Which of the Gospel accounts comes first?

Matthew
Date written: between AD 50 and 70.
time span: about 37 years 94 BC,- AD 33.
Where Written: Possibly at Antioch.
to whom: Primarily to the Jews, but also to Gentiles who have become christians.

Mark
Date Written: between AD 50 and 70.
time span: about 3 1/2 years AD 29 - 33.
Where written: Rome, Possiblywhile Peter and Mark are in prison.
to whom: Generally to all Gentiles, but primarily to the Romans.

Luke
Date written: between AD 58 and 70.
time span: about 38 years 5 BC-AD 33.
Where written: possibly at Cessarea or Rome.
to whom it was written: to Theophilus. spesifically; Greeks in particular and to all Gentiles in general.

John
Date written: Between AD 85 and 96.
Time span 3.5 years AD 29 to 33.
Where written; Probably at Ephesus.
to whom it was written: All Gentiles.

 

I think most would consider Mark the earliest, althought there are some still holding out for the mysterious Q source to be found.

 

What I think of the Q theory:

 

Absolutely amazing!

 

Matthew was the overwhelming position held to by the church for many, many centuries.

Mark was not even thought of as first until the time of the enlightenment, with all its worthless theological leanings.

Q is the result of people who question the inerrancy and integrity of Scripture.

 

What is "Q"?

 

Q is a source document that does not exist. It is believed that the writers shared a common, unpublished source.

My point is that it is foolish to build such an idea when:

a) it is unnecessary
b) it doesn't exist

 

the Q source will never be found because such thing never existed.

this theroy is just another lame attempt to discredit the Gospel account.

 

Q

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Absolutely amazing!

</font>[/QUOTE]This was a personal comment on your part about me, showing your usual condescension. I'm not surprised. I take all your posts with a grain of salt because of the way you talk to people, Craig.

 

Marcia, he is a liberal. Do not be dismayed by those who prostitute Scripture.

 

Whether Craig is "liberal" or not is irrelevant -- it's the condesending and derogatory way he talks to people who, for example, believe in a literal Genesis account or believe in the conservative theories about scripture. I just had an eyeful of his remarks on another thread.

 

Whether Craig is liberal or not is irrelevant. It's the derogatory remarks he makes to those who believe, for example, that the Genesis creation account is literal, or who otherwise do not have the scholarly views he himself claims to have.

 

That is what I am saying. Don't let the ignorant get to you. If he was really as learned as he tries to tell people, he wouldn't deny original sin, the sin nature, literal creation, etc.

 

Marcia,

I do find it amazing that some people believe the way that they do about Biblical scholarship. But I have never suggested that creationists are in the habit of “prostituting” Scripture, but see Daniel David's post above.

Please note that very many times I have been directly accused on this message board of being a Roman Catholic, a Seventh Day Adventist, a liar, a rank liberal, and many other things. But people can call me anything they like, it does not bother me at all, but I do believe that we should be fair when we point our finger at others.

 

I have never denied either original sin or the sin nature; I have merely shown that a literal interpretation of the Scriptures does not necessarily teach either of these two doctrines. But as for "literal creation" as it is frequently presented on this message board, I do find many contradictions therein with both science and the Bible.

 

Uh, 'scuse me Craig, but I believe you have made some remark about the damage to Christianity that those who believe in creation do, am I not mistaken?

Haven't you also pointed out that you cannot stand creationism and those who promote it due to the damage it does to Christianity?

 

Phillip,

Thank you for asking these questions rather than accusing me of misdeeds as others have done. In my thinking I make a sharp distinction between the character of a man and his theological outlook. I love creationists but I abhor the damage that some creationists have done and are doing to the Christian faith. I have posted in detail in other threads about this damage, as have some others, and it is too sickening for me to continue writing about it.