Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by InHim2002, Nov 17, 2003.
I read this on religious tolerance.org and would be interested to get your opinions:
no. there is no secret gospel of Mark.
that doesn't appear to be the prevailing academic opinion
the academics are free to be wrong... wouldnt be the first time, or the last.
do you have any reason that you don't believe that the secret gospel is real? what do you think it is?
there are several reasons not to beleive it. the first is that its secret. where is it? the Lord doesnt work in the dark, he works in the light. the only reason things like this are brought up is to cast doubt on the already existing bible and thats the work of the devil and whatever academics want to tag along. the secret mark is like the invisible Q document. christians are short sited and cant play a heresy out to its end cause they are so goo goo ga ga over academics. the end of the Mark issue is to erase the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20. Why do it to Mark? B/C they all say he was the first one to write and all the other gospels kind of "copied" off him. wipe out the root and the tree will dry up. ultimately they want you to question the Bible and look to them for authority. plain and simple.
Saw this a few years back, and did some research.
Please note that this is an incorrect statement. Mr. Smith did not publish the fragment; he published a photograph of a fragment.
Neither fragment was ever brought forward for study and analysis to determine age, validity, etc. Smith made the statement that the monastery would not allow him to take the fragments for study.
In other words, someone concocted a "secret gospel of Mark" based on a photograph, not on actual evidence. It's just as plausible, if not more so, that Smith created the fragments himself and photographed them.
This, my friends, is the worst kind of science. To propogate "scientific" findings based on no actual evidence is simply evidence that people will jump on whatever they have to in order to discredit the Bible.
Many gnostic writings appear in fragments from the first few centuries. Most of the "lost" books of the Bible are much later additions.
I would give zero credance to any such.
BTW, we still have folks looking for some new special knowledge or revelation. They are not content with the Word we have, but add other writings, church traditions, et al.
Amen, amen, amen!