posted on June 23, 2001 01:48:31 AM new
"History is about economics and is written about three things: Religious leaders, Military leaders, and Political leaders; as these are the ones who had the money to pay the scribes to write their history for them. So, one gets a good idea about religion and its contents."-borillar
Really? I didn't realize Jesus was such a wealthy man.
posted on June 23, 2001 11:07:54 AM new"Really? I didn't realize Jesus was such a wealthy man."
FYI jlpiece, the first four books of the New Testament are called the Synoptic Gospels. Syn, meaning "the same" and Optic "the eye"; therefore, you get the first four books that are all virually the same.
According to the history of the synoptic gospels and their writting is that the first one, the Book of Matthew was written some 50 to 55 years after Christ's death on the cross. Matthew was a Roman scribe to Peter, who related the story. Mark, Luke, and John are much younger as they were written based upon the Book of Mattew, the last book being written some 250 years after Christ's death on the cross.
You can see how silly your statement is now, can't you?
posted on June 23, 2001 11:50:31 AM new"According to the history of the synoptic gospels and their writting is that the first one, the Book of Matthew was written some 50 to 55 years after Christ's death on the cross. Matthew was a Roman scribe to Peter, who related the story. Mark, Luke, and John are much younger as they were written based upon the Book of Mattew, the last book being written some 250 years after Christ's death on the cross."
Just out of curiosity(sp?), where did this information come from, Borillar?
posted on June 23, 2001 12:19:06 PM new"where did this information come from, Borillar?"
Go down to your city's main library. Look under SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. If you live in an average sized city, there ought to be a dozen or so research books on the topic. Here in Portland, oregon sized 100,000 population, there is practically a whole row of book by various scholars throughout the ages that have researched the matter quite thoroughly.
You may try typing it into a search engine on the Internet, although I have no idea what you may find.
I do want you to know that my remarks came from more than one source: in fact, many sources. The history of the writting of the Bible is very enlightening.
posted on June 23, 2001 01:51:42 PM new
Borillar,
"The history of the writting of the Bible is very enlightening." Indeed!!
My town isn't quite as large as Portland. I've got several books that I have found "enlightening". Introducing the New Testament by Joe Blair, ISBN 0-8054-2123-8 and Holman's Book of Biblical Charts, Maps and Reconstructions, ISBN 1-55819-359-6.
I'm sure that different books say different things, but I was under the impression that Matthew was a Jewish tax collector and that the book of Mark was the first synoptic gospel written.
Certainly, if I am mistaken, then this WON'T be the first time. And just as certainly, it WON'T be the last.
posted on June 23, 2001 02:01:30 PM new
I hate to make anybody look foolish, but facts are facts, and it is my duty to point them out.
Borillar, The book of John is NOT one of the synoptic gospels. It is very different from the other three, and that is why when someone refers to the synoptic gospels, they are referring to the first THREE books of the Old Testament, being Matthew, Mark and Luke. You do realize now how silly your above statements sound now, don't you?
posted on June 23, 2001 02:40:19 PM new
There is room for a lot of opinions here.
I think Matthew must have been finished by 41 CE and Mark not until around 60 to 65. However the events Matthew covers are about the same time frame as Luke a span of about 30 years but Mark and John, except for a small prologue by John, both discuss a narrow space of time around 29 to 33 CE. Each has a unique view due to their own profession and personality as to what is important.
posted on June 23, 2001 03:26:44 PM new
There is no room for opinion here. The synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark and Luke. Only here in the RT is John one of the synoptic gospels. Minimal research will show this to be the case. Here, I'll even do it for you.
posted on June 23, 2001 05:54:45 PM new"Certainly, if I am mistaken, then this WON'T be the first time. And just as certainly, it WON'T be the last."
LOL! I am sure that it must have been Mark as you say, because Mark in roman is Markus, a common name for them. I do recall that the first book is said to have been written about 50 to 55 years after Christ was thought to have died on the cross, not later when he died a supposedly more natural death (supposedly, because who would want to be crucified twice?)
Then, the last book would be about 250 years, there being some proof of that. Of course, not all scholars find every historical fact and new facts probably have emerged since I investigated this back in the late 1970's. That is why one reads as many scholarly accounts as possible to see where the truth really lies. In any event the comment "Really? I didn't realize Jesus was such a wealthy man." is still silly because Jesus Christ Himself did not pay to have His own history written and actually had nothing at all to do with the writing of any of the histories.
posted on June 23, 2001 06:16:30 PM new"History is about economics and is written about three things: Religious leaders, Military leaders, and Political leaders; as these are the ones who had the money to pay the scribes to write their history for them. So, one gets a good idea about religion and its contents."-borillar
Again I qoute you, to show that YOU are the one that insists that the reason these people are written about is because they had the money to pay the scribes - your words. Jesus was a religious leader was he not? The most influential ever, probably. I simply pointed out that Jesus didn't pay anybody to write about his account. So you are wrong. Just like when you insisted that there are 4 synoptic gospels.
posted on June 23, 2001 06:49:14 PM new
I meant there is room for opinion about the timing. Whether you want to call the three synoptic is fine with me - call them anything you want. I can see they are a different format and cover different material than John so it makes sense to assign them a common term. It is an expression like trinity or Old Testament and New Testment that is a theologians usage - a definition of what he has found and how he catagorized it and not a term actually found in the scriptures themselves so I have no big problem or attachment to it at all as long as we understand what it means with each other.
posted on June 23, 2001 08:18:18 PM new
Borillar,
"the first four books of the New Testament are called the Synoptic Gospels. Syn, meaning "the same" and Optic "the eye"; therefore, you get the first four books that are all virually the same."
I hate to nit-pick and all, Bor, but the word synoptic is from the Greek word synopsis which means "seeing together" or "viewing together". Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the Synoptic Gospels because they give the life and teachings of Jesus in a similar presentation. John gives witness from another viewpoint.
But hey, you can call all four of the Gospels "synoptic" if you like. I'm o.k. You're o.k. We're o.k.
Mark, according to my text, was written in Rome. Mark was a Jewish Christian who interpreted for and was Peter's scribe.
Matthew was a Jewish tax collector that EVERYONE, except Jesus, hated. He quit his tax collecting job when Jesus called him to be a disciple.
Luke was a doctor that "hung out" with Paul. The writings of Luke (Luke and Acts) compose the largest segment of the New Testament by any one writer.
since I investigated this back in the late 1970's.
Dude- maybe it's time to visit that library again. LOL.
[ edited by tinkerismyname on Jun 23, 2001 08:42 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2001 08:58:51 PM new
Even the simplest research can be too much at times when presented with a disagreeable result.
"The four "Gospels" (according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not "biographies" of Jesus in the modern sense. Indeed in many ways they constitute a unique literary genre".
posted on June 24, 2001 12:15:19 AM newtinkerismyname, I admitted my error earlier. is there someting that I missed?
"History is about economics and is written about three things: Religious leaders, Military leaders, and Political leaders; as these are the ones who had the money to pay the scribes to write their history for them."
jlpiece, this is the standard definition of how and what history is written about and for. If you really feel the need to argue with this definition, I suggest that you enter History 101 at your local college or university and argue the fine points with the professors there and then write a thesis about why it ain't so. Sheese!
posted on June 24, 2001 12:29:24 AM new
Pretty hard for a dead guy to pay for the writing of his history......
Even I (non-scholar that I am) realized that Religious leader paying the scribes was not in any way referring to Jesus as being the payer. Watch out where you fling your neeners---they have a way of winging their way back and smacking you in the butt.
posted on June 24, 2001 03:51:19 AM new
"this is the standard definition"
Sorry but "because my professors told me so" doesn't carry anymore weight with me than because my minister or my Mommy told me so.
My wife and I have sat at dinner many times with professors at Dr. Russi's home who is the President of Oakland University here where she works, and we deal with them every day, and when you get to know them they have the same mix of some that are pleasant reasonable people and a number who are full of crap and busy hiding the fact as any group of people you would meet outside the university.
posted on June 25, 2001 12:10:13 AM new
Well, I hear a lot of nitpicking at the definition I used in this thread. But no one has been able to come up with any other. I think that it boilks down to posters just wanting to argue about something.
posted on June 25, 2001 05:10:58 AM new
Indeed ANYTHING you might say is pounced on like a pack of wolves on a lame moose whether it is of importance to the overall discusion or a simple typo.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
