The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice Of The Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

How reliable are those Bible quotes?

Text Size: A | A

WARNING: This column is not for the general reader; it is for the specialist in biblical arcana, especially reserved for publication on the Christian sabbath. The general reader approaches it at his own risk. The author will not be responsible. Maybe you remember the column I wrote a couple of weeks ago scrutinizing the claims of readers as to what Jesus had in mind with regard to poor people. In it I casually mentioned that ...

You Must or Subscribe to Continue
subscribe to the Daily Gazette
Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Enjoy this story? Share it!

Advertisement

comments

firstumc
January 16, 2011
7:14 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Your dating is accurate as far as I know for Mark (70), Matthew (80-85), and John (95-100). The case of Luke, often assumed to be a contemporary of Matthew, might actually be radically different. Recent scholarship, summarized nicely by Richard I. Pervo in "Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists" (Polebridge Press, 2006) would place the Acts of the Apostles between 120 and 125 CE. Assuming Luke is the author of both the gospel with his name and Acts, that would also place the gospel in the same time period.

Bill Pattison,
Scotia.

nino187h
January 17, 2011
8:06 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Carl we get it you think the bible and those who hold faith in God are stupid. You bringing your feelings on this matter up every chance you get is a ploy to elicit response and shock people so they will keep reading your waning pieces. Either way you will never prove the bible or God to be bogus and the harder you try to more hateful you seem.

westervelt
January 17, 2011
5:21 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Must be slow in the newsroom lately... Carl Strock's collumns are becomming as exciting as painful rectal itch...

dpandori
January 18, 2011
7:15 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Carl - this is very interesting information. Thanks for sharing.

Don

ChuckD
January 18, 2011
3:43 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Let's see: One reasoned, well-researched analysis, and two 'rebuttals' that don't rise above personal insults.

A microcosm of our national debate these days.

1963
January 19, 2011
8:27 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Good information - thank you Mr. Strock. Makes me want to read the New Testament instead to know more about the context of verses that are so often quoted.

mhfella
January 19, 2011
10:26 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Thank you, Carl Strock. Speaking of not letting the facts get in the way of the story one wants to tell, have you checked out the efforts of the Tennessee Tea Party cultists to rewrite the history books to eliminate "made-up crticisms" about the Founding Fathers such as how they "intruded" on the Indians and had slaves? http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/in...

The fact that they did "intrude" on the Indians and did own slaves? Well, that just doesn't fit with the story.

Keep up the good fight! Public scrutiny such as yours needs to continue to shine the light of truth.

westervelt
January 19, 2011
11:53 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I never personally insulted Mr. Strock but rather the content as being uninteresting to me...of course I used sarcasm so sorry if THAT offended. I find it curious that a proclaimed Athesist takes such care and precision to examine a book that to him is a fairy tale book....As nino187h has said, it just another chance for strock to belittle those of faith.
I understand and to some degree I concur with his conclusions on how Jesus would regard poor people. His overall goal I take it in writting these articles is to further the idea that religion, in this case Christianity is made up and any thinking/intelligent person should understand this and accept it. We all get it Carl, you do not believe... do we need to constantly see proof of this...

ChuckD
January 19, 2011
2:18 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

@westervelt - You do understand we can all see your post above still, right?

A blog is a collection of one's own personal thoughts and analyses. So when you claim they "are becomming as exciting as painful rectal itch...", that's what most would agree is kind of a personal insult.

And yet you still don't provide any thoughtful rebuttal. Apparently all you have to offer here is your indignation.

Well, it's a free country and you're free to take that stance. But what part of "debate" do you not understand? What part of "critical thinking" do you struggle with?

westervelt
January 19, 2011
4:10 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I see you speak for most people chuck d. that must be wonderful to be able to do that. By the way this isn;t a blog its called a newspaper, even though this is the online version.. and if quote someone use the entire sentence so we know you've read it... Its obvious you didn't or have reading comprehension issues. The "painful rectal itch" jibe is directed at the content of Mr. Strocks article not the man. And I am sure he has alot worse and more directly personal insults than that... I wasn't aware that by leaving a comment here I was supposed to come up with a rebuttal to the content. It clearly states post a comment and I believe what I had said in both previous posts are comments...I never argued or even disagreed with any of Carl's research, my indignation as you have put it is the tireless way he contines to go back to a subject that he clearly beleives is wrong,fantasy, foolhardy, etc that being religion or specifically in this case Christianity. I don't have any issue with his opinion nor his ability to express it but this is just one more of those slyly written crafty articles rubbing Christians noses in the proverbial dirt.

Advertisement