Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Holy smokes . I remember about the Q guy. What happened to him? He ran away ? The Q guy got owned by Mark.Yes

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
12-11-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Q says "I agree with scholars who emphasize Markan priority and much of Paul coming after some of the gospels."

By Markan priority, I assume he means that Mark's Gospel was the first of the four to be written. Good. As far as I know, that is the view of most NT scholars.

However, I'm not aware of any scholars who think that the Gospels predate Paul. All the scholars I know (many of them theists) seem to be in universal agreement that all of Paul's authentic writings were done in the 50s and 60s, and that all four gospels are later than that.

so I have to wonder, who are these scholars with whom Q agrees?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
12-11-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
@Grasshopper

Actually, the idea itself of «Gospels» before the fourth century, is anochronic. If the Gospels were written well before that time, most of the them in the late 1st century and early 2nd, they were not really referred has such neither were they completed and widely distributed in a uniform fashion. There use to be several versions of what we now call the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, John, etc. That's one of the reason why there is no single «original» Bible. Only several translation in Greek and Hebrew of texts, many of which were dictated and not written first hand, recomposed and translated from now lost sources and some outright forged. The Bible we have today is to a book what a hooker is to sex history. Its a intricate mess filled with dark and shady corners.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
13-11-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(10-11-2015 09:52 PM)Leo Wrote:  Holy smokes . I remember about the Q guy. What happened to him? He ran away ? The Q guy got owned by Mark.Yes

I disagree. Mark dishonestly argued using references. That is just the lowest of the low as far as I am concerned. I think that Q trounced him with such robust counter arguments like "context," "dude," and "don't say Jeebus." I don't know what debate you were looking at but I think that Mark got his ass handed to him. I mean how can you argue with such iron clad arguments like

(03-11-2015 01:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  "Why was Paul, if he was a conspirator designed to thwart the Jews, constantly opposed by Jews?"

I mean, the logic there is so irrefutable in a debate on whether Paul was a charlatan trying to subjugate the jews? I haven't heard such logical poetry since "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Well guys, I am convinced. There is an all powerful being watching over us, who watches what we think, and punishes where punishment is due. In the name of the Moms, the Stark, and the Holy Pablo.

Worship Slaves

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
13-11-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(12-11-2015 05:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  However, I'm not aware of any scholars who think that the Gospels predate Paul. All the scholars I know (many of them theists) seem to be in universal agreement that all of Paul's authentic writings were done in the 50s and 60s, and that all four gospels are later than that.

As far as I am aware, there aren't any either. The retards that claim this are apologists (Frank Turek and Norm Geisler to name two).

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
13-11-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(13-11-2015 09:51 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 05:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  However, I'm not aware of any scholars who think that the Gospels predate Paul. All the scholars I know (many of them theists) seem to be in universal agreement that all of Paul's authentic writings were done in the 50s and 60s, and that all four gospels are later than that.

As far as I am aware, there aren't any either. The retards that claim this are apologists (Frank Turek and Norm Geisler to name two).

That's the only pond Q swims in.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
13-11-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(12-11-2015 05:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Q says "I agree with scholars who emphasize Markan priority and much of Paul coming after some of the gospels."

By Markan priority, I assume he means that Mark's Gospel was the first of the four to be written. Good. As far as I know, that is the view of most NT scholars.

However, I'm not aware of any scholars who think that the Gospels predate Paul. All the scholars I know (many of them theists) seem to be in universal agreement that all of Paul's authentic writings were done in the 50s and 60s, and that all four gospels are later than that.

so I have to wonder, who are these scholars with whom Q agrees?

Exactly.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
14-11-2015, 05:46 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(13-11-2015 07:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  As I've contributed maybe 90% of the words and 99% of the facts in this debate so far, I look forward to learning something from you. I await your balanced and fact filled reply.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Thumbsup

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(16-11-2015 11:15 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Dr. Fulton,

You're clearly not an expert--or even interested--in the words of Paul and Jesus as in the NT; Perhaps this debate should end. I can provide commentaries that all atheists are angry people in denial. Are those commentaries truth? All you have done is cite commentaries of persons who side with your liberal views. Do you have any smoking gun evidence that Paul was a charlatan besides your anti-Christian biases?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Priceless.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
17-11-2015, 02:14 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Is this still going? I saw Q get his arse kicked ages ago.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: