Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Revelation 21:8 (KJV);
- But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Did John mean by all liars the previously mentioned in the same verse, i.e: the fearful, unbelieving, abominable, murderers…etc?
I mean that all liars not the eighth category, but includes the previously mentioned seven categories.
And if so, how a murderer be a liar?!, How a whoremonger be a liar?!
I hope you understood what I mean.
And why the last of the Bible (Revelation) condemn lying?, Look Revelation 21:8,27 and 22:15.
Troy Day
as we see John Mushenhouse JOHN the Apostle is meant here as author of Rev so we are NOT certain what Glynn Brown really believes or knows about its authorship here
Glynn Brown
Troy Day John the apostle isn’t the author of Revelation or the gospel. An uneducated fisherman couldn’t write something as complex as a gospel. Nowhere in Revelation does it ever claim to be written by an apostle.
Troy Day
Glynn Brown well when you say uneducated fisherman you assume A LOT – he was also related to the High Priest. But nevertheless, SO FAR you have presented 0 zero Biblical or other proof. Just empty speculations… – traditional Christian views, as held by early Church Fathers and some denominations, accept the possibility that divine inspiration, oral tradition, and long-term learning could play a role in bridging the educational gap
Troy Day
The early church’s unanimous tradition supports John’s authorship Early Christian writers such as Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian consistently taught that John, son of Zebedee—one of Jesus’ original twelve disciples—was the author. The Muratorian Fragment and other early lists of New Testament books assume John’s authorship. The church fathers linked the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospel with John, suggesting it was written in Ephesus near the end of his life. No serious rival tradition for authorship is found from the early centuries John Mushenhouse Philip Williams @followers
John Mushenhouse
Troy Day well we do know that John was untrained — Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.— But look at the next verse –And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. — The Holy Spirit worked through John to heal a man. Thus, I can easily believe that the Holy Spirit can work through John to write a book.— knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1 — I have read the many speculations on the author, but I go to the early church who believed it was John the Apostle.
Glynn Brown
Troy Day it’s not an assumption at all. To deny it is denial of the evidence. It’s a historical fact that Jews of the first century had literacy levels of 5-10%. And priests were not highly educated either,the Rabbis were the educated class. And Hebrew and Greek were not their primary languages,it was Aramaic.
It is you who has zero proof. Tradition isn’t proof. You should reject the magical thinking for the educational gap.
Glynn Brown
Troy Day assume is a big word. Especially since all of the original autographs were anonymous . The titles were added in the second century. None of the church fathers ever witnessed the autographs,so they all merely assumed or guessed who wrote them. They did so in order to make the gospels appear more authentic and unquestionable. 
Troy Day
Glynn Brown you ASSUME A lot What is Lukan Priority
Lukan Priority in general refers to the view that Luke was the first of the Synoptic Gospels written
Lukan Priority over Mark specifically claims that Luke was written prior to Mark (regardless of where Matthew falls in the sequence).
The former is the subject of this related question on the site. I gather that the focus of the OP is specifically the relationship between Luke & Mark.
—
As noted in the OP (and more extensively in the linked blog), the most common objection raised to Lukan Priority over Mark is the struggle to believe that Mark, if using Luke’s Gospel as a source, would leave out so much good content. A review of all of the Lukan content excluded from Mark would result in a post far too long for this site.
Instead I’ll offer links to 2 videos on my channel that address this question in more detail, and then specifically examine here the 3 most popular examples of Lukan content which Mark would have left out, and a case for why it made sense for Mark to do so.
Videos:
Did the Gospels Copy Each Other?
Deconstructing Markan Priority – a Simpler Solution
Specific Examples
The Nativity
Luke includes a Nativity account; Mark does not. Surely no Christian author writing an account of Jesus could have left this story out?? In fact, 25 of the 27 books of the New Testament do not include any extended account of Jesus’ early years, and most early Christian writers in the following 2 generations say either only a little about it, or nothing at all.
While the Nativity accounts were important to early Christians, there is risk of anachronism here — the Nativity is a cultural icon to modern Christians–it is the subject of our most prominent holiday–in a way it was not in the first few centuries AD.
Even among the Gospels, the Gospel of John (usually held to be the last of the 4 written) does not include a Nativity account. While today it may appear obvious that the Nativity is the place to start an account about Jesus, apparently to a first-century writer where to start was not so obvious. This is substantiated by the fact that none of the 4 Gospels start the same way (Matthew with genealogy, Mark with John the Baptist’s preaching, Luke with John the Baptist’s backstory, John with creation). In many other biographical writings of the time it was common to devote little or no attention to the childhood of the protagonist.
While not all of the Gospels include the Nativity, and none start the same way, it is noteworthy that all 4 do include, early on, prominent attention given to John the Baptist and his connection to Jesus. For many Christians, their journey to believing in a remarkable Preacher from Galilee began with John. Few of Jesus’ followers knew Jesus as a child, but many, many of His followers knew John (and/or knew of Him). John the Baptist’s ministry, laying the foundation for what Jesus would teach, would for these individuals be a very sensible place to start the story.
In fact, when the apostles present in Jesus’ ministry tell the story of Jesus (we have multiple such accounts recorded in the book of Acts), they start the account with John. Apparently then, to at least some early Christians, the role of John the Baptist and his connection to Jesus was a more prominent feature of Jesus’ ministry than were the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. It is thus unsurprising that a Gospel author would choose to start the story there.
—
Post-Resurrection Appearances
Luke records much more detail following the resurrection than does Mark. Especially if one assumes if 16:8 was the originally intended ending of Mark’s Gospel. For the case that 16:8 was not the originally intended ending of Mark’s Gospel, see my video here.
In short, there is enough textual & historical ambiguity around the ending of Mark that we cannot dogmatically claim the author intended to include no post-resurrection appearances, and there is a decent case to be made that throughout the Gospel of Mark the author has built the story to a climax that will be resolved when the predictions of Jesus’ resurrection are fulfilled.
The ambiguous evidence surrounding the ending of Mark is too unstable a foundation from which to claim Mark says much less (or intended to say much less) about the resurrection than Luke did. And if the original ending of Mark’s Gospel has been lost (see a discussion of this possibility in the video link above), no textual argument could be made at all, as we would not have the text.
The Gospel of Mark predicts twice Jesus’ rising from the dead and being reunited with His disciples (14:28, 16:7), and it is a hallmark of the author’s style to show that Jesus’ prophecies are fulfilled.
Arguing based on the post-resurrection appearances that Mark could not have known Luke’s Gospel is not an argument from evidence, but an argument from the absence of evidence.
—
The Sermon on the Mount/Plain
I’ve saved the best for last. Surely, surely, no Christian writer could have made a record of Jesus’ ministry and excluded His most iconic sermon??? This data point alone has led countless individuals to conclude that Mark could not have known Luke’s Gospel (or Matthew’s). Yet there is a remarkably simple explanation:
Mark doesn’t include long sermons. Zero. None. Zilch.
Matthew & John each devote a great deal of space to long sermons. Luke less so. Mark none. Mark is the action-oriented, fast-paced Gospel, focusing very heavily on what Jesus did. When Mark reports what Jesus said it is always brief.
There is a straightforward explanation for this authorial behavior, and it aligns with the stylistic features of Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s Gospel is written the way one would tend to speak a story rather than the way one would write a story. When you write you can go back and edit & polish, when you speak live sometimes things come out more awkwardly (such as the “hard sayings” and “less-polished” Greek of Mark). The genius of Mark is the storytelling, not the semantics.
In the videos linked above I argue that Mark is exactly what one would expect if a dynamic Christian preacher, very familiar with the stories in Matthew & Luke, gave a sermon and someone wrote it down (and Greek shorthand did exist in the first century).
Once we acknowledge the oral nature of Mark (if Matthew & Luke are the peer-reviewed literature, Mark is the powerful preaching), the conundrum of Mark’s exclusion of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain goes away. A storyteller–especially one working largely from memory–will focus more on what happened than what was said. A series of events that can be recalled with detail make a better story (and are more memorable) than a recitation of a long monologue. This is exactly what we see in Mark. Where Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the same story, Mark tends to be the most verbose, he goes into extra detail about what happened, who was there, etc., he uses the most words to tell a story. But when it comes to preaching, Mark is the most concise: he does not report long sermons. Not once.
Why then did Mark exclude the Sermon on the Mount/Plain? The same reason he excluded all of the other long sermons.
—
Proto Luke
An alternative to Lukan Priority that is occasionally suggested is Proto-Luke – a hypothetical document that contained the core of Luke, preceded Mark, may or may not have been used by Mark, and was then augmented by content from Mark to become the Gospel of Luke we know today.
Proto-Luke suffers from some shortcomings:
It violates Occam’s razor by multiplying entities beyond necessity. If no explanation is possible without a hypothetical document, it may be appropriate to assume a hypothetical document. But if an explanation is possible without a hypothetical document, that explanation is to be preferred.
—
Glynn Brown
Troy Day mark was written first ,all textual scholars believe this.