Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Eyewitnesses would have objected if the Gospels were untrue"
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 5:07PM #11
Ed.W
Posts: 9,451

May 4, 2012 -- 4:58PM, mainecaptain wrote:


GREAT, post Iwanta. Bravo. Sincerely




We need a better emoticon package.  I want a facepalm, a shaking head, and an eyeroll.  And in that order.  Laughing


If this one will function, I love him, especially that Italian hand gesturing...

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 5:17PM #12
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

May 4, 2012 -- 1:24PM, nieciedo wrote:


It's a mistake to assume that the date of a document's creation is the same as the date of the creation of the information the document contains.


Even though Mark was put to writing in the form we have it around 70 CE (Blu's date of 75 is the high end of the range of dates I've seen), there is no reason to assume that some guy who may or may not have been named Mark sat down and made the whole thing up at that time. Instead, it's more likely that the author's community maintained an oral tradition (as well as possibly some other written texts that have not survived) that derives ultimately from contemporary eye-witness.


That is not to say that the gospels do indeed exihibit a great deal of contradiction, signal decay, and poetic license and later interpolations.


The argument in the OP, however, is facilie apologetics and serves only to shore up the wavering faith of the converted.




I have come across the interesting theory that the earliest Christian documents in circulation for evangelistic purposes were lists of fulfilled messianic prophesies (called 'Testimonies).  As time went on and the faith spread to a new generation and to gentile populations less familiar with the OT than the Jews, sustained narrative accounts were called for which became the Gospels.


Mark used Peter's list, whoever wrote Matthew used Matthew's,  Luke to some extent used both--all of which accounts for the "Synoptic Problem" as well since the chronological order of events varied with the lists.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 5:51PM #13
Iwantamotto
Posts: 9,234

mainecaptain:  GREAT, post Iwanta. Bravo. Sincerely


Thank you.  *bows*


Ed.W:  We need a better emoticon package.  I want a facepalm, a shaking head, and an eyeroll.


Feel free to quote the passages where "the Jews" AREN'T being portrayed as bootlickers of Satan for calling Team Jesus out on all the ranting.  I don't mean the occasional sympathizer.  I want you to show me how "the Jews" as a group said, "Gee, Jesus:  you're right.  We've been mistaken all along and you bring up some mighty fine points.  Care to take a position in the Temple?"

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 6:16PM #14
Ed.W
Posts: 9,451

May 4, 2012 -- 5:51PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


mainecaptain:  GREAT, post Iwanta. Bravo. Sincerely


Thank you.  *bows*


Ed.W:  We need a better emoticon package.  I want a facepalm, a shaking head, and an eyeroll.


Feel free to quote the passages where "the Jews" AREN'T being portrayed as bootlickers of Satan for calling Team Jesus out on all the ranting.  I don't mean the occasional sympathizer.  I want you to show me how "the Jews" as a group said, "Gee, Jesus:  you're right.  We've been mistaken all along and you bring up some mighty fine points.  Care to take a position in the Temple?"




Well one of us misunderstood the OP, and it may have been me.


I took him to mean there wasn't any writing say in AD 105 saying that the Gospels were not an accurate representation of history.


You took him to mean that no one took issue with the Gospel message.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 8:00PM #15
Rgurley4
Posts: 11,795

"Eyewitnesses would have objected if the Gospels were untrue"


# 2 BY:
Blu...as per usual you massage the truth!


1. "eyewitness account"...NOT necessarily WRITTEN
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eyewi...
Definition of EYEWITNESS
one who SEES an occurrence or an object;
especially : one who gives a REPORT on what he or she has seen
Examples of EYEWITNESS:
The police are hoping to locate an eyewitness to the shooting.
He was able to give an (verbal!) "eyewitness account" of the shooting.


There were 1000's of eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and ministry.
There were 100's of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
...BOTH seen by and reported to the authors of the 4 Gospels.


2. ...parts of the NT are undoubtedly fiction...Oh yeah?...prove that those "parts" are false with extra - Biblical FACTS.
The most number of ancient documents of any collection of books, ...miraculous!...
with endless scholarly study, point to high RELIABILITY of the FACTS contained in the 4 Gospels in matters of doctrine.
Nit picking doesn't count!


3. ..."historical style"...fact wasn't important ...Horse pucky!
The Jewish nation were master historians, both in verbal traditions and ancient writings...extreme attention to detail in dictation, writing, and copying!
...verbal Aramaic translated into written Koine Greek.... All authors of the NT were learned and became "carried along by" God the Holy Spirit.


4.  ....Paul never met Jesus...And your point is?...The 4 gospels + Paul's writings are complimentary!
Paul hung out with the 11 Apostles, especially Peter, head of the baby "Church".
And lest you forget Paul's encounter with the glorified risen Jesus the God-Man...
Acts 9 (NASB)....The Conversion of Saul


5. The dates of actually penning and distributing the Gospels is interesting, but any delay after SEEING is not fatal to reliability.
Authors and scribes were writing "spirit breathed" and "God-the-Holy-Spirit-superintended" statements with PERFECT RECALL!


RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:


John 14:26 (Jesus to his followers: Upper Room Discourse)


"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (and DID!)


2 Timothy 3: 14-17...All Scripture is God-breathed


But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of,
because you know those from whom you learned it,
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, (in existence then?)
which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is God-breathed and
is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


2 Peter 1:20,21...Scripture came from SPIRITUALLY guided Men


Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."


Very few true "eyewitnesses" were alive and kicking when the Gospels were circulated.
And their seeing and perceptions thereof would not alter the "word" therein.
What if the "eyewitnesses" were unbelievers ....bent on distorting the true facts?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:07PM #16
Blü
Posts: 26,191

Rgurley


1. "eyewitness account"...NOT necessarily WRITTEN


We don't have even one eyewitness account of anything in the NT.  

If we had one, it'd necessarily be written.  

When you have only a report of what someone else said, it's not an eyewitness account, it's hearsay.

We can't even reliably tell whether any parts of the NT are hearsay as distinct from fiction, and if so which.


Oh yeah?...prove that those "parts" are false with extra - Biblical FACTS.


Resurrections, walking on water, feeding the multitude, water into wine &c are all miracle tales.  Miracles are a subset of magic.  Fulfilment of prophecy is also miraculous, also part of magic.

Magic is unhistorical, to put it no higher.


The Jewish nation were master historians, both in verbal traditions and ancient writings


The Jewish tradition of exegesis called midrash was practiced in NT times.  


And your point is?


That we know Paul never met Jesus and we have no reason to think that any of the gospel writers did either.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:49PM #17
jonny42
Posts: 6,889

May 4, 2012 -- 10:07PM, Blü wrote:



That we know Paul never met Jesus and we have no reason to think that any of the gospel writers did either.

 



The early church fathers attributed the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.   It seems odd that if they didn't really know who wrote the gospels… that they would attribute two of them to non-Twelvers (Mark and Luke), and one to a minor disciple (Matthew).  Calling the gospels Peter or James would have lent them more credibility among the early followers.


There must have been good reason for them to not call "Mark" Peter or James.   And that's probably because they had good reason to call it Mark.   And the same thing for Luke.   And Matthew.   And their apparent striving for authenticity… gives their attribution of the 4th gospel to John credence. 


So, it is likely that two of the gospels were written by men who knew Jesus quite well.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:00PM #18
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

May 4, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Ed.W wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 4:58PM, mainecaptain wrote:


GREAT, post Iwanta. Bravo. Sincerely




We need a better emoticon package.  I want a facepalm, a shaking head, and an eyeroll.  And in that order.  Laughing


If this one will function, I love him, especially that Italian hand gesturing...




Yea....I keep looking for finger down the throat make me gag too..........


sdp

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:28AM #19
Blü
Posts: 26,191

jonny


The early church fathers attributed the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.   It seems odd that if they didn't really know who wrote the gospels… that they would attribute two of them to non-Twelvers (Mark and Luke), and one to a minor disciple (Matthew).


A great deal of misattribution went on in the early centuries of Christianity.  That's why the NT contains so many pseudepigraphs.

As well, none of the gospels is credibly attributed in itself.  The names emerge from tradition and the usefulness of a handle, not from information.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:29AM #20
Blü
Posts: 26,191

Ed, stardust


Yea....I keep looking for finger down the throat make me gag too..........


Doncha just LOVE the generosity of spirit that Christianity imbues in its followers!

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook