Luke was wise to omit disciple's "callings"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

CREA

>     So the inerrantists have a convenient "out" here, and can claim that 

>it

>is an error to cite Mark in matters of chronology.



Yes, this is true, however Matthew 4:12-19, which give the same info, place 
Andrew's calling as being just when Mark had it; after John was alread in 
prison.

Of course, the inerrantists who are always trying to play down the fact that 
Matthew is 90% Marcan material, can now very conveniently reverse thrusters 
and say "well, matthew copying Mark in this instance means that he copied 
also, Marks FAILURE to put things in order."

However, I think there is enough grammatical evidence within Matthew and 
Mark to support my belief that these things were chronologically placed, at 
least in this instance.  Inerrantist who will cite this lack of chronology 
must deal with the fact that the only way they ever discovered this was 
because they started listening to skeptics who dig into these things, 
certainly not because any such thing was brought to their attention at 
Sunday school.

Luke is the only author that says he is writing an orderly account, yet 
there is no "call" of any disciple in his book!

Gee, if i had to deal with that fouled up mess of proto-markan, q-thomas 
sayings sources, i wouldn't have wished to elaborate on timing of those 
embellished callings either!

skeptic





_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

• Previous message: Non-theistic christians?
• Next message: Luke was wise to omit disciple's "callings"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]