tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7973273116132489449..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Why didn't the NT Writers Mention . . . .?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41143356826009941402010-07-07T16:16:56.971-04:002010-07-07T16:16:56.971-04:00Oh dear. You can't take the argument from sile...Oh dear. You can't take the argument from silence away from radical Bible critics. What would they be left with if you did that? <br /><br />The other thing you can't do is tell them they're ignoring archaeology.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62286084629149346522010-07-03T09:51:40.946-04:002010-07-03T09:51:40.946-04:00Of course, there are good scholars who argue for a...Of course, there are good scholars who argue for a pre-70 date for Revelation. So that, of itself, would be sufficient explanation for why Revelation doesn't mention the Fall of Jerusalem.<br /><br />And, of course, the primary target in Revelation is the Roman imperial cult. <br /><br />In any case, liberals date all of the NT books to the late 1C or even early 2C. In that event, *their* dating scheme has a problem with the silence of the NT on the fall of Jerusalem. That's hardly a comparable problem for conservative dating schemes, which date most or all of the NT books before 70 AD.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40879680114258167352010-07-03T09:02:16.654-04:002010-07-03T09:02:16.654-04:00Ya done good over there, Andrew.
I was not too imp...Ya done good over there, Andrew.<br />I was not too impressed with Ehrman's argument from silence either.<br />Not too impressed with the argument from silence- over John's failing to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in Revelations, either. <br />Your thoughts on this, Paul?Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39905545406839795672010-07-02T22:56:19.353-04:002010-07-02T22:56:19.353-04:00Ah, how about the Holy Spirit, one of Three Eterna...Ah, how about the Holy Spirit, one of Three Eternal Holy Pure Right thinking and breathing Beings just didn't want to inspire Mark to put that fact and many other facts surely Mark wanted to add into the Gospel that bears his name, "helping" out Dear Old Holy Ghost?<br /><br />2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, <br />2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23534302219991866312010-07-02T11:47:13.373-04:002010-07-02T11:47:13.373-04:00...oops...
In the post above, I meant to say the ......oops...<br /><br />In the post above, I meant to say the storyline is about Christ, NOT PETER.Andrew Suttleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006722357616296522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79847826789696082362010-07-02T11:46:35.984-04:002010-07-02T11:46:35.984-04:00Perhaps Mark doesn't mention it because it doe...Perhaps Mark doesn't mention it because it does not advance the story line, which is about Christ, not Mark. <br /><br />Or, perhaps Peter's failure of faith (needing to be rescued because of his doubt) was not something he was as eager to put forth.<br /><br />'...O thou of little faith...' (Matt 14:31)<br /><br />Perhaps this is evidence FOR Mark as author.Andrew Suttleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006722357616296522noreply@blogger.com