Search found 577 matches

by Stuart
Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:27 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
Replies: 33
Views: 8578

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

You need to explain why these positions are correct, Which positions? Why would I take up a challenge to explain why various competing positions are all correct? This team is really, really dense. You are just as bad as the old IIDB team. Worse, because you lack some of their smarts and logic. Btw,...
by Stuart
Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:28 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
Replies: 33
Views: 8578

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

No point proven. I used "traditionalist" as a nice way to say apologist. It's just a list. Which is not what I asked for, rather your "essay". You need to explain why these positions are correct, why the signatures are to be believed, why they are more probable than being added by a collector or edi...
by Stuart
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:25 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
Replies: 297
Views: 141220

Re: walking back the claim that the Mark ending was dependent on Acts

I only claimed the LE used Luke and maybe Acts. "maybe" Acts. Ok, you walked it back. No, I think Acts was referenced by the LE, in the mention of 11, although it's not necessary, as it's contained in Matthew also as part of the harmony. Matthew's is probably later addition as well. But my main sus...
by Stuart
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:45 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
Replies: 297
Views: 141220

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

If you actually have something substantive in Acts, that would be another story. You are welcome to give it a try. Nothing offered. You earlier claimed that Mark utilizes Acts. Looks like a phantom claim. Incorrect presentation of what I said. I only claimed the LE used Luke and maybe Acts. The LE ...
by Stuart
Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:13 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
Replies: 33
Views: 8578

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:40 pm
You want a whole essay simply because you are ignorant on the topic and make bogus claims?
Yes, when you make a claim you are responsible to back it up.
by Stuart
Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:12 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels
Replies: 33
Views: 8578

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

... (was a duplicate post, please delete)
by Stuart
Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:11 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Two Squalls: Mark and John
Replies: 16
Views: 4027

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

Ben,

I think you have a combination going on. You have the two realms theme, and the interpretation of the Psalms as the basis for that metaphor. These are not exclusive sources, rather complimentary.
by Stuart
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:07 am
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
Replies: 297
Views: 141220

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

2) the LE, unlike the rest of Mark, is dependent upon elements, including very late layers of Luke and also Acts for it's story line. We just had a thread showing how "the rest of Mark" was in fact dependent on elements of Luke. So you are actually arguing in favor of the traditional ending here. I...
by Stuart
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:01 am
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Two Squalls: Mark and John
Replies: 16
Views: 4027

Re: Two Squalls: Mark and John

This can also apply to Matthew as well as Mark (ignoring the 14:28-31, an obvious interpolation) as source. Detering says the boats are not so important, rather the crossing to the other shore. This is common in mythology of many ancient societies, of crossing from the physical world to the spiritua...
by Stuart
Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:52 pm
Forum: Christian Texts and History
Topic: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original
Replies: 297
Views: 141220

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Steven, While I do not subscribe to Markan priority to a large extent (long explanation), I do not accept the LE as original. So arguing that the LE is dependent upon other gospel, especially Luke, is not a valid argument against Markan priority. My argument against the LE is two-fold 1) it seeks to...