Alteration and additions to scripture

[polonius]

70 AD Mark 8 27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?"
28 And they answered him, "John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
29 He asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Messiah."
30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.


80 AD Luke 9 Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"
19 They answered, "John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen."
20 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Messiah of God."
21 He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone,


80 AD Matthew 16 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Both Matthew and Luke writing in about 80 AD copied from Mark written about 70 AD. But Matthew is seriously flawed by an addition (see underlined above) not found in the original writing of Mark. It also contains two errors. Can anyone spot them?

[brianbbs67]

Matthew's account is different, but I don't know if that qualifies as false. It has more information that Luke or Mark, but that doesn't necessarily disqualify it, on that alone. What are the errors you refer too? I thought I had every added verse to the NT marked until now.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

The post is rather dull for a debate; it is more suitable for a kindergarten teacher asking kids "What is missing here?" I have no interest in "finding what the teacher wants me to find".

It is also erroneous because it assumes too much historically. Did Matthew and Luke rely upon Mark, yes. Did Matthew and Luke have ZERO independent sources that might have gone back to Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. Plutarch wrote several biographies, and they overlap in stories, and he alters the very same stories. That is, Plutarch wrote about a single event, but several times: one which focused on Caesar; another on Crassus; another on Brutus.

A single author; yet the accounts differ.

And yet historians of Rome do not throw Plutarch out; they still regard him of tremendous value.

It is no surprise that ancient authors like those of the gospels differ from one another on minute details. The habit of gawking at these differences comes from American fundamentalism, and a rather crude doctrine of errancy.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

The post is rather dull for a debate;

I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion at hand. In any case, given that you introduced this diversion, I'll address it.

Given that you did in fact reply to the OP which you claim is "dull", this is either a confession that you enjoy dull debates or else your odd complaint doesn't reflect the true depth of passion that drives you to respond.

I have no interest in "finding what the teacher wants me to find".

This is odd coming from a poster who recently created a thread urging others to stay on subject.

Does this new attitude reflect a recantation of your earlier plea for posters to stay on subject or is it a reflection of some double standard? You urge others to heed your impassioned plea, but you have no intention to follow it your self.

The rest of your post follows suit in not addressing the OP. Hopefully you'll get back on track at some point.

[polonius]

[polonius]

[polonius]

[dio9]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

Matthew was just writing what was a fact by his time .

By that time Peter was the rock upon which the church was built ,
did Jesus say the church as we know it was founded on Peter? Indeed it was a fact by Matthew's time.

and two there was only one church in those days so salvation was in fact only in the church.

So what Matthew wrote was true. Even if it wasn't in Marks Gospel. The Gospels appear to have been living scripture.

[brianbbs67]

[polonius]