Matthew 26: 28

[China Cat Sunflower]

Mark is most generally thought to have been written sometime in the 70's CE. It wasn't until around 130 CE that Papius, Bishop of Hieropolis, named Mark the author of the Gospel.

Chris

[Muslimwoman]

So he was unlikely to be an eyewitness and if he was 'named' then we don't even know he was the author?

So when were the other gospels written?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Matthew was probably written in the late 80's CE, Luke and Acts of the Apostles around 120, and John somewhere in the 90's. Nobody knows who actually initiated the writing of these Gospels. I say "initiated" because even the oldest manuscripts we have are not original drafts so it isn't even accurate to speak of the "author" of this or that Gospel. What we have are composite works of unknown authorship which have been ascribed to characters from the narrative.

Chris

Oh, I should say that all of that is arguable.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Oh, I should say that all of that is arguable.

I would argue every bit of it

I don't know where you got that information, but I've read experts on the New Testament giving earlier dates than those.

[Muslimwoman]

Well I don't want to start a fight so I shall go off and do some studying but thanks for the dates Chris, it gives me something to check against.

Sally

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm a lover, not a fighter! Besides, there are many theories and points of view concerning the who, what, where, when and how come of it all. I'm just giving you the consensus of a swath of biblical scholars that I consider pretty much unbiased and mainstream. Of course every scholar has at least the axe of his ego to grind. I suppose exegetes are the same but for different reasons.

It would be nice from a more literalist perspective if the Gospels were written earlier, but I think it unlikely. Then again, I'm not approaching it from a position of faith, but rather looking at it like any other ancient object of interest. There is such an incredible amount of information available about the Bible and Christianity. Check out your local bookstore. My Barnes and Noble has a large U shaped section of nothing but Christian oriented books big enough to put three really comfortable reading chairs and a small table in. There are as many books about Christianity as the whole history section and then some. There's every kind of Bible available. There are exhaustive concordances, racks of weighty tomes of commentary, and Bible atlases of the ancient world. There's Christian fiction like the Left Behind series and young adult novels. There's a huge Christian inspiration genre of books of prayers, poems, and nice thoughts on how to live a fulfilling Christian life.

And there's criticism. There's atheist criticism. There are guys like Bishop Spong who are uber-liberal Christian scholars. There are Gnostic scriptures and apocryphal gospels.

Out of all the books available on every conceivable facet of Christianity and the Bible there are a tiny handful which address the essential questions one should ask about the origins of the texts in the Christian Cannon in a faith neutral, scholarly fashion. Then you have to check for chip-on-shoulder atheists and everyone else with a need for a particular kind of pronouncement.

Chris

[wil]

Originally Posted by Pico

I would argue every bit of it

I don't know where you got that information, but I've read experts on the New Testament giving earlier dates than those.

I would say Chris's info is in the realm of most of the 'experts', yes we have some folks who claim otherwise, swear each name represents the author, denies the existence of Q, and each is an eye witness, those same deny the existence of the early authors of the old testament as well. Pick up any rag from the grocery store line, experts are fairly easy to find!

[farhan]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Salaam

Do you have a link to a Christian source that says what was revised, added or deleted? I would be very interested to read it.

Not exactly a link, but try Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. He is an agonist (now). If I remember correctly, he proves that Everything in mathew after the closure of the tomb is a later interpolation, so are the first verses of John (Logos/theos) & Jesus & the prostitute incident, that is usually used to to prove that he wanted abrogation of Mosaic law. Also he says many words in very crucial places have been modified , either delibrately, or just because the scribe was getting sleepy.

[bob x]

Early manuscripts of Mark's Gospel end with an empty tomb, the message that Jesus has risen and he will meet all of you in Galilee as he promised, and trembling and afraid women.

No, that bit about how Jesus had risen and would go to Galilee is not in the early texts.

It wasn't until around 130 CE that Papius, Bishop of Hieropolis, named Mark the author of the Gospel.

I would date the Papias extract to around 100. At the time when he was writing, no gospel of "John" or "Luke" was yet in circulation, and what he knew as the gospel of "Matthew" was still only a collection of sayings, in "Hebrew" (by which he probably means Aramaic slightly larded with Hebrew words), with some Greek translations available but none yet standardized: that is, what scholars now call the "Q" source, not the assembled "Greek Matthew" found in the canon (for which I would put the probable date in the 110's).

I don't know where you got that information, but I've read experts on the New Testament giving earlier dates than those.

Most experts on the New Testament unfortunately are Christians (since non-Christians just don't have as much interest in the texts) who are often unable to put their religious presuppositions aside, and push the earliest possible dates they can find any excuse for.

[Thomas]

Hi Sally —

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So he was unlikely to be an eyewitness and if he was 'named' then we don't even know he was the author?

The simple fact is that we have no incontrovertible evidence with regard to the authorship of the Gospels — we have the internal evidence of the texts themselves, and we have tradition, but once you assume that neither are necessarily true, then you have nothing else on which to make a claim, other than you're own pet opinion.

So here is the traditional view:
Matthew was a saying document (now lost); a collection of sayings, stories, events, etc., belonging to the Judean Christian community. Its authority as issuing from one of the twelve has never been doubted, but there are clear signs of the document we now possess being structured on a chronology according to Mark, and organised by a highly skilled author in the Hebraic literary and Rabinnic tradition. It follows a precise structure ('ring composition') which places the Parables of the Kingdom as central to the whole work ... I could go on at great length about this ... but we accept that the 'author' or 'redactor' took the Matthean tradition and organised his document accordingly.

Mark's gospel is regarded as the testimony of St Peter. Mark might be the Mark who travelled to Rome with St Paul and remained there, or the author might not have been a Mark at all — the name was added later, but then one could argue that the document was always known as Mark's.

Luke was a disciple of Paul, who collected material from a broad range of sources, including Matthew and Mark, to compose his account.

John is the only gospel that claims to be an eye-witness account. Scholars claim it is not, but have no evidence other than their own opinion that such is the case. Scholars also claimed that John was an Hellenic gospel, and since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this argument has been shown to be erroneous.

Possible dates for the Gospels:
Mark — 45-60AD
Matthew — 80-90AD
Luke — 80-85AD
John — 90-100AD

The point is the Church is not founded on the Gospels, the Gospels are the product of the Church — they tell what the Early Church was teaching and preaching, in the same way that St Paul in his letters refers to the teachings that both he and his audience are in receipt of ... so although he claims his own authority as an apostle, he does not contradict the Church on any point of doctrine.

If you want to get really confused, look up 'The Synoptic Problem' on wikipedia, but have a pencil and paper ready.

As has noted, it unquestionably suits us to place the gospels as early as possible ... as it suits the critics to place them as late as possible ... but that does not mean we ignore evidence, as has been suggested ... rather I would claim that non-Christian scholars rarely have the depth of knowledge that the Christian (notably Protestant) scholars have.

The 'Q' source, for example, a hypothetical document that no longer exists, and about which we have no evidence whatsoever, exists in the minds of scholars on far less evidence than any of the other four, and yet it has become a given in some circles ... there is an obvious contradiction in a hypothesis that refutes the evidence that exists, and proposes another solution based on no evidence at all.

Thomas

[dailogue is the best]

hi Manji2012,
actually, i dont have a deep idea about what u said,but since you asked about the Islamic perspective, i would like to share it with you:
the idea of salvation is rooted, i think,in the idea of the Original Sin.Adam is considered as the father of sin bc of his disobedience of God s order when He asked him and Eve not to eat from the tree. As a punishment to them,we find in the Old Testament the following:{In pain and suffering, you will give birth, you and your daughters till the end of time}...Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher of religion rejected such statements in the Bible which contradicts reason and declares that God doesnt repent.he says:{God forgives the sins of those who repent. No one is free from sin,so without this belief all would despair of salvation, and there would be no reason in believing in the mercy of God}.....
concerning the story of Adam in the Quran ,we find the following:{We said:"O Adam, dwell thou ang thy wife in the Garden, and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will, but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression"36.then did Satan make them slip from (the garden) and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said:"Get ye down, all(ye people), with enmity between yourselves.On the earth will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood for a time".37then learnt Adam from his Lord Words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him, for He is Oft Returning,Most Merciful.38. We said:"Get ye down all from here, and if as is sure, there comes to you guidance from Me, whosoever follows My guidance , on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.(2:35/38).
in Islam,salvation is personal as God says in the Quran:"On no soul doth God place a burden greater than it can bear.It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns{...}(2:286)"
concerning Jesus crucification and the idea of salvation, in the Quran, we find a rejection of the idea of crucication:"..but they killed him not,nor crucified him,but so it was made appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed him not(4:157)....
(for more knowledge about Islamic point of view about this you can read Ahmed Deedat researches about this subject..)
Ahmed Deedat says:" As against the teaching of the Master(Jesus) that salvation only comes through keeping of the commandments (Matthew 19:16/17), Paul nails the law and the commandments to the cross(Colonsians 2:14), and claims that salvation can only be obtained through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ:" If Christ be not risen from the dead, the our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain"(1 Corinthians 15:14).....
I hope this can help, though i reply late, and normally the first replies take the whole attention and discuss subject elaborately...eventhough,i insisted to participate....
I hope this can make sense to you, Manji2012.

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

There is No Salvation Without Sacrifice
by Ibn Anwar

Christians declare that there is no forgiveness or salvation except through the shedding of blood i.e. sacrifice. They will go on to say that the Islamic idea of God just forgiving a sinner's sin is unjust and they will then give their rationalisations for saying this. If asked,"Where does it say that God cannot forgive except through some sort of sacrifice?" the Christians will quote,"...Without shedding of blood there is no atonement" (Hebrews 9:22)

Before I continue , I'd like to put forth several questions for you the readers to ponder on.
1. If I can show even one instance where God in the Bible forgave a person's sin without sacrificial rites how will that stand in light of the Christian notion that it is unjust for God to simply forgive?
2. If it is shown that God can forgive sin without blood sacrifice, what then is the significance of any sacrifice?
3. If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only "begotten" son, Jesus and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way for forgiveness is through Jesus' death? Why would He radically change His nature when it's stated in Malachi 3:6,"For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE"?
The book of Jonah, Chapter 3 (In the NKJV, the heading "Nineveh Repents" is given)
NLT
Then the Lord spoke to Jonah a second time: “Get up and go to the great city of Nineveh, and deliver the message I have given you.”
This time Jonah obeyed the Lord’s command and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to see it all. On the day Jonah entered the city, he shouted to the crowds: “Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!” The people of Nineveh believed God’s message, and from the greatest to the least, they declared a fast and put on burlap to show their sorrow.
When the king of Nineveh heard what Jonah was saying, he stepped down from his throne and took off his royal robes. He dressed himself in burlap and sat on a heap of ashes. Then the king and his nobles sent this decree throughout the city:
“No one, not even the animals from your herds and flocks, may eat or drink anything at all. People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence. Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us.”
When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened."
In short, God forgave the people of Nineveh without a single demand for blood sacrifice.

Is intercession between us and God for forgiveness required?

"As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?" (Ezekiel 33:11)
The word "turn" here in Hebrew is shuvu which is similar with the word teshuvah which carries the same meaning as tawbah in Arabic i.e. return/repent.
"And suppose I tell some wicked people that they will surely die, but then they turn from their sins and do what is just and right. For instance, they might give back a debtor’s security, return what they have stolen, and obey my life-giving laws, no longer doing what is evil. If they do this, then they will surely live and not die. None of their past sins will be brought up again, for they have done what is just and right, and they will surely live." (Ezekiel 33:14-16)

Neither sacrifice nor intercession for forgiveness is demanded

"The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness. But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done." (Ezekiel 18: 20-22)
Firstly, in the verses quoted above one can clearly see that the idea of inherited sin is totally debunked. Secondly, repentance is taught as a means for salvation and that if repentance is sought and one adheres to that which is lawful, ALL one's past sins will be forgotten. This amazing show of mercy from God is again FREE of any blood sacrifice.
The same message is repeated again in the same chapter :
"And if wicked people turn from their wickedness, obey the law, and do what is just and right, they will save their lives. They will live because they thought it over and decided to turn from their sins. Such people will not die." (Ezekiel 18: 27-28)
“Therefore, I will judge each of you, O people of Israel, according to your actions, says the Sovereign Lord. Repent, and turn from your sins. Don’t let them destroy you!"(Ezekiel 18:30)

God is MERCIFUL and does not require to kill anyone to atone for your sin!
“O my God, lean down and listen to me. Open your eyes and see our despair. See how your city—the city that bears your name—lies in ruins. We make this plea, not because we deserve help, but because of your mercy." (Daniel 9:18)

What is true sacrifice in God's eyes?
"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17)

"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22)

Christians as taught by Paul ALWAYS say that obedience and works are worthless. Accept Jesus' sacrifice and you will be saved! JUST BELIEVE! Faith comes first, then works will ensue. Yet, in 1 Samuel 15:22 we see a different idea. The Christian point of view is apparently in reverse to that of God's as portrayed in 1 Samuel 15:22 ! If God said once that obedience is better than sacrifice, how can He again radically change that and reverse the idea? Hmm..I think something fishy is afoot.

AGAIN neither sacrifice nor intercession is required!

"Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. " (2 Chronicles 7:14)
"Finally, I confessed all my sins to you
and stopped trying to hide my guilt.
I said to myself, “I will confess my rebellion to the Lord.”
And you forgave me! All my guilt is gone." (Psalm 32:5)
"Yethe was merciful and forgave their sins
and did not destroy them all.
Many times he held back his anger
and did not unleash his fury!
For he remembered that they were merely mortal,
gone like a breath of wind that never returns." (Psalm 78:38-39)
"Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. " (Micah 7:18)
"Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings.” (Jeremiah 36:3)
"Let the wicked change their ways
and banish the very thought of doing wrong.
Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them.
Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously." (Isaiah 55:7)

God forgives not because of lamb, sheep or goat but...
"I—yes, I alone—will blot out your sins for my own sake
and will never think of them again." (Isaiah 43:25)
He forgives not because of all your sheep or goats, but, it is because He is compassionate and merciful!
"Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin.
By fearing the Lord, people avoid evil." (Proverbs 16:6)
Again, no sheep, goats, elephants, chickens or humans, but, through love of God and faithfulness of men is sin atoned. In addition, the verse informs us that God says that people avoid evil due to their FEAR of God which is contrary to standard Evangelical thought which says evil is avoided simply because of faith in Jesus and the crucifixion.

The following passage is rather telling

“What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?”

says the Lord.
“I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fattened cattle.
I get no pleasure from the blood
of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to worship me,
who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony?
Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts;
the incense of your offerings disgusts me!
As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath
and your special days for fasting—
they are all sinful and false.
I want no more of your pious meetings.
I hate your new moon celebrations and your annual festivals.
They are a burden to me. I cannot stand them!
When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look.
Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen,
for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims.
Wash yourselves and be clean!
Get your sins out of my sight.
Give up your evil ways.
Learn to do good.
Seek justice.
Help the oppressed.
Defend the cause of orphans.
Fight for the rights of widows.

“Come now, let’s settle this,”

says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
I will make them as white as snow.
Though they are red like crimson,
I will make them as white as wool.
If you will only obey me,
you will have plenty to eat.
But if you turn away and refuse to listen,
you will be devoured by the sword of your enemies.
I, the Lord, have spoken!” (Isaiah 1:11-18)

From the verses presented right from the beginning until now we see time and again God saying that the way to forgiveness and remission of sins is NOT just by believing in some sacrifice or do some sacrifice , BUT, OBEY OBEY OBEY and BE FAITHFUL TO HIM! In the above given passage of Isaiah we see that God did not just refuse to accept sacrifice but He even hated it and instead demanded REPENTANCE and OBEDIENCE. Thus after disclaiming and discrediting sacrifices, God gave them the following solutions(with no mention of sacrifice) :
1. Wash yourself and be clean
2. Give up sins
3. Learn to do good
4. Seek justice
5. Help the oppressed
6. Defend the orphans
7. Fight for widows

To read the complete article proceed to

Salvation ONLY comes through sacrifice! « Unveiling Christianity

[Pico]

God dealt with sin by Judging the world's sin on Jesus (God himself). That's the blood sacrifice. There's parts in the OT where God doesn't require sacrifices because their sins are paid by Jesus' sacrifice. The sacrificial system that God set up for the Jews was supposed to point to Jesus' sacrifice. In the case of the book of Jonah, they weren't Jews. The whole sacrificial system was established for the Jews. But because God is merciful he will forgive everyone who repents, for their debt is paid.

[Thomas]

Greetings Aidyl Nurhadi,

Christians declare that there is no forgiveness or salvation except through the shedding of blood i.e. sacrifice.

Not quite. Rather, Christians declare that through the sacrifice of the Son, once and for all time, salvation was attained for all, and no further sacrifice is necessary.

They will go on to say that the Islamic idea of God just forgiving a sinner's sin is unjust and they will then give their rationalisations for saying this. If asked,"Where does it say that God cannot forgive except through some sort of sacrifice?" the Christians will quote,"...Without shedding of blood there is no atonement"

(Hebrews 9:22)

Then such Christians (if indeed there are such) would be misinformed. God is free to forgive or condemn whom He wills. It is not for man to say what God can or cannot do.

Hebrews 9:22 refers to the sacrifice offered by Moses — under the Law. Prior to this the author of Hebrews argues:
"And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (9:15) and then goes on to say "For then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world. But now once, at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself" (9:26).

1. If I can show even one instance where God in the Bible forgave a person's sin without sacrificial rites how will that stand in light of the Christian notion that it is unjust for God to simply forgive?

Jesus forgave sin often, as did His Father in heaven. The premise of what Christians believe is mistaken. On the cross Jesus assured the robber at His side "Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43), simply because the man asked.

2. If it is shown that God can forgive sin without blood sacrifice, what then is the significance of any sacrifice?

Are you saying God is not worth any offering?

3. If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only "begotten" son, Jesus and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way for forgiveness is through Jesus' death? Why would He radically change His nature when it's stated in Malachi 3:6,"For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE"?

God did not change His Divine nature ... Jesus, by His death and resurrection, opened a new possibility for human nature. The act was for our benefit, not God's.

You offer many references ... may I ask, do you assume that what you are saying has not occurred to anyone in the last 2,000 years?

You say:

Salvation ONLY comes through sacrifice!

This is not quite accurate. Rather one should say: Salvation ONLY comes through His sacrifice!,
"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
John 14:6

As ever in these discussions, it's a matter of context.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

the idea of salvation is rooted, i think,in the idea of the Original Sin.Adam is considered as the father of sin bc of his disobedience of God s order when He asked him and Eve not to eat from the tree. As a punishment to them,we find in the Old Testament the following:{In pain and suffering, you will give birth, you and your daughters till the end of time}...

Hello 'dailogue is the best',

We must ask the question "To what extent did our Adam possess free will?" Wasn't he always destined to fall? Why didn't God create in him a stronger will that would resist all temptation?

So as compensation for the Fall we have Grace. And that Grace we receive from the "Second Adam".

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

36.then did Satan make them slip from (the garden) and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been.

Satan obviously was allowed into the Garden and "made them slip".

Lecture: The Concepts of Original Sin and Grace

Cordially,
Br.Bruce