# Markian Priority



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 1, 2012)

When Luke copied from Mark, he did not realize that he was missing a "block". See LK 9:18. The missing block is MK 6:47- MK 8:27. Notice before and after that they were the same order of events. Notice how he unknowingly connected the last sentence he had with the first sentence he had after the missing block, which made no sense, but since he was copying, he did not realize.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2012)

amen?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> amen?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 2, 2012)

Maybe you should post this in the christianity section. Seems like it would be a topic of interest for those who believe each gospel is an independent eye witness account.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe you should post this in the christianity section. Seems like it would be a topic of interest for those who believe each gospel is an independent eye witness account.


I try not to point out these things to just anyone. Some are not ready yet. Those who consider themselves appologist frequent this portion also. I consider that they are ready to deal with this sort of thing.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 2, 2012)

How you've educated yourself to the point that you have and remained a believer is a mystery to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> How you've educated yourself to the point that you have and remained a believer is a mystery to me.



Amen.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> How you've educated yourself to the point that you have and remained a believer is a mystery to me.


My take is that even though stories passed down tend to get distorted, among other things, It does not rule out that the original might be true. Trying to sort through what you believe and don't is a strange place to be.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> My take is that even though stories passed down tend to get distorted, among other things, It does not rule out that the original might be true. Trying to sort through what you believe and don't is a strange place to be.



It's less strange when you use feasible criteria.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> How you've educated yourself to the point that you have and remained a believer is a mystery to me.



Not everybody with an education reaches the same conclusions.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 2, 2012)

I once worked for a man who had been educated beyond his intelligence.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 2, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I once worked for a man who had been educated beyond his intelligence.


I work with some of those every day!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> How you've educated yourself to the point that you have and remained a believer is a mystery to me.


Growing up in the church, i was told not to question Bible verses, just accept them. Something about, believe with the faith of a child. I have the faith of a child just not the mind. Then I questioned why I should be a Baptist just because my parents were. After a lot of Bible reading and praying i've come to my own conclusions.People say this is wrong because i've ventured too far away from mainsteam and quit listening to Church elders. At some point you just believe what you believe. It's like being left handed, i'd rather be right handed to use tools properly and not being ridiculed for being left handed but at some point you just say the heck with other peoples comments.  I believe what I believe and that's a belief in God. Not believing in the Trinity is not something I chose lightly. I would not purposely choose to follow something I don't believe in.  
I've started some topics on the other forums that didn't go over too well because of my "too far out there" beliefs.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> My take is that even though stories passed down tend to get distorted, among other things, It does not rule out that the original might be true. Trying to sort through what you believe and don't is a strange place to be.



As Ehrman asks, if God performed the miracle of inspiring the scriptures why would he not perform the miracle of preserving them? I think once you admit the Bible is not the inerrant word of God you're on shaky ground. I can find truths in Aesop's Fables just like I can the Bible. What is supposed to set the Bible apart is that it is the word of God. If that isn't true. If it is the word of man, you're on a very slippery slope.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> As Ehrman asks, if God performed the miracle of inspiring the scriptures why would he not perform the miracle of preserving them?.



Good question, but it is based on the assumption that preservation was as important to him as it is to you.  Could be the message, as gr8bldr implies. 



atlashunter said:


> I think once you admit the Bible is not the inerrant word of God you're on shaky ground. I can find truths in Aesop's Fables just like I can the Bible. What is supposed to set the Bible apart is that it is the word of God. If that isn't true. If it is the word of man, you're on a very slippery slope.





Three people see a bird fall out of the sky.  Three people write a narrative of the event.  Three different narratives emerge (one saw a quail, another saw a brown thrasher, etc.).

Did the bird ever fall out of the sky?  Isn't that the point of the narrative?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Good question, but it is based on the assumption that preservation was as important to him as it is to you.  Could be the message, as gr8bldr implies.



Perhaps. Maybe there really is a deity out there that is so concerned with our eternal destinies that he had his son murdered on our behalf as payment to himself of a debt that we owe to him but at the same time not concerned enough to preserve the revealed message upon which our destinies depend. Perhaps the urgency of the message expressed in the message itself and by it's followers is part of the distortion and the original messenger could really care less. Or... perhaps it was just a load of bull from the start.




JB0704 said:


> Three people see a bird fall out of the sky.  Three people write a narrative of the event.  Three different narratives emerge (one saw a quail, another saw a brown thrasher, etc.).
> 
> Did the bird ever fall out of the sky?  Isn't that the point of the narrative?



Poor analogy. As the OP points out, one story is a verbatim copy of another. That doesn't point to independent eye witness accounts. If three people come tell me about the bird they saw fall out of the sky and their stories don't mesh I know that at least some of them have it wrong whether intentional or not. Maybe all of them do but it's not beyond the pale for a bird to fall out of the sky so if I'm feeling generous maybe they will get the benefit of the doubt on the overall gist of the story.

If they tell me a similarly incoherent story about the aliens that came and abducted them I'm going to be less inclined to believe the story. They shouldn't believed on testimony alone even if they could get their story straight. The fact that they can't get their story straight only sheds greater doubt, especially if they are claiming a perfect all powerful being as the ultimate source of their message.

It's one thing to suggest that there was a jewish rabbi two thousand years ago that had some followers and was crucified. Quite another to claim he was born of a virgin, was the son of a deity, walked on water, flew through the air like superman, etc...

Let's all repeat one more time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe there really is a deity out there that is so concerned with our eternal destinies that he had his son murdered on our behalf as payment to himself of a debt that we owe to him ...



As I said in another thread, not every Christian agrees with this.  In fact, some believe that this view is responsible for much of modern atheism.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps. Maybe there really is a deity out there that is so concerned with our eternal destinies that he had his son murdered on our behalf as payment to himself of a debt that we owe to him but at the same time not concerned enough to preserve the revealed message upon which our destinies depend. Perhaps the urgency of the message expressed in the message itself and by it's followers is part of the distortion and the original messenger could really care less. Or... perhaps it was just a load of bull from the start..



Perhaps, but all you have is your own biases in either direction.  To make the assertion that God isn't real because the Bible may be errant is simply your perspective on what a deity would or should do.  You are creating your own god, making rules he must exist by, and then declaring it non-sense.



atlashunter said:


> Poor analogy. As the OP points out, one story is a verbatim copy of another. That doesn't point to independent eye witness accounts. If three people come tell me about the bird they saw fall out of the sky and their stories don't mesh I know that at least some of them have it wrong whether intentional or not. Maybe all of them do but it's not beyond the pale for a bird to fall out of the sky so if I'm feeling generous maybe they will get the benefit of the doubt on the overall gist of the story..



The analogy wasn't addressing the OP.  It was addressing your claim that errancy would put the story on a "slippery slope."

Again, did the bird fall?  You don't have an absolute answer, only your best guess.  Blaming the subject (the bird) for the author's discrepancies is not logical.  The bird fell whether they got it right or not.



atlashunter said:


> If they tell me a similarly incoherent story about the aliens that came and abducted them I'm going to be less inclined to believe the story. They shouldn't believed on testimony alone even if they could get their story straight. The fact that they can't get their story straight only sheds greater doubt, especially if they are claiming a perfect all powerful being as the ultimate source of their message..



See, there is the difference between us.  Believing there is a God allows me to conceptualize how certain extraordinary claims might be possible.  If possible (because there is a God), then I am more inclined to look for the message of the story rather than spend all of my time questioning whether or not the story ever happened.  



atlashunter said:


> Let's all repeat one more time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.......



....for Atlashunter to believe them.  Did you invent that rule?

If an alien abducted you, would your word be good enough for your friends and loved ones to beleive you?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As I said in another thread, not every Christian agrees with this.  In fact, some believe that this view is responsible for much of modern atheism.



Could you explain further as to what other Christians believe? I think I missed the other thread.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As I said in another thread, not every Christian agrees with this.  In fact, some believe that this view is responsible for much of modern atheism.



I think it would be accurate to say most would agree with that. There are very few if any points which every Christian would agree with.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I think it would be accurate to say most would agree with that.



It's a question of geography.  The western church agrees with it.  The eastern church does not.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Could you explain further as to what other Christians believe? I think I missed the other thread.



I'll try to post something later.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps, but all you have is your own biases in either direction.  To make the assertion that God isn't real because the Bible may be errant is simply your perspective on what a deity would or should do.  You are creating your own god, making rules he must exist by, and then declaring it non-sense.



We are talking about likelihoods and best explanations here. This sort of rebuttal could be made in response to any reasonable rejection of outlandish claims that simply don't stand up to scrutiny.




JB0704 said:


> The analogy wasn't addressing the OP.  It was addressing your claim that errancy would put the story on a "slippery slope."



Didn't do much of a job of addressing that claim either. We are talking about matters that speak directly to the credibility of the Bible.




JB0704 said:


> Again, did the bird fall?  You don't have an absolute answer, only your best guess.  Blaming the subject (the bird) for the author's discrepancies is not logical.  The bird fell whether they got it right or not.



Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. You're right that I don't have an absolute answer nor do I claim to. (Just as a side note you seem to have a habit of refuting claims that I never made.) Again we are talking about likelihoods. Suppose the claim is that when the bird hit the ground it's body exploded over a wide area, then it reassembled itself and took flight again. Suppose half the witnesses make no mention of this. Suppose that there is further evidence in the testimony of those claiming this did happen that they collaborated with each other in their story. Does that prove with absolute certainty they are lying? I'm not saying it does. But I am saying based on a number of factors that the least likely of the possible explanations is that they are telling the truth.




JB0704 said:


> See, there is the difference between us.  Believing there are elves allows me to conceptualize how certain extraordinary claims might be possible.  If possible (because there are elves), then I am more inclined to look for the message of the story rather than spend all of my time questioning whether or not the story ever happened.



If you're more concerned with what you get out of a story than with whether or not it is true then by all means make all the unfounded assumptions you want to get you where you are trying to go. It works for that purpose. It just isn't a good way to go for those who are more concerned with whether the story is fiction.




JB0704 said:


> If an alien abducted you, would your word be good enough for your friends and loved ones to beleive you?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> As Ehrman asks, if God performed the miracle of inspiring the scriptures why would he not perform the miracle of preserving them? I think once you admit the Bible is not the inerrant word of God you're on shaky ground. I can find truths in Aesop's Fables just like I can the Bible. What is supposed to set the Bible apart is that it is the word of God. If that isn't true. If it is the word of man, you're on a very slippery slope.


I have to walk carefully, picking each step. I can see Bart's point. Makes sense to me. I just don't see it as most here do. Interesting side note, I think it was Bart who wrote somewhere about the fact that if you were gonna make something up, you would not have had him killed. Something along those lines.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 3, 2012)

I should clarify that most of what I post, such as the OP, is not my find. Scholars have long known stuff like this. It's just that most who frequent here gather around a different crowd of scholars.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Didn't do much of a job of addressing that claim either. We are talking about matters that speak directly to the credibility of the Bible..



I was talking about your "slippery slope" comment in reference to it being the word of man v word of God.  It could be the word of man about God (with inspiration, of course, then we would have to debate what the definition of inspiration is in this context).



atlashunter said:


> Suppose the claim is that when the bird hit the ground it's body exploded over a wide area, then it reassembled itself and took flight again. Suppose half the witnesses make no mention of this. .



Now you are changing the analogy.  The acceptance of fantastic details will vary according to ones opinion as to whether or not they are possible.  With God, yes.  Without God, no.  The point was that three witnesses discussed the falling of a bird to varying degrees, and a few details got skewed.  It does not change whether or not the bird fell.



atlashunter said:


> Suppose that there is further evidence in the testimony of those claiming this did happen that they collaborated with each other in their story. Does that prove with absolute certainty they are lying? I'm not saying it does. But I am saying based on a number of factors that the least likely of the possible explanations is that they are telling the truth.



Then I guess it is all in how we percieve collaboration, purpose, and intent of the storytelling.  I put a more faith in the evidence given than you will.  It's just the way it is.



atlashunter said:


> If you're more concerned with what you get out of a story than with whether or not it is true then by all means make all the unfounded assumptions you want to get you where you are trying to go. It works for that purpose. It just isn't a good way to go for those who are more concerned with whether the story is fiction.:



Then we have a different basis when we read the story, and will most likely never agree on the question as to whether or not errancy would affect the "message."



atlashunter said:


>



Exraordinary claims need extraordinatry evidence.  But, are there people who put "faith" in your word?  That is my point, people trust God, so they will put a level of "faith" in the Bible that a person who does not believe in God will.


----------



## Four (Apr 3, 2012)

Any argument that can just as easily support any other point than the one made is a non-argument.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

Four said:


> Any argument that can just as easily support any other point than the one made is a non-argument.



Doesn't that go both ways when considering unknowns?


----------



## Four (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Doesn't that go both ways when considering unknowns?



What do you mean? It goes all ways.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I was talking about your "slippery slope" comment in reference to it being the word of man v word of God.  It could be the word of man about God (with inspiration, of course, then we would have to debate what the definition of inspiration is in this context).



Does it ever get tiresome having to go to such effort to avoid what is staring you in the face? And I mean that as an honest and sincere question. Seems like you would eventually get to the point you get tired of trying to fit the round peg in the square hold.




JB0704 said:


> Now you are changing the analogy.  The acceptance of fantastic details will vary according to ones opinion as to whether or not they are possible.  With God, yes.  Without God, no.  The point was that three witnesses discussed the falling of a bird to varying degrees, and a few details got skewed.  It does not change whether or not the bird fell.



Improving the analogy by making it a better comparison to the testimony of the gospels. All of the gospels carry the assumption of a god so that is a non-issue. Only two of the four gospels make any mention of the virgin birth. This is the equivalent to giving a testimony that fails to mention the bird exploding and coming back together. Seems like an important part of the story that no eye witness would simply omit. I understand you would like to just look at the differences as nothing more than different perspectives by witnesses of the same event. The truth isn't that simple and anyone who has read as much on the subject as 1gr8bldr knows it.




JB0704 said:


> Then we have a different basis when we read the story, and will most likely never agree on the question as to whether or not errancy would affect the "message."



Seems to me that you are making assumptions to get to the desired conclusion to a far greater degree than you would do with any other religious text or myth.




JB0704 said:


> Exraordinary claims need extraordinatry evidence.  But, are there people who put "faith" in your word?



That really depends on the nature of the claims and the nature of my testimony. Of course no one wants to think their loved one is lying to them or has lost their mind. The natural desire is to believe. But credulity has its limits.




JB0704 said:


> That is my point, people trust God, so they will put a level of "faith" in the Bible that a person who does not believe in God will.



Why should any one have faith in a man made book that has so many credibility issues?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Does it ever get tiresome having to go to such effort to avoid what is staring you in the face? And I mean that as an honest and sincere question. Seems like you would eventually get to the point you get tired of trying to fit the round peg in the square hold.



Nah. I enjoy this stuff.  Obviously I do not share your opinion of my efforts.



atlashunter said:


> Improving the analogy by making it a better comparison to the testimony of the gospels. All of the gospels carry the assumption of a god so that is a non-issue. Only two of the four gospels make any mention of the virgin birth. This is the equivalent to giving a testimony that fails to mention the bird exploding and coming back together. Seems like an important part of the story that no eye witness would simply omit. I understand you would like to just look at the differences as nothing more than different perspectives by witnesses of the same event. The truth isn't that simple and anyone who has read as much on the subject as 1gr8bldr knows it.?



1gr8bldr and I share many similar positions.  But, within your statement you make an equivalency, and that is cool, but it is yours, and not mine.  I am not going to think like you and make the same equivalencies.  Nor do I think the whole thing comes crumbling down if there is an error. Quail then manna or mann then quail, it makes no difference in the big picture. Again, what is it trying to say?  That is what I am looking for.  



atlashunter said:


> Seems to me that you are making assumptions to get to the desired conclusion to a far greater degree than you would do with any other religious text or myth.



AH, do you think you would view this text, or any other, with the same skepticism if you believed there was a God?  Understanding that, it may not be so hard to understand why a believer would have an opposite view of the text.  We just approach it from different angles.



atlashunter said:


> That really depends on the nature of the claims and the nature of my testimony. Of course no one wants to think their loved one is lying to them or has lost their mind. The natural desire is to believe. But credulity has its limits.



Which is my point.  People put faith in what you say because they believe in you through whatever experiences they may have had with you.  I put my faith in God.  It is what it is.



atlashunter said:


> Why should any one have faith in a man made book that has so many credibility issues?



Because they believe in that which inspired it's creation.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

Four said:


> What do you mean? It goes all ways.



Neither of us have a smoking gun, and run in circles using the same arguments about unknowns.  I fill the gaps with God, and you fill them with nature, both claim logic is the basis for our position.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> 1gr8bldr and I share many similar positions.  But, within your statement you make an equivalency, and that is cool, but it is yours, and not mine.  I am not going to think like you and make the same equivalencies.  Nor do I think the whole thing comes crumbling down if there is an error. Quail then manna or mann then quail, it makes no difference in the big picture. Again, what is it trying to say?  That is what I am looking for.



And what about when different authors are trying to say different things that clearly are not compatible with each other? How does one reconcile that? Do you chalk it up to coming from a schizophrenic god? Or do you recognize that these are writings from human authors with different messages and one of them has to be wrong?

If the book isn't inerrant and cohesive as a whole then you are left picking the pepper out of the knat dung which has to make one wonder if that is really the best an omnipotent being could do? If it's not the best they could do then you're left wondering why they didn't do better or... if an omnipotent being had anything to do with it at all. These questions are relevant even to those who assume a god. Again it seems to me you have to dodge the most logical answer to avoid a conclusion that you don't like.




JB0704 said:


> AH, do you think you would view this text, or any other, with the same skepticism if you believed there was a God?  Understanding that, it may not be so hard to understand why a believer would have an opposite view of the text.  We just approach it from different angles.



Leaving aside whether or not it is rational to assume such a thing, for the reasons stated above, yes I do. 




JB0704 said:


> Which is my point.  People put faith in what you say because they believe in you through whatever experiences they may have had with you.  I put my faith in God.  It is what it is.



In your case, which comes first? Did you have to assume god to be able to believe the bible? Or did you have to believe the bible first to be able to believe in god? Which is the proper path to belief?




JB0704 said:


> Because they believe in that which inspired it's creation.



That which is _claimed_ to have inspired it's creation is said to be all powerful, all knowing, and infallible. Does the book itself square with having such a source? Are we to believe that a perfect being inspired this book and then walked away for it to be corrupted and lost over time? On what basis should any one believe that this book is of divine origin?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> And what about when different authors are trying to say different things that clearly are not compatible with each other? How does one reconcile that? Do you chalk it up to coming from a schizophrenic god? Or do you recognize that these are writings from human authors with different messages and one of them has to be wrong?



I recognize the human authorship. All one has to do is look in the letters later on and see the personal greetings and requests to understand there is a strong human element in the writing. We are getting into how we would define "inspired."  My take will vary from the typical believer, and I would rather not go there in this discussion.

As far as different authors / different details, let's go back to my bird example.  Did the bird fall?  That is my whole point, all authors of the text would agree on the act of crucifixtion. They all would agree that Jesus existed, and did and said some pretty cool stuff.  Thats the "meat and potatoes" I am looking for.



atlashunter said:


> If it's not the best they could do then you're left wondering why they didn't do better or... if an omnipotent being had anything to do with it at all. These questions are relevant even to those who assume a god. Again it seems to me you have to dodge the most logical answer to avoid a conclusion that you don't like.



First, you have to understand that the book's intent when it was authored.  It was written based on the assumption that God is real.  Which leads to the next point.......



atlashunter said:


> In your case, which comes first? Did you have to assume god to be able to believe the bible? Or did you have to believe the bible first to be able to believe in god? Which is the proper path to belief??



You have to believe God first.  Many people in different cultures and different times have believed in God without the Bible.  But that is the basis.  You can't believe in a resurection if you can't believe in God.




atlashunter said:


> Are we to believe that a perfect being inspired this book and then walked away for it to be corrupted and lost over time? On what basis should any one believe that this book is of divine origin?



Was the intent of the Bible to convince you there is a God, or to tell you about God?  I think the latter, and that is very important.

I don't think God told Paul to tell Timothy to bring him his coat in the letters, or that so and so said "hello." You can find human interaction throughout the scriptures.  You can see historical bias in the OT, and I see a good bit of "moral stories" in the OT.  None of that elliminiates the concept that the book is _about_ God.  Nor does it elliminate God as the inspiration.

In my previous analogy, which you said was very poor, the bird is the inspiration.


----------



## Four (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Neither of us have a smoking gun, and run in circles using the same arguments about unknowns.  I fill the gaps with God, and you fill them with nature, both claim logic is the basis for our position.



I'm not making positive claims about the smoking gun, I'm still investigating. I read / speculate about the current scientific hypothesis and the new evidence found.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> As far as different authors / different details, let's go back to my bird example.  Did the bird fall?  That is my whole point, all authors of the text would agree on the act of crucifixtion. They all would agree that Jesus existed, and did and said some pretty cool stuff.  Thats the "meat and potatoes" I am looking for.



Historical accuracy of the details is important both for theological reasons and for speaking to the credibility of the author.




JB0704 said:


> First, you have to understand that the book's intent when it was authored.  It was written based on the assumption that God is real.  Which leads to the next point.......



What intent is best served by contradictory accounts? Assuming God, did he intend the accounts to be contradictory? If so, why? If not, why are they? How can it be said to be his word if the words are not what he intended?




JB0704 said:


> You have to believe God first.  Many people in different cultures and different times have believed in God without the Bible.  But that is the basis.  You can't believe in a resurection if you can't believe in God.



Same holds true for Mohammed's flight on Al Buraq and meeting with Moses. Do you believe that story too? There are a great many more books than just the bible that become plausible once you assume God.

Ask quite a few other Christians why they believe in God and often they will respond because they believe the Bible is true. But bring the credibility of the Bible into question and they go at it from the other direction, first assuming God to lend credibility to biblical claims. If it really does work both ways then it amounts to nothing more than self confirming circular logic.


----------

