It’s debated.

He was likely Hebrew, potentially a follower of Peter. Some have suggested is the cousin of Barnabas from Acts 15. Eusebius mentions that Papias adhered to this, although we have no writing from Papias.
It could have been written in Latin although it’s definitely Hellenistic in nature. Some scholars debate the original language would have been Greek.
You’re correct on the geography, Rome and Antioch have been suggested as places of writing.

Regardless of that debate. All three synoptic gospels have the same passage. And yes Mark is likely a source of the other two. But if it wasn’t important, the line would likely have been omitted from one of the two other ones. I think the gospel writers understood the importance of the claim.

For some good information (and a ton of links) on the writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

It’s a lot better than wikipedia and the links will keep you busy for a while. I haven’t read all of them either

God Bless
Mick

Mark said it…. as a Hebrew… trust me… he said it.

Ask a practicing Jew today in the 21st century who can forgive sins. God alone. Via the rituals of offerings called Qorbanot. Different offerings for different sins. Since the Temple destruction and following the writing in Hosea and 1Kings, Jews have accepted repentance, prayer and good deeds as means of forgiveness. (PS Check out http://www.jewfaq.org for information about Judaism)

I brought this up to indicate that it’s obvious for a Jew, even today in the 21st century, on WHO can forgive sins.

Christ saying He could is self-explanatory for a Jew.

And please don’t go back to the editing argument. It’s been debated about the gospel of John, not about the synoptic gospels. Perhaps Q can be an argument, but until we find an extant copy, I’ll decline to accept it as an argument.

For the three others to mention it, I would say it’s important enough to recognize.

In Him
Mick

Just joking about the name thing

Sorry… I couldn’t resist.

Matt. 1:23

Isaiah 43:10

Rev. 1:7,8

You can throw out the whole Bible if you want (and replace it with made up fiction) but, in the begining was the Word.

Jesus is that Word.

You can believe it, or not.

Thanks,

Jarhed!

Why don’t you throw out John instead of Mark. . .

Don’t you think if Mark thought Jesus explicitly said that he was God the Father, that he would have mentioned that in his Gospel?

Kullervo

Once again, well pointed out that impossible preposterous.
Preposterous: “contrary to nature, reason, or common sense ”
Imposssible: “incapable of being or of occurring”

I would say it’s possible because it’s so contrary to reason !

I am placing my faith in God, not in the text.

Yet somehow it’s the text that has pointed me there. Even more, it’s the only text I could find that made any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps I’m grasping at theological straws. But I have still to find someone who can tell me that Christ is NOT God. Just because it’s preposterous, doesn’t mean it can’t be true. Just that its “Contrary to reason”.

Do me a favor. Read “On the incarnation” by Athanasius. I’ll read it again as well this week while I’m away from the computer. Perhaps we can have a debate about that. He made a lot of sense to me.

In Him
Mick

Not any more preposterous than claiming that Joseph Smith received his words via divine revelation ???? If God exists, and He is all powerful and all knowing.. why is it preposterous ? Perhaps not something we can grasp with a finite human mind and logic. Perhaps illogical to the finite. But perhaps not impossible.

If I believed that Joseph Smith received any divine revelation at all, I’m sure that would be a vicious sting.

Impossible ≠ preposterous. Sure, it’s possible that God inspired the writer to remember things identically, word-for-word. But it’s so unlikely that unless you can point me to somewhere where God explicitly says that he does so (and “all scripture is God-breathed” doesn’t get you there by half), you’re grasping at theological straws and placing your faith in the intricacies of a text, not in god.

“Maybe you don’t really know what “semantics” means”

Perhaps not. So would you be so kind as to explain what it means to someone who is blogging in what is not his native tongue ? Nor his secondary language as a matter of fact. The order would be Flemish, French, German and English. So I apologize if I misuse words on occasion.

Websters tell me this:
“the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.:”

But all pun and vicious comments aside.

Concerning the comments on Christ’s divinity where made by “immediate bystanders”, as I mentioned, and your reaction that that is wrong since we don’t know what the immediate bystanders thought…. I consider a “meaning or an interpretation of the words or sentence ‘immediate bystanders’”… that would for me classify it as “semantics”.

“That it happened specifically, word-for-word the way it was recorded is preposterous”

Not any more preposterous than claiming that Joseph Smith received his words via divine revelation ???? If God exists, and He is all powerful and all knowing.. why is it preposterous ? Perhaps not something we can grasp with a finite human mind and logic. Perhaps illogical to the finite. But perhaps not impossible.

Jared,
I guess until we find a document that dates from 70 AD and we find the missing “Q” document we’ll never agree ? And I believe Joseph Smith’s writings have gotten some “re-editing” as well or am I wrong on that ?

Once again, I am not attacking anyone in person or discrediting their faith. I’m trying to point out what I believe.

Are evangelicals really Christian: Some
Are Mormons really Christian: Some

Who will know ? God… Matthew 7… but perhaps this was edited as well and perhaps we humans can make the judgment ??? (and that last statement is meant as a joke…

In Him