Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
>>They are historical accounts of what Jesus did, said, died and rose from the dead.<<
Actually, they are folklore written long after the events based on hearsy evidence many times repeated. Still, they may contain some historical facts surrounded by legend.
Not really. There were scribes following Christ around writing down what He said and did AS He did and said them.
Quote:
The Apostle Paul correctly stated:
>>1Co_15:3 For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,<<
>>Gal_1:4 Who gives Himself for our sins, so that He might extricate us out of the present wicked eon, according to the will of our God and Father,<<
Quote:
Yep. That's the claim that Paul (who wrote first) came up with and it was picked up by early Christians as the reason for Jesus' death, rather than him merely being executed as an insurrectionist.
I see, you like to make things up as you go along. Cute, but far from the truth. The old testament law of sacrifices pointed to THE sacrifice of Christ as the lamb of God. Of course you can just willy nilly say something trite about whatever I say but that makes your side look silly.
Since Luke was not an eyewitness he got the original people to testify :
Luk 1:1-3 Since, in fact, even many take in hand to compose a narrative concerning the matters of which we are fully assured among ourselves, (2) according as those who, from the beginning coming to be eyewitnesses and deputies of the word, (3) give them over to us, it seems good to me also, having fully followed all accurately from the very first, to write to you consecutively, most mighty Theophilus,
Mark 11:1-7, Luke 19:29-35, and John 12:14-15 all have Jesus riding on one animal when he entered Jerusalem. On the other hand, Matthew 21:1-7 has Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes when entering Jerusalem. Sort of stunt riding.
The New Revised Standard Version , Matthew 21:6-7 “The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.”
The Codes Sinaticus (4th century), Matthew 21:6-7 “And the disciples went and did as Jesus had commanded them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put their mantles on them, and he sat upon them.”
But the 1995 edition of the New American Standard Bible, corrects Matthew’s inerrant error thus:"The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats”
The word “coats” doesn’t appear in earlier editions, but seems to correct Matthew’s claim that Jesus rode two animals.
Thus Matthew's inerrant gospel had an error corrected.
>>Not really. There were scribes following Christ around writing down what He said and did AS He did and said them.<<
RESPONSE:
You've really reached the absurd on this one. How many scribes were there? Do you have any evidence?
>>I see, you like to make things up as you go along. Cute, but far from the truth. The old testament law of sacrifices pointed to THE sacrifice of Christ as the lamb of God. Of course you can just willy nilly say something trite about whatever I say but that makes your side look silly.<<
RESPONSE:
Didn't God forbid human sacrifice?
Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
>>Since Luke was not an eyewitness he got the original people to testify :
Luk 1:1-3 Since, in fact, even many take in hand to compose a narrative concerning the matters of which we are fully assured among ourselves, (2) according as those who, from the beginning coming to be eyewitnesses and deputies of the word, (3) give them over to us, it seems good to me also, having fully followed all accurately from the very first, to write to you consecutively, most mighty Theophilus <<
RESPONSE:
Even if this were true,writing in the 80 's, how many time had the stories been retold before they reached Luke?
"...fully assured..." Hardly. Remember, Luke begins by having Jesus born 10 years after King Herod's death.
Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, used Mark as a source and collectd stories, the more amazing, the more interesting!
>>Not really. There were scribes following Christ around writing down what He said and did AS He did and said them.<<
Quote:
RESPONSE:
Quote:
You've really reached the absurd on this one. How many scribes were there? Do you have any evidence?
E's replY:
Mat_9:3 And lo! some of the scribes say among themselves, "This man is blaspheming!"
Mat_12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you."
Mat_15:1 Then, coming to Jesus from Jerusalem are Pharisees and scribes, saying,
Do you know what scribes do? They record.
>>E wrote: I see, you like to make things up as you go along. Cute, but far from the truth. The old testament law of sacrifices pointed to THE sacrifice of Christ as the lamb of God. Of course you can just willy nilly say something trite about whatever I say but that makes your side look silly.<<
Quote:
RESPONSE:
Quote:
Didn't God forbid human sacrifice?
Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
Eusebius' reply:
Did God sacrifice His Son by fire to Moloch? I thought I'd highlight in red, your quote above.
Lev_18:21 You shall not give any of your seed to make them pass through
fire to Moloch, for you shall not profane the name of your Elohim:I am
Yahweh.
>>Since Luke was not an eyewitness he got the original people to testify :
Luk 1:1-3 Since, in fact, even many take in hand to compose a narrative concerning the matters of which we are fully assured among ourselves, (2) according as those who, from the beginning coming to be eyewitnesses and deputies of the word, (3) give them over to us, it seems good to me also, having fully followed all accurately from the very first, to write to you consecutively, most mighty Theophilus <<
Quote:
RESPONSE:
Even if this were true,writing in the 80 's, how many time had the stories been retold before they reached Luke?
Who says the stories were re-told many times if they were from the original eye-witnesses?[/quote]
Who said Luke was written around 80 A.D.? It wasn't.
Luke wrote Acts as it was occurring. He historical account called "Acts" was begun around 32-33 A.D. Luke kept a running record of what was occurring back then. Why would Luke wait 50 years to begin writing his account we call "Luke"? That doesn't make sense.
Luke was written prior to Acts. In Acts they were still meeting in Jerusalem. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed. So it had to be written prior to 70 A.D.
Quote:
"...fully assured..." Hardly. Remember, Luke begins by having Jesus born 10 years after King Herod's death.
You never learn do you? Luke never had Jesus born 10 years after Herod's death.
Quote:
Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, used Mark as a source and collectd stories, the more amazing, the more interesting!
Some say he used Mark as a source. But there is no real proof of that such as "I, Luke, copied from Mark's original work."
The fact is Luke used first hand witnesses and he fully followed all accuratly from be beginning as well. He said so.
Does Hebrews 11:3 really say the worlds were framed by the word of God?
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Here is a better translation:
Heb_11:3 By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God, so that what
is being observed has not come out of what is appearing."
Notice the word in red above? The plural form of aion is used. The Greek word for "world" is "kosmos." Kosmos is not used in Heb.11:3. What is being observed? Israel is set aside and faith is given to the nations apart from Israel. The eons were adjusted for this secret administration we have been in for almost 2000 years.
Anything is possible. But what is actually reported.
From the 4th century Bible, the Codex Sinaticus (to rule out alteration by later scribes):
1 And when they were near to Jerusalem, and had come to Bethphage to the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,
2 saying to them: Go into the village that is opposite to you, and you will immediately find an ass tied and a colt with her; loose and bring them to me.
3 And if any one say anything to you, you shall say that the Lord has need of them; and he will immediately send them.
4 And this was done that it might be fulfilled that was spoken through the prophet, saying:
5 Say to the daughter of Zion: Behold, thy King comes to thee meek and mounted on an ass, yes, on a colt the foal of a beast of burden.
6 And the disciples went and did as Jesus had commanded them,
7 and brought the ass and the colt, and put their mantles on them, and he sat upon them.
Throughtout the passage, "them" refers to the two animals. It is grammatically absurd to change what "them" refers to at the end of the last sentence.
How about explaining why the people put their clothes on two animals if Jesus was only going to ride on one?
To try to avoid the obvious, fundamentalists resort to the most unreasonable explanations.
[quote=Eusebius;24593343]E's replY:
Mat_9:3 And lo! some of the scribes say among themselves, "This man is blaspheming!"
Mat_12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you."
Mat_15:1 Then, coming to Jesus from Jerusalem are Pharisees and scribes, saying,
Do you know what scribes do? They record.
RESPONSE:
And you are trying to have us believe that they were there on all occassions, just following Jesus around all the time to record everything Jeuss said???
Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-04-2012 at 04:07 PM..
Reason: typo
Eusebius' reply:
Did God sacrifice His Son by fire to Moloch? I thought I'd highlight in red, your quote above.
Lev_18:21 You shall not give any of your seed to make them pass through
fire to Moloch, for you shall not profane the name of your Elohim:I am
Yahweh.
RESPONSE:
Please note, that this passage does not refer only to sacrifices to Moloch.
Deuteronomy 18:9-12: When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
>>Since Luke was not an eyewitness he got the original people to testify<<
Luk 1:1-3 Since, in fact, even many take in hand to compose a narrative concerning the matters of which we are fully assured among ourselves, (2) according as those who, from the beginning coming to be eyewitnesses and deputies of the word, (3) give them over to us, it seems good to me also, having fully followed all accurately from the very first, to write to you consecutively, most mighty Theophilus <<
>>>Who says the stories were re-told many times if they were from the original eye-witnesses?
<<<
RESPONSE:
Was Luke written immediately after Jesus' life or many years later? Was Luke himself a witness to the events he is describing?
>>Who said Luke was written around 80 A.D.? It wasn't.<<
William Edwards:
"Since St Luke records the destruction of the temple by the Romans (around 70 AD) in some detail, most scholars conclude the text must have been written sometime after that event; and that’s, largely, where the date of 80-90 AD comes from. Similarly, with Matthew’s Gospel, the description of the destruction suggests a date of later than 70 AD:
Luke – Most scholars argue 80–90 AD; some scholars 60-65 AD; a minority 37–41 AD."
None claim 30 AD however. So Luke was repeating stories.
>>Luke wrote Acts as it was occurring. He historical account called "Acts" was begun around 32-33 A.D. Luke kept a running record of what was occurring back then. Why would Luke wait 50 years to begin writing his account we call "Luke"? That doesn't make sense.
Luke was written prior to Acts. In Acts they were still meeting in Jerusalem. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed. So it had to be written prior to 70 A.D.<<
Nope. He wasn't there.
You never learn do you? Luke never had Jesus born 10 years after Herod's death.
RESPONSE:
Luke didn't have to. He dates Jesus birth to during the census of Judea by the Romans. It is well established that this census was nesessitated by the exile of Judea's then ruler, Archelaus, the sone of King Herod who had been dead 10 years at the time of the exile and census. (see Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews)
>>Some say he used Mark as a source. But there is no real proof of that such as "I, Luke, copied from Mark's original work.""
He doesn't have to. Simple observation shows that Luke did.
>>The fact is Luke used first hand witnesses and he fully followed all accuratly from be beginning as well. He said so.[/quote]<<
As stated above, Luke is known to have used Mark's Gospel as the main single source for information about the life and mission of Jesus. Whenever Luke agrees with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, something that could not happen unless one Gospel was being copied. We also have the "Missing Block", a section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. That he was trying to follow Mark faithfully and did not know that there were missing sheets in his copy, is demonstrated by the fact that he unintelligibly merged the verses from Mark, before and after the Missing Block. Given the importance of material in the "Missing Block", particularly the miracle of walking on water, we could expect that Luke would have added this material from his other sources, if any such sources of that specific material were known to him. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_sourc...e's_Gospel
RESPONSE
Cinderella said that her's is a true story. Do you believe her?
Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-04-2012 at 04:33 PM..
Reason: typo
Mark 15:25 "It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him." (NRSV)
John 19:14 "Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He (Pilate) said to the Jews, ‘Here is your King!’ " (NRSV)
Was Jesus still on trial at noon, or had he already been crucified at 9 a.m?
Translators messed things up a bit :-)
Nine o'clock should be "third hour". Jews started to count at sunrise. So in this case no harme done. 6 (sunrise) + 3 = 9
The original text doesn't write at noon but 6th hour.
6th hour of what?
a] Since sunrise = 12 = noon. => contradiction
b] Since midnight (Roman count) is 6:00. Sunrise. Contradiction + Jesus was clearly in the Sanhedrin then.
c] 6th hour is a time span.
6th hour since His arrest at 3am John 18:3
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
I can't prove 3am (yet) but it's certainly not impossible. It seems to align with the ****-crow.
Also keep in mind "hour" isn't a time but a time period lasting an hour.
Hopefully the diagram below makes it a bit more clear :-)
Was Luke written immediately after Jesus' life or many years later? Was Luke himself a witness to the events he is describing?
>>Who said Luke was written around 80 A.D.? It wasn't.<<
William Edwards:
"Since St Luke records the destruction of the temple by the Romans (around 70 AD) in some detail, most scholars conclude the text must have been written sometime after that event; and that’s, largely, where the date of 80-90 AD comes from. Similarly, with Matthew’s Gospel, the description of the destruction suggests a date of later than 70 AD:
Luke – Most scholars argue 80–90 AD; some scholars 60-65 AD; a minority 37–41 AD."
None claim 30 AD however. So Luke was repeating stories.
Where in Luke does he describe the destruction of Jerusalem and temple by the Romans in 70 AD? That's a new one to me!
>>Eusebius wrote:
Luke wrote Acts as it was occurring. The historical account called "Acts" was begun around 32-33 A.D. Luke kept a running record of what was occurring back then. Why would Luke wait 50 years to begin writing his account we call "Luke"? That doesn't make sense.
Luke was written prior to Acts. In Acts they were still meeting in Jerusalem. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed. So it had to be written prior to 70 A.D.<<
A.W. replied: Nope. He wasn't there.
E's reply: Was so.
E wrote: You never learn do you? Luke never had Jesus born 10 years after Herod's death.
RESPONSE:
Luke didn't have to. He dates Jesus birth to during the census of Judea by the Romans. It is well established that this census was nesessitated by the exile of Judea's then ruler, Archelaus, the sone of King Herod who had been dead 10 years at the time of the exile and census. (see Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews)
Eusebius' reply:
I'm sure Luke would know when Jesus was born and it wasn't after the death of Herod.
>>E wrote: Some say he used Mark as a source. But there is no real proof of that such as "I, Luke, copied from Mark's original work.""
A.W. replied: He doesn't have to. Simple observation shows that Luke did.
E's reply: Not really.
>>Eusebius wrote:
The fact is Luke used first hand witnesses and he fully followed all accurately from be beginning as well. He said so.[/quote]<<
A.W. reply:
As stated above, Luke is known to have used Mark's Gospel as the main single source for information about the life and mission of Jesus.
Eusebius' reply:
Luke doesn't say he used Mark so it is just speculation he did.
Quote:
A.W. wrote:
RESPONSE
Quote:
Cinderella said that her's is a true story. Do you believe her?
If it was a true story I would, as long as it was not written knowingly as being fictional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
