Criticism against the Bible

[PetriFB]

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/canwetrustc ... oftheBible

How about?

[Easyrider]

Peter supposedly died at 60 c.e. and the date range given to Mark is 65 to 75

Nuts. Mark concludes with events in the early thirty's.

You offer up the same old tired strawmen, confusing when it was written with when the events written about took place.

[Zzyzx]

[Goat]

Peter supposedly died at 60 c.e. and the date range given to Mark is 65 to 75

Nuts. Mark concludes with events in the early thirty's.

You offer up the same old tired strawmen, confusing when it was written with when the events written about took place.

Not according to the early Church fathers, who had a motivation to have Mark as early as possible. Eurisbis claims that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter died.

The internal evidence suggests after the Jewish revolt . The Early church fathers claim after peter died in 65 c.e.

To say it was 'the 30's' is ignoring internal evidence and the evidence of the early church father's traditions, whose interest it would have been to make it as early as possible.

So, it sounds you're listening to one of those 'Dallas Theological Seminary" nutcakes.

[Easyrider]

Peter supposedly died at 60 c.e. and the date range given to Mark is 65 to 75

Nuts. Mark concludes with events in the early thirty's.

You offer up the same old tired strawmen, confusing when it was written with when the events written about took place.

Not according to the early Church fathers, who had a motivation to have Mark as early as possible. Eurisbis claims that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter died.

The internal evidence suggests after the Jewish revolt . The Early church fathers claim after peter died in 65 c.e.

Once again, don't confuse when it was written with when the events written about took place, which is what you've done now for the second time.

[Goat]

Peter supposedly died at 60 c.e. and the date range given to Mark is 65 to 75

Nuts. Mark concludes with events in the early thirty's.

You offer up the same old tired strawmen, confusing when it was written with when the events written about took place.

Not according to the early Church fathers, who had a motivation to have Mark as early as possible. Eurisbis claims that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter died.

The internal evidence suggests after the Jewish revolt . The Early church fathers claim after peter died in 65 c.e.

Once again, don't confuse when it was written with when the events written about took place, which is what you've done now for the second time.

So the heck what? It was written 40 year after the supposed event, by someone who was not there, and therefore was 3rd hand info at BEST.

As far as I can tell, the events depicted in the Gospel of Mark are fiction.