebius. Finally we see that Constantine specially ordered 50 copies of Scripture, we can infer that it probably contained the Septuagint, and at least the first category of Eusebius' classification, and possibly the second. There can be no doubt that this order was for 50 bibles to be produced for "the Church ... [to] both have and use." This was not merely 50 copies being used, these were 50 copies specifically ordered, and paid for by the emperor for the use of the Christian Church; most disturbingly is that the books were to be delivered to Constantine to be "submitted to our inspection." Once these received imperial approval, they would become the standard for future copies; it was in a sense, an official Bible. Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use. It would have undoubtedly been considered the canon of its time.""


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So now that "vote" is no longer the word......did someone decide what made it in and what didn't?



Centerpin, In case you missed this question?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  There's no vote mentioned at all (no surprise there.)



Upon a more in depth read in:
PART THREE:  paragraph (I) mentions Votes at the Counsels.

A little background for anyone following along:
There was an article written by  Robert L. Johnson called "The Bible's Unholy Origins".

There was a second article written by a Mr. Brian Show that is a critique or rebuttal of the original article.

Then there is the link I posted which is:
A DETAILED REBUTTAL TO "A Critique of 'The Bible's Unholy Origins'", INCLUDING A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW by Peter C. Murphy. Which is a rebuttal to the rebuttal with sources and references.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Upon a more in depth read in:
> PART THREE:  paragraph (I) mentions Votes at the Counsels.



He mentions it but doesn't say that it happened.  He just questions _whether_ it happened.


_(I) Here Mr. Show asserts that in the so-called final stage (190-400CE) the canon was closed. He mentions Bishop Athanasius listing exactly the twenty-seven books presently found in most New Testaments. Mr. Show then proceeds to give dates for the councils of Hippo and Carthage. But how was the canon decided on? Could it be that the councils voted them to be the canon?

 If these councils voted the canon into existence; then it seems that Mr. Johnson was not that wide off the mark after all. For if the canon was voted on; then it was voted by men to be the Word of God at least in a general sense. Mr. Show is correct in saying that Christians even to this day are not unanimous on what exactly constitutes the New Testament; but that speaks against Christianity rather than for it._


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Centerpin, In case you missed this question?



As I've said before (in other threads), God used men to write the Bible, and He used men to codify the bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Where in that paragraph that you quoted of mine did the Author say he didn't know what books it included?



Did Constantine's Bibles contain Revelation?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So what version was or did become the standard? When Constantine was running the show did the "Church" have it's own version that it used secretly?



As I said before, there's no difference in Eusebius' list of books and the books the church had been using for the previous 200 years.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 6, 2012)

I have occasionally wondered why some find this so intriguing. 
Since the gospels were not penned concurrently, it makes sense that the earliest manuscript(s) was(were) available to those who later wrote of the life and teachings of the Son of God. Also, if one reads biographies of an individual (Abraham Lincoln or Kurt Cobain, for example), one would expect similarities. That is a hallmark of authenticity. Likewise, one would expect singularly unique anecdotes or remembrances to be present. That is another hallmark of authenticity, not that they differ, but that the writers see, remember, and understand things from personal perspective. The final matter that should be considered is the intended recipients. If an author is considerate of his audience, he would "customize" the message to the experience and circumstance the targeted audience. 

Just because Matthew and Luke MAY have used Mark as an outline, or even copied/paraphrased parts, does not necessarily mean anyone is being deceptive in doing so. It is more likely to be viewed as confirmation, as agreement.

And, just because they bear strong similarities, it cannot be reasonably concluded that there is a conspiracy or that the information is contrived and, therefore, false.

How quickly some will give up reason to arrive at the thinnest support for a preconception... and swallow camels, but choke on gnats.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As I said before, there's no difference in Eusebius' list of books and the books the church had been using for the previous 200 years.



It may be even less clear that  in the prior 200 years there were many local churches that had perhaps only one or several manuscripts, so that many "canons" existed in a geographical area. The consolidation of 66 books (give or take several, due to differing opinions) was not instantaneous, by any means. And, it would be wrong to assume that a more accurate and discerning list has not met with some consideration to this present day. 

The most up-to-date Christian scholarship still upholds essentially the same list as nearly 2000 years ago, and for the same reasons. Those manuscripts that were highly questionable then are, for the most part, still excluded. The primary issues were and still are whether the manuscript was inspired of God, reasonably contemporary to the lives of Jesus and the Apostles, consistent with the balance of Scripture, known authorship (with notable exceptions), and in common use in the early years of the churches. Little has changed in that regard, though there has always been a fringe of those who take, and voice, exception.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

gtparts said:


> I have occasionally wondered why some find this so intriguing.
> Since the gospels were not penned concurrently, it makes sense that the earliest manuscript(s) was(were) available to those who later wrote of the life and teachings of the Son of God. Also, if one reads biographies of an individual (Abraham Lincoln or Kurt Cobain, for example), one would expect similarities. That is a hallmark of authenticity. Likewise, one would expect singularly unique anecdotes or remembrances to be present. That is another hallmark of authenticity, not that they differ, but that the writers see, remember, and understand things from personal perspective. The final matter that should be considered is the intended recipients. If an author is considerate of his audience, he would "customize" the message to the experience and circumstance the targeted audience.
> 
> Just because Matthew and Luke MAY have used Mark as an outline, or even copied/paraphrased parts, does not necessarily mean anyone is being deceptive in doing so. It is more likely to be viewed as confirmation, as agreement.
> ...





When you start to pile up the gnats it is not hard to choke when being fed shovels full at a time.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 6, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When you start to pile up the gnats it is not hard to choke when being fed shovels full at a time.



I thought even you would have the wisdom not to try to consume a shovel-full in one swallow........ or one sitting.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

gtparts said:


> I thought even you would have the wisdom not to try to consume a shovel-full in one swallow........ or one sitting.



For me these little gnats were fed one a time with other food to disguise them so as not to fill me up and make me sick. But they are indigestible and build up to the point where  I could no longer stomach them and had to throw them up into a big revealing pile to be seen for what they are.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2012)

gtparts said:


> I have occasionally wondered why some find this so intriguing.
> Since the gospels were not penned concurrently, it makes sense that the earliest manuscript(s) was(were) available to those who later wrote of the life and teachings of the Son of God. Also, if one reads biographies of an individual (Abraham Lincoln or Kurt Cobain, for example), one would expect similarities. That is a hallmark of authenticity. Likewise, one would expect singularly unique anecdotes or remembrances to be present. That is another hallmark of authenticity, not that they differ, but that the writers see, remember, and understand things from personal perspective. The final matter that should be considered is the intended recipients. If an author is considerate of his audience, he would "customize" the message to the experience and circumstance the targeted audience.
> 
> *Just because Matthew and Luke MAY have used Mark as an outline, or even copied/paraphrased parts, does not necessarily mean anyone is being deceptive in doing so. It is more likely to be viewed as confirmation, as agreement.
> ...


Hello Gparts, What I highlighted has never been my view. No conspiracy, no deception. The writers were passing on a tradition that was oral and written. I showed Luke's intent, basically just saying that many had written these accounts down before him. They never claimed to be inspired nor claimed to be eyewitnesses. The church was the one who elevated these writings to a status far above the intent of the writers. To some it would seem deceptive that Matthew did not write Matthew, but it never was claimed to be written by Matthew. It was called "The Gospel according To Matthew". This meaning that anyone who heard him teach these things could have penned his words.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I think you two are doing a great work getting to the bottom of this biblical plagiarism.
> 
> Your approach is scientific, and using the very best of human rational.


Hello Ronnie, Give it time to digest. Sorry, but the facts are facts. I had rather be honest about the issue. The bible is what it is. I don't read it to see what God said, as most do, but I read it because I can read what Paul and others wrote and I can glean what it was that they believe.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2012)

When a Christian attempts to witness to an athiest, one of the first dividing issues is always about the contridictions found in the bible. Immediately, the Christian points out that there are no contridictions, and from here the conversation has hit a wall. Dead end. You see, most Athiest have studied the issues. Many have seen the work of biblical scholars and are well aware of the issues. But the Christians, 98% of them, do not even realize that these scholars have proven these issues. The reason is that they are not taught these things. They gather to themselves those socalled scholars who teach them what they wish to hear. How many graduated from a seminary, been to bible college, etc do you know that even knew that this kind of thing in the OP existed? Why so many in the dark? We had better learn to deal with these issues. Ever wonder why it is that you are losing the college age from your churches? Because if they go beyond religion 101, this is the kind of thing they are taught. And after seeing these things for the first time, realizing that they had never been taught this, they see everyone in their past as un creditable


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2012)

Hey Bullet, did you check out any of the links I provided. Shocking just how much evidence like this that they have. Lot of other interesting stuff also. And I thought I knew my bible like the back of my hand. Yet somehow I overlooked all of this.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bullet, did you check out any of the links I provided. Shocking just how much evidence like this that they have. Lot of other interesting stuff also. And I thought I knew my bible like the back of my hand. Yet somehow I overlooked all of this.



Been going through textexcavation today. it's been added to my bookmarks!

Feel free to send me any more that have your interest.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Been going through textexcavation today. it's been added to my bookmarks!
> 
> Feel free to send me any more that have your interest.


That is a good one, but none of what I posted all have the same thing. One site in particular  which I can't recall, had lots of info that the others did not have. I found it by simply googling "Editorial fatigue". I need to relocate it. It was the one which proved that Luke had a page missing when he copied Mark. That was an amazing find. Plain as day to see. If you run across that particular issue, let me know where you find it. It will save me some time because I intend to get the exacts so I can mark it in my bible


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> For me these little gnats were fed one a time with other food to disguise them so as not to fill me up and make me sick. But they are indigestible and build up to the point where  I could no longer stomach them and had to throw them up into a big revealing pile to be seen for what they are.



Gnats? really? like skeeters? Do they stop you from fishing or hunting?  Course I'm speakin' in the flesh here and not the spirit...


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Gnats? really? like skeeters? Do they stop you from fishing or hunting?  Course I'm speakin' in the flesh here and not the spirit...



Just when you think it is safe to go back in the water.......


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 21, 2012)

Speaking of Mark, they may have found a 1st century copy.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/earliest-gospel-of-mark-found/


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Speaking of Mark, they may have found a 1st century copy.
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/earliest-gospel-of-mark-found/




Here is a similar article with commentary underneath.
http://www.dbts.edu/blog/?p=1056


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

small piece of possible copy??
http://freethoughtnation.com/contri...k-fragment-discovered.html#.T0ExNR-fWWA.care2


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 24, 2012)

There's not much info on this discovery yet.  I first heard about it a couple of days ago on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.  Last night, Hugh had the NT professor on for an interview.  Here's the transcript if you're interested.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=2ae35594-18e1-4776-bd4a-ca8f77c4deb6


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> There's not much info on this discovery yet.  I first heard about it a couple of days ago on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.  Last night, Hugh had the NT professor on for an interview.  Here's the transcript if you're interested.
> 
> http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=2ae35594-18e1-4776-bd4a-ca8f77c4deb6



This is from another article I have read about it:

Jim Davila said it best:

“At this point all we have is an extraordinary assertion, presented with no evidence and on the authority of a “world-class specialist” who, very oddly, is not named. (Wouldn’t he want his name to be associated with any announcement of such an important find?) As always with such things, I remain skeptical until I see compelling evidence, but I would be delighted to be convinced.”


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> This is from another article I have read about it:
> 
> Jim Davila said it best:
> 
> “At this point all we have is an extraordinary assertion, presented with no evidence and on the authority of a “world-class specialist” who, very oddly, is not named. (Wouldn’t he want his name to be associated with any announcement of such an important find?) As always with such things, I remain skeptical until I see compelling evidence, but I would be delighted to be convinced.”



I only heard part of the conversation on the radio and haven't had a chance to go through the transcript yet, but Wallace was very "hush hush" about it.  Apparently, he's one of the very few who have even seen it.  He added that the paleography would take awhile, and it would probably be next year before the findings are made public.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I only heard part of the conversation on the radio and haven't had a chance to go through the transcript yet, but Wallace was very "hush hush" about it.  Apparently, he's one of the very few who have even seen it.  He added that the paleography would take awhile, and it would probably be next year before the findings are made public.



I'll PM you two links, one where Wallace actually responds to the guy and then it has the guys response back to Wallace. There is a small curse in the one reply or I would just post it here..


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'll PM you two links, one where Wallace actually responds to the guy and then it has the guys response back to Wallace. There is a small curse in the one reply or I would just post it here..


I like Wallace, it takes guts to point out that verses used to support the orthodox view don't say what some claim, and this from his own group. That takes guts


----------

