What was before the big bang?

Tristan Da Cunha wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I disagree. It’s a yes or no question over which you have no power and how would the existence or non-existence of a deity change how you live your life? We should all be trying to be good people either way.

The question more accurately should be "do I believe in God". And I disagree with your post. It's not a yes or no question. Belief in God can be on a continuum. Some are fervent believers and some might say they believe but don't pray or otherwise act as if the believe and others are agnostic and some just don't believe at all.

And how you answer that question could be very important. If there is a God to help and guide you and you never pray or seek a relationship with him that would be sad.

If there is no God and you spend a life praying to no one that is real, that would be sad too.

I agree with the previous poster. It is important.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

There’s the Gospel of Mark written anonymously about 30-40 years after Jesus’ death, which then (along with “Q”) served as the basis for much of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of John was written about another 30-40 years later by an author that had knowledge of the Matthew and Luke gospels.

Did you get this from an atheist website?

There's no evidence that the apostle Mark didn't write his own gospel. He was a contemporary of Jesus.

John was a contemporary and apostle of Jesus and 90% of the details on Jesus in his gospel are not in the others. He clearly didn't copy.

Would say any WW2 veteran who wrote his memoir in 1980s or later was a fraud and couldn't possibly have been in the war? The text being written after Jesus' death means nothing.

The Q theory is garbage.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Did you get this from an atheist website?

There's no evidence that the apostle Mark didn't write his own gospel. He was a contemporary of Jesus.

John was a contemporary and apostle of Jesus and 90% of the details on Jesus in his gospel are not in the others. He clearly didn't copy.

Would say any WW2 veteran who wrote his memoir in 1980s or later was a fraud and couldn't possibly have been in the war? The text being written after Jesus' death means nothing.

The Q theory is garbage.

Virtually no biblical scholar today believes that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus. John was written in modern day Turkey sometime between 90 and 110 CE. That, the fact that it is not directly based on Mark, Matthew and Luke and the fact that Christianity had changed in the additional decades are reasons why it is so distinct from the synoptic gospels. It’s why it’s the only of four where Jesus claims divinity.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Virtually no biblical scholar today believes that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus. John was written in modern day Turkey sometime between 90 and 110 CE. That, the fact that it is not directly based on Mark, Matthew and Luke and the fact that Christianity had changed in the additional decades are reasons why it is so distinct from the synoptic gospels. It’s why it’s the only of four where Jesus claims divinity.

They found a fragment of the Gospel of John in Turkey that was carbon dated to have been created between 94 and 138 CE. Assuming that this is the original document is silly.

We don't assume the writings of the Roman Empire only existed in the mind of some monk because the hard copies are from the middle ages.

No biblical scholar today has any idea when the gospels were written because the source documents are all lost.

Paul died in 67 AD. His letters are contemporary with the supposed writers of the gospels and his letters confirm the authenticity of much of what was written in them whether they were written before or after his letters.

Where the internal evidence is concerned, the clues given as to the Gospel’s real author provide little correlation with the New Testament traditions about John Mark. The author of our text shows unfamiliarity with the geography of Palestine (e.g. 5.1; 6.45; 7.31; 8.22; 10.1; 11.1), Jewish customs (7.2-4; 10.2; 14.1; 14.64) and even the Jewish leadership groups (e.g. 3.6; 6.17; 8.15; 12.13). The Gospel was written in Greek with Gentiles in mind (compare e.g. the Aramaic translations in 3.17; 5.41; 7.11; 7.3414.26; 15.22, 34) and offers
harsh criticism of Jews and Judaism, a subject I shall take up later. Peter is not significantly more prominent in Mark than he is in the other Gospels (for which Petrine authority is not claimed), and an
unflattering picture is frequently painted of him (e.g. 8.33; 9.5-6; 14.30-1, 66ff.). It is pure romantic fiction, moreover, to suppose that in 14.51-2 we have the hallmarks of eye-witness testimony and
that there John Mark is signing his name to his work. While the vivid details within the Gospel indicate the author’s closeness to the oral tradition, the nature and variety of the material to be found in Mark, as form critics have pointed out, testifies to the fact that the Gospel is a product of a long process of ‘community tradition’ and not of direct eye-witness testimony. In sum, it is the only direct
external evidence of the Papias tradition which supports the traditional view of authorship and this evidence is problematic. The internal evidence of the text, which is ultimately decisive, tilts
strongly against it. Indeed without Papias’ testimony the Gospel itself would hardly have suggested it. When we consider, however, that is was the religious value of the Gospel which led the early church to assert its link with Peter and not vice versa, then the matter of its actual authorship is not ultimately decisive for the question of its theology. What does matter is that this anonymous writer, whoever he was, created, to our knowledge, the first extensive and coherent narrative account of the teaching and activity of Jesus, an early
literary representation which was at the same time a religious interpretation of traditions about the founder of Christianity which were circulating in the first-century Mediterranean world. But how was it written and where in the Mediterranean world was it composed? A general consensus would now accept a date not much earlier than 65 CE and not much later than 75, that is, some time before or after the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70. A substantially
earlier date is usually dismissed since it takes insufficient account of the development of the tradition before Mark as well as the internal evidence (especially of chapter 13) which suggests that events in the sixties formed the backdrop for the final form of the text. Where opinions differ would be in the fixing of a more precise date within this general period. Some would argue for the mid-sixties, that is, in the aftermath of the Neronian persecution, and this would explain the evangelist’s interest in the subject of sufferings,
persecution and martyrdom (e.g. 1.14; 4.17; 6.17-29; 8.31-9.1; 9.11-13; 30-2; 10.29-30, 32-4, 38-9 45; 13.9, 11-13; 14.41). Others would opt for the second half of the sixties during the period of
unrest and apocalyptic fervour occasioned by both the Romano-Jewish
War and the civil war throughout the Empire (e.g. 13.6-8, 17-23, 24-31). Others still, taking the prediction of the destruction of the Temple as vaticinium ex eventu (13.1-2) or prophecy after the event, would hold that it was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem when eschatological expectation had perhaps begun to be tempered by the delay in Jesus’ second return or parousia (e.g. 13.10, 32-7). This would be my own view. Where the Gospel’s theology is concerned, the more precise datings are not hugely significant, except insofar as the earlier of these three datings might lead us perhaps to accord more significance to the theme of ‘suffering discipleship’ in Mark’s theology, and the latter datings to the importance of eschatology.

Where provenance is concerned, four hypotheses dominate the field, namely Rome, Galilee, Antioch and small-town, rural Syria. The first of these, Rome, is the traditional place of origin for Mark’s Gospel. It is supported by external evidence (chiefly the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria) but this again may simply be a deduction from 1 Peter 5.13 where Mark, Peter and Rome (or ‘Babylon’) are concerned. Certain internal clues have been adduced in its favour such as frequent Latinsism (e.g. 5.9 legion; 6.27 speculator or military executioner; 12.42 quadrans, a Roman coin), the indications of Gentile addressees or the evidence which links the Gospel with the Neronian persecution in 64, or the anti-Jewish sentiments prevailing shortly after 70 in consequence of the Romano-Jewish War. None of these is obviously decisive. The fact that Mark came to be used by Matthew and Luke within a relatively short time after its composition suggests to some that it emanated from an important church-centre like Rome but this consideration has to be balanced with the evidence of its relative neglect in subsequent church history.

The Theology of the Gospel of Mark
William Telford

Jeff Wigand wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

They found a fragment of the Gospel of John in Turkey that was carbon dated to have been created between 94 and 138 CE. Assuming that this is the original document is silly.

We don't assume the writings of the Roman Empire only existed in the mind of some monk because the hard copies are from the middle ages.

No biblical scholar today has any idea when the gospels were written because the source documents are all lost.

Paul died in 67 AD. His letters are contemporary with the supposed writers of the gospels and his letters confirm the authenticity of much of what was written in them whether they were written before or after his letters.

Where the internal evidence is concerned, the clues given as to the Gospel’s real author provide little correlation with the New Testament traditions about John Mark. The author of our text shows unfamiliarity with the geography of Palestine (e.g. 5.1; 6.45; 7.31; 8.22; 10.1; 11.1), Jewish customs (7.2-4; 10.2; 14.1; 14.64) and even the Jewish leadership groups (e.g. 3.6; 6.17; 8.15; 12.13). The Gospel was written in Greek with Gentiles in mind (compare e.g. the Aramaic translations in 3.17; 5.41; 7.11; 7.3414.26; 15.22, 34) and offers
harsh criticism of Jews and Judaism, a subject I shall take up later. Peter is not significantly more prominent in Mark than he is in the other Gospels (for which Petrine authority is not claimed), and an
unflattering picture is frequently painted of him (e.g. 8.33; 9.5-6; 14.30-1, 66ff.). It is pure romantic fiction, moreover, to suppose that in 14.51-2 we have the hallmarks of eye-witness testimony and
that there John Mark is signing his name to his work. While the vivid details within the Gospel indicate the author’s closeness to the oral tradition, the nature and variety of the material to be found in Mark, as form critics have pointed out, testifies to the fact that the Gospel is a product of a long process of ‘community tradition’ and not of direct eye-witness testimony. In sum, it is the only direct
external evidence of the Papias tradition which supports the traditional view of authorship and this evidence is problematic. The internal evidence of the text, which is ultimately decisive, tilts
strongly against it. Indeed without Papias’ testimony the Gospel itself would hardly have suggested it. When we consider, however, that is was the religious value of the Gospel which led the early church to assert its link with Peter and not vice versa, then the matter of its actual authorship is not ultimately decisive for the question of its theology. What does matter is that this anonymous writer, whoever he was, created, to our knowledge, the first extensive and coherent narrative account of the teaching and activity of Jesus, an early
literary representation which was at the same time a religious interpretation of traditions about the founder of Christianity which were circulating in the first-century Mediterranean world. But how was it written and where in the Mediterranean world was it composed? A general consensus would now accept a date not much earlier than 65 CE and not much later than 75, that is, some time before or after the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70. A substantially
earlier date is usually dismissed since it takes insufficient account of the development of the tradition before Mark as well as the internal evidence (especially of chapter 13) which suggests that events in the sixties formed the backdrop for the final form of the text. Where opinions differ would be in the fixing of a more precise date within this general period. Some would argue for the mid-sixties, that is, in the aftermath of the Neronian persecution, and this would explain the evangelist’s interest in the subject of sufferings,
persecution and martyrdom (e.g. 1.14; 4.17; 6.17-29; 8.31-9.1; 9.11-13; 30-2; 10.29-30, 32-4, 38-9 45; 13.9, 11-13; 14.41). Others would opt for the second half of the sixties during the period of
unrest and apocalyptic fervour occasioned by both the Romano-Jewish
War and the civil war throughout the Empire (e.g. 13.6-8, 17-23, 24-31). Others still, taking the prediction of the destruction of the Temple as vaticinium ex eventu (13.1-2) or prophecy after the event, would hold that it was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem when eschatological expectation had perhaps begun to be tempered by the delay in Jesus’ second return or parousia (e.g. 13.10, 32-7). This would be my own view. Where the Gospel’s theology is concerned, the more precise datings are not hugely significant, except insofar as the earlier of these three datings might lead us perhaps to accord more significance to the theme of ‘suffering discipleship’ in Mark’s theology, and the latter datings to the importance of eschatology.

Where provenance is concerned, four hypotheses dominate the field, namely Rome, Galilee, Antioch and small-town, rural Syria. The first of these, Rome, is the traditional place of origin for Mark’s Gospel. It is supported by external evidence (chiefly the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria) but this again may simply be a deduction from 1 Peter 5.13 where Mark, Peter and Rome (or ‘Babylon’) are concerned. Certain internal clues have been adduced in its favour such as frequent Latinsism (e.g. 5.9 legion; 6.27 speculator or military executioner; 12.42 quadrans, a Roman coin), the indications of Gentile addressees or the evidence which links the Gospel with the Neronian persecution in 64, or the anti-Jewish sentiments prevailing shortly after 70 in consequence of the Romano-Jewish War. None of these is obviously decisive. The fact that Mark came to be used by Matthew and Luke within a relatively short time after its composition suggests to some that it emanated from an important church-centre like Rome but this consideration has to be balanced with the evidence of its relative neglect in subsequent church history.

The Theology of the Gospel of Mark
William Telford

As just one example, Mark 7:31 says that Jesus left Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, despite the fact that Sidon is in the exact opposite direction of the Sea of Galilee when departing from Tyre.

I can do this with the other gospels if you’re interested.