Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That compared to any other event in antiquity the account of Christ is unparalleled in the number of texts,
The timing of the texts are all decades after the alleged events and not written by eye witnesses.the timing of the texts
Kudos to them for more or less accurately copying texts written by non-eyewitnesses decades after the alleged events. It's not clear why this should be evidence that the events described actually happened.and the accuracy of the copies and that it's not really even close.
Not written by eye-witnesses, or not copied by eye-witnesses? My understanding is that the oldest copies we know of can be dated. What cannot be known, of course, if these were the originals, or copies of other, earlier scrolls.The timing of the texts are all decades after the alleged events and not written by eye witnesses.
And did any of them say, "hey, wait, Jesus didn't perform any of those miracles except resurrection."
Not written by eye-witnesses, or not copied by eye-witnesses? My understanding is that the oldest copies we know of can be dated. What cannot be known, of course, if these were the originals, or copies of other, earlier scrolls.
Not written by eye-witnesses, or not copied by eye-witnesses? My understanding is that the oldest copies we know of can be dated. What cannot be known, of course, if these were the originals, or copies of other, earlier scrolls.
Not written by eye-witnesses, or not copied by eye-witnesses? My understanding is that the oldest copies we know of can be dated. What cannot be known, of course, if these were the originals, or copies of other, earlier scrolls.
Of the ones you did read, did any of them say, "hey, wait, Jesus didn't perform any of those miracles except resurrection."I haven't read them all.
You seemed to have missed my point.Indeed there are many copies of the books of the Bible.
The timing of the texts are all decades after the alleged events and not written by eye witnesses.
Kudos to them for more or less accurately copying texts written by non-eyewitnesses decades after the alleged events. It's not clear why this should be evidence that the events described actually happened.
So, what's the problem? The Apostles had many disciples. As a newspaper reporter, I was not always an eyewitness to an event, but reported on what eyewitnesses described. I've always heard, The Gospel according to... (name follows). When I wasn't an eyewitness, I would write According to... (name of eyewitness). I also checked other accounts to see how they matched, how they differed and why.The gospel writers are anonymous. They are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John out of tradition, but two of those never knew Jesus.
So, what's the problem? The Apostles had many disciples. As a newspaper reporter, I was not always an eyewitness to an event, but reported on what eyewitnesses described. I've always heard, The Gospel according to... (name follows). When I wasn't an eyewitness, I would write According to... (name of eyewitness). I also checked other accounts to see how they matched, how they differed and why.
Agree.Jesus wrote none of the Gospels himself, his teachings were relayed by the Spoken Word.
It's very likely that his Kabbalist disciples also furthered the teaching by Spoken Word, so it's not shocking or out of the ordinary that nothing was written down until years later
You're kidding...Wikipedia? I'll pass.Read the details..
She will make up any excuse to bad mouth Christian beliefs.You're kidding...Wikipedia? I'll pass.
Of course. It was effectively a trial. Is that your reason for being so selective in your beliefs? You know... you could just say you don't believe any of it rather than arguing such a tenuous position that you accept one miracle did occur but not the other 37.Read the details..
Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Do you think there was anyone with Jesus when he was interviewed by Pilate or Herod Antipas?
You're kidding...Wikipedia? I'll pass.
Of course. It was effectively a trial. Is that your reason for being so selective in your beliefs? You know... you could just say you don't believe any of it rather than arguing such a tenuous position that you accept one miracle did occur but not the other 37.
So, what's the problem? The Apostles had many disciples. As a newspaper reporter, I was not always an eyewitness to an event, but reported on what eyewitnesses described. I've always heard, The Gospel according to... (name follows). When I wasn't an eyewitness, I would write According to... (name of eyewitness). I also checked other accounts to see how they matched, how they differed and why.
I will settle this argument. I am a Catholic and I'm also the smartest member at this website! So, there was a Jesus. HE was a great man who hated the Boston Celtics!I've heard that people who are exceptionally intelligent sometimes have multiple doubts, or I should say Questions, about Jesus, about the history of Christianity and etc.
Well, even not too bright people have doubts. But as someone once said, "a thousand questions do not make one doubt."
Whatever you call it, people have valid questions. For one, some people doubt Jesus even existed. Well, I find that one absurd because even non-Christian historians who lived in the first centuries spoke of Jesus.
In any case, I have had many questions and sometimes whne things are not going well, I have doubts about.. things like God really loving anyone... I don't feel the love 24/7/365 all the days of my life, to be sure.
But then when I have these doubtful moments, I remember the Real Presence of Christ.
And all doubts vanish immediately. If you don't know what the Real Presence is, you really should check it out... But Jesus has a tangible Presence and that Presence abides in His Church.
+
You know so very little, stop copying from WikiWho Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were chosen from over 30 gospels to be 'the' correct ones, in the 4th century. By Vexen Crabtreewww.humanreligions.info
In the early centuries of Christianity, there were over 200 Christian gospels in circulation, all of them containing wildly varied stories and theologies1. As the Church became organized there was much worry that no-one truly knew what Jesus had said or done, so they ratified just four Gospels: They picked the number four because "there were four winds, four points of the compass, four corners of the temple", mirroring the arguments of Irenaeus in the 2nd century -
It's the internal evidence that reveals that they were not written by eyewitnesses. Who, exactly, was the eyewitness to Joseph's dream whereby the angel of God told him that Mary was pregnant? There's only one person who could have been the eyewitness, yet no one thinks that Joseph wrote the Gospel of Matthew. But let's suppose he did. Then we run into the problem of the Transfiguration recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. The only eyewitnesses were Jesus, Peter, James, and John. None of whom are Joseph. So it's quite impossible for the Gospel of Matthew to have been written by an eyewitness. It doesn't even claim to be written by an eyewitness. Similar problems exist in the rest of the New Testament.Not written by eye-witnesses, or not copied by eye-witnesses? My understanding is that the oldest copies we know of can be dated. What cannot be known, of course, if these were the originals, or copies of other, earlier scrolls.
