Post
by _JC » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:07 am
You said: Were you thinking I was being entertained?
Perhaps not. I may have misjudged you. I also think you've midjudged some of us, as I'll explain below.
The real problem is when everyone agrees and no on e disagrees. That is when stagnation with groupthink occurs.
This is true. However, the vast majority of liberal scholars are in your camp. You make the mistake of only applying "majority thinking" to religion. It happens in all circles, my friend, and is every bit as oppressive. You may have visited the wrong forum to make this point since many of us here would be considered "black sheep" amongst the fold. But I adhere to what Paul called Christian liberty. For example, I feel Steve Gregg is one of the most knowlegeable bible teachers alive today, yet I still question everything he says. It just turns out that he's usually correct when my research is concluded.
I won't address the geography of Mark because others on this board are more knowledgeable on the subject and I don't want to speak as if I were an authority. I do, however, understand the reasons for your skepticism. But I think there are other reasonable conclusions, other than the one you've drawn. You may have considered these other conlcusions and remain unconvinced. I won't beat you up about that.
You said: Who ever said Mark's gospel was circulated in Palestine?
Here is what Eusebius said about Mark: And the presbyter (John) would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.
Maybe your issue here, Jackal, is what Christians often refer to as inerrancy of scripture. Since the new testament itself never makes such a claim, I tend to treat these documents as any other historic douments. Mark was written by someone who sat under the teaching of Peter by the earliest traditions. If he did, in fact, mess up on his geography, does that mean he must've also copied the resurrection accounts from Matthew? If Eusebius was right, then Mark got an oral tradition from Peter (an eyewitness) and that's what he wrote. In such a case, Mark could very likely confuse a couple of points, but whether or not Jesus rose from the dead would be hard to confuse. This is "all or nothing" type of thinking, but it's not necessary. You are free to disagree but in my opinion the only things that need to be "inspired" are the teachings of Christ and the truthfulness of the resurrection. If you threw out everything else taught in the new testament (which you shouldn't) then you'd still be left with the gospel message. You seem to believe that if one of the writers erred on anything, then the entire document is compromised. Do you treat other historical documents that way? Again, I'm not agreeing that the writers erred, I'm simply assuming your position for the sake of argument.
You said: On one hand, you wrongly assume I am an atheist. There is more to the world than a polarized dichotomy of christian beleivers and atheists.
It's not like we haven't tried to find out what you believe. This is a very odd statement given the flow of this discussion. Earlier you refused to lay out what you believe and then get sassy with someone for assuming you to be an atheist. Also, to be fair, we Christians are not often challenged by Hindus or Buddhists, and I'd probably wager that you're not a Muslim. Either you are a Deist (my guess) or subscribe to a belief that we are simply unfamiliar with. You can clear this up at any time as to avoid any assumptions.
You said: On the other hand, you're apparently saying that this really isn't a discussion board on "Christian Evidences/Challenges", but rather just a big group hug with believers and those who are interested in becoming believers who want to convince themselves there really aren't any challenges to christianity.
Hey, what's wrong with a group hug? You know, if we had ventured over to a non-Christian board and started debating these issues, we'd be called prostyletizers. When you come to a Christian forum of your own volition I assume you to be prostyletizing as well. Maybe you aren't trying to persude us to your view (since you haven't given it) as much as trying to dissaude us from ours. I do, however, seriously doubt that you are here to "examine the evidence and find truth." I apologize if that's not a correct assumption, but you are only allowing us to make assumptions thus far. Again, feel free to clear this up at any time.
Last edited by
Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: