Pendeta
18th November 2010, 09:10 AM
Di bawah ini adalah artikel apologetika, tanggapan terhadap http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id5.html
yet another Christian being the follower of Jesusanity.
There's nothing special about this. Mark wanted to imply that Jesus once came to Jericho then when He was leaving, He met a blind man named Bartimaeus. Mark just wanted to make the passage right. nothing else. This thinking is very unnecessarily to provide more skeptical view. If you just want to show there was a missing passage, what's the point of this paragraph? nothing.
And it is too possible that it's a later version of Mark, then edited. Haven't they tested a Carbon-12 test on the manuscript? Even in the best available manuscripts today, there are some text that couldn't be read, missing torn page, etc.
Whatever is said, it's just another excuse so that other false information can come in.
the passage I've marked is similar to John 11:17-44, it's an event that should occur long after that Jesus' visit to Jericho. Because of this matter and examining the passage above, the motive of writing is very similar to those Gnostic books. It's clearly recognizable and easy to identify that the passage came from Gnostic writers.
intermezzo: Trivia
John 11:35 is the shortest verse throughout the entire Bible in most versions.
NIV: Jesus wept.
TL-LAI: Yesus menangis.
look at your source. Does this defy your view?
That is because, they do not understand about the Oneness of God. The "Son of God" image is the visible image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), and truly is part of the Oneness of God.
Modern bible scholars already acknowledged the author of this book as Mark, as either Peter's son or Paul's secretary or could be both. And the most unnecessary and the most unimportant verse Mark 14:51-52 is there to prove that it's probably the writer himself (and to keep his writing all in third-person view, he don't use first-person word to describe himself), telling about his experience. Therefore, Mark is a firsthand witness.
FYI, Mark lived in the Hellenistic age. Jewish youth generation that time already adopted Greek lifestyle, well without forgetting their Jewish root. And most of them can speak Greek or Old Latin fluently.
The last part of the article itself wants to tell us that the writer is actually an unknown Hellenistic writer, who wanted to write his own story, according to his way, Hellenistic view.
This is God's power: the truth will always prevail and evil can't deny it. Hallelujah!
yet another Christian being the follower of Jesusanity.
There's nothing special about this. Mark wanted to imply that Jesus once came to Jericho then when He was leaving, He met a blind man named Bartimaeus. Mark just wanted to make the passage right. nothing else. This thinking is very unnecessarily to provide more skeptical view. If you just want to show there was a missing passage, what's the point of this paragraph? nothing.
And it is too possible that it's a later version of Mark, then edited. Haven't they tested a Carbon-12 test on the manuscript? Even in the best available manuscripts today, there are some text that couldn't be read, missing torn page, etc.
Whatever is said, it's just another excuse so that other false information can come in.
the passage I've marked is similar to John 11:17-44, it's an event that should occur long after that Jesus' visit to Jericho. Because of this matter and examining the passage above, the motive of writing is very similar to those Gnostic books. It's clearly recognizable and easy to identify that the passage came from Gnostic writers.
intermezzo: Trivia
John 11:35 is the shortest verse throughout the entire Bible in most versions.
NIV: Jesus wept.
TL-LAI: Yesus menangis.
look at your source. Does this defy your view?
That is because, they do not understand about the Oneness of God. The "Son of God" image is the visible image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), and truly is part of the Oneness of God.
Modern bible scholars already acknowledged the author of this book as Mark, as either Peter's son or Paul's secretary or could be both. And the most unnecessary and the most unimportant verse Mark 14:51-52 is there to prove that it's probably the writer himself (and to keep his writing all in third-person view, he don't use first-person word to describe himself), telling about his experience. Therefore, Mark is a firsthand witness.
FYI, Mark lived in the Hellenistic age. Jewish youth generation that time already adopted Greek lifestyle, well without forgetting their Jewish root. And most of them can speak Greek or Old Latin fluently.
The last part of the article itself wants to tell us that the writer is actually an unknown Hellenistic writer, who wanted to write his own story, according to his way, Hellenistic view.
This is God's power: the truth will always prevail and evil can't deny it. Hallelujah!