I suggest you look up what the words "tangible" and "evidence" means.
No where in those definitions will you find the word science or scientific. You are being as illogical as Surada.
Zone1 Was The Garden Of Eden A Real Place?
- Thread starter mudwhistle
- Start date
No where in those definitions will you find the word science or scientific. You are being as illogical as Surada.
tangible: capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
You mean the gospels? They were written years after the crucifixion and two of the authors didn't know Jesus. I don't think you can treat them like news broadcast.
Dispassionate scholars of the New Testament, the ones using scientific/historical methods and who have no religious axe to grind, all state flatly that none of the Gospels were written by the named individuals.
They were in fact written by professional scribes no earlier than about 50 years after Jesus’ death, and these scribes were all working from oral traditions that had been circulating for that long. John dates to almost 100 years after Jesus.
It was common practice at the time to attribute such writings to famous people, such as the original apostles.
Most people these days don’t realize that over 100 Gospels are known to scholars. Some we have complete, some partial, some only in fragments, and some by name only. People think that the four Gospels included in the New Testament were chosen as the most accurate accounts, but that’s not the case. They were chosen because they most closely adhered to the story that the evolving Christian religion wished to present.
The other Gospels were either relegated to the apocrypha, the group that sort of “couldn’t be vouched for”, or they were condemned as heresy as part of Gnosticism.
(No one in modern times knew anything of Gnosticism other than it was a heresy that had been suppressed…Until the Nag Hammurabi Library was discovered in the 40s… the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” that had been salted away in a cave.
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has written extensively on all this, as have other scholars such as Aileen Pagels.
Those interested might read. “Misquoting Jesus” and “Lost Christianities” by Ehrman.
They were in fact written by professional scribes no earlier than about 50 years after Jesus’ death, and these scribes were all working from oral traditions that had been circulating for that long. John dates to almost 100 years after Jesus.
It was common practice at the time to attribute such writings to famous people, such as the original apostles.
Most people these days don’t realize that over 100 Gospels are known to scholars. Some we have complete, some partial, some only in fragments, and some by name only. People think that the four Gospels included in the New Testament were chosen as the most accurate accounts, but that’s not the case. They were chosen because they most closely adhered to the story that the evolving Christian religion wished to present.
The other Gospels were either relegated to the apocrypha, the group that sort of “couldn’t be vouched for”, or they were condemned as heresy as part of Gnosticism.
(No one in modern times knew anything of Gnosticism other than it was a heresy that had been suppressed…Until the Nag Hammurabi Library was discovered in the 40s… the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” that had been salted away in a cave.
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has written extensively on all this, as have other scholars such as Aileen Pagels.
Those interested might read. “Misquoting Jesus” and “Lost Christianities” by Ehrman.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
that's because she doesn't believe Jesus was resurrected she knows if she says that we will know her real opinion.
Luke was a Greek physician (likely a Hellenic Jew, but maybe a Greek gentile) who was a companion of Paul.
He traveled extensively and interviewed many of the principal Gospel figures, including many of the Apostles and the Blessed Mother, and compiled their recollections into his Gospel and the Book of Acts, but we have no reason to believe he ever encountered Jesus during His earthly ministry.
Mark… maybe. Mark is the Gospel author we know least about.
It is assumed that he is the “John Mark” mentioned in Acts 12 and Acts 15, who traveled with Paul and Barnabas, and later left with Barnabas. This alone would put him in roughly the same position as Luke, above.
Tradition* further holds that he is the young disciple mentioned in Mark 14:51–52, who followed the guards as they arrested Jesus, and later fled naked—because Mark is the only evangelist who recounts this tale (in a Gospel which, otherwise, is the most “pared down” of the Gospels), suggesting possible personal knowledge.
He traveled extensively and interviewed many of the principal Gospel figures, including many of the Apostles and the Blessed Mother, and compiled their recollections into his Gospel and the Book of Acts, but we have no reason to believe he ever encountered Jesus during His earthly ministry.
Mark… maybe. Mark is the Gospel author we know least about.
It is assumed that he is the “John Mark” mentioned in Acts 12 and Acts 15, who traveled with Paul and Barnabas, and later left with Barnabas. This alone would put him in roughly the same position as Luke, above.
Tradition* further holds that he is the young disciple mentioned in Mark 14:51–52, who followed the guards as they arrested Jesus, and later fled naked—because Mark is the only evangelist who recounts this tale (in a Gospel which, otherwise, is the most “pared down” of the Gospels), suggesting possible personal knowledge.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
and she gives it away again, she doesn't believe but she knows if she admits that she is done as a fake Christian.
Do any of those written texts support your belief that Jesus didn't perform any miracles except for the resurrection?
I am treating them as they are. You are ignoring what they claim and making up your own narrative.
Maybe. That would make more sense. She does seem to be inconsistent.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
she loves Islam and makes no bones defending that religion at all times. She is more voracious defending it then Christian religions.
Well. There was no census and it's highly unlikely that Herod slaughtered the boy babies since he was dead.
I respect Islam and I'm not ignorant . There's a difference.
Again... you are picking and choosing what to believe.
Don't you question the accounts written 50-80 years after the crucifixion?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
I don't question anything in the Bible because I believe in Jesus and God and his Holy word.
Do you believe in the rapture?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Having faith in the Bible is having faith in God and Jesus. You have none.
Do you believe in the rapture?
SaxonJackson
Make Vikings Great Again
It's possible, I suppose. It's my belief that God will restore the entire earth to Eden-like conditions upon Christ's return.
I question everything in life. But with respect to these texts, I don't selectively pick and choose. Like I said before there are really only two choices; it either happened as the 24,000+ written manuscripts say or it was a conspiracy of epic proportions. Of the two, the conspiracy of epic proportions is harder to believe.
The other thing you must consider is what the early Christians (i.e. Apostles and early Church Fathers) did after the resurrection of Christ as that is what lends credence to these manuscripts.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Chris Cuomo had another great show tonight, I think News Nation is better than Fox.
- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 2
