- Dude, I hate to sound like Antonio here, but where have you been? You write:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No matter how much you quote Strong's, no matter how much you complain
>(1) Comment on "many":
>If the "many" in Luke's prologue does not refer to Matthew-Mark-John, then
>the only alternate reading would be that the "many" refers to certain
>"lost apostles," who personally delivered to Luke's fellowship a written
>declaration; which after the writing of Luke's gospel account simply
>vanished, becoming the celebrated "lost gospel" of the bible! Could it be
>that Luke's fellowship failed to copy and distribute holy scripture once
>delivered unto them by the apostles because they were too busy copying and
>distributing Luke's gospel account? Or could it be that this "lost
>gospel" was supplanted by the gospel accounts of Matthew-Mark-John, who
>had neither place nor ministry in Luke's fellowship? Hardly. The
>assertion that the "many" in Luke's prologue does not refer to
>Matthew-Mark-John leads to the understanding that those three gospel
>accounts were not written by apostolic eyewitnesses and composers of the
>gospel: to wit, that all four gospel accounts evolved into existence !
>independent of each other from 65 A.D.-200 A.D., (a process which a
>secular humanist might call "scriptural evolution;") that because the four
>gospel accounts evolved "here a little, there a little" they are not
>lawful depositions, having a perfect historicity, subject to any natural
>consideration of time-distance-movement; that the four gospel accounts are
>not in synoptic agreement and the problem is insoluble; and therefore, the
>four gospel accounts do not interlock in perfect synoptic agreement to set
>forth in order a declaration. In conclusion, to assert that the "many"
>referred to in Luke's prologue are not apostolic eyewitnesses of the life
>and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who composed the gospel accounts of
>Matthew-Mark-John, is to fundamentally assert that the three gospel
>accounts are not a true historical record but rather testify to a
>mythological faith that evolved over time.
about the editors and translators of the NIV, you have to deal with the
problem that most of Mark is contained in Matthew, that a lot of Mark is
contained in Luke, and that Matthew and Luke have a bunch in common that is
not in Mark. Whether you reject the Two Source Hypothesis or the Farrer
Hypothesis, the Griebsbach Hypothesis, it is pretty clear that the gospels
DID evolve. Also, put down your Strong;s and have a look at _The Cross
that Spoke_ by JD Crossan. His analysis of the Gospel of Peter will really
twist your mind.
Antonio? I take back the mean things I said about you earlier. Could you
give William a little of the "spanish temperment?"
big brother is watching. learn to become invisible