U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2016, 08:25 PM
 
8,621 posts, read 11,898,858 times
Reputation: 3135

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
The gospels are based on what Paul wrote. None of them appeared earlier. Paul invented it, and with each gospel, the further away they got from Paul's' writings, the more embellishment to detail.

Amazing isn't it?
As far as writings I think you are right. But there may have been a general story about his teachings, healings, betrayal, and resurrection. But it is interesting that Paul doesn't refer to any specifics about Jesus or his ministry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2016, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,608 posts, read 5,125,761 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That's not true at all. There were oral traditions which were passed down from the beginning of the Church during the time of eyewitnesses who could attest to the accuracy of those oral traditions and prevent them from becoming distorted. As well, those scholars who hold to Markan priority generally believe in either the two source or four source hypothesis and posit the possible existence of sources such as 'Q,' 'M', And 'L,' from which much information was obtained for the Gospels.

Luke admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he investigated everything carefully regarding those things handed down by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. The apostles who walked with Jesus were certainly among those eyewitnesses that Luke interviewed.

Scholars also acknowledge the existence of pre-Pauline traditions which were handed down from the beginning of the church. One such example of a pre-Pauline tradition or creed is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Paul states that he received that information which he was passing on. Most scholars believe that Paul received this information from Peter and James when he went to see them some three years after his conversion. What that means is that from the very beginning of the church it was believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and that He appeared to those mentioned in the passage.

Now while many scholars maintain that we can't know who the writers of the Gospels were, there are scholars who still hold to the belief that the early church held, that the four Gospels were written by the men whose names have been attached to them. Which means then that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, Mark got his information from Peter, and Luke, from eyewitnesses.

Your unsupported claim carries no weight.
This is a better post and smacks of sincerity since you have provided alternate viewpoints.

I think the solution is easier---the writers heard things differently and recorded them the way they heard them. It doesn't mean all are necessarily correct--or need to be. What the differences mean is that the writers weren't in some kind of complicity with one another.

You get credit from this anti-fundamentalist when you show the WHOLE truth. In this case it is deserved--and given whether you want it or nor, accept it or not, or even whether you appreciate it. And, no, we aren't buddies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 01:16 AM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 5,742,037 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That's not true at all. There were oral traditions which were passed down from the beginning of the Church during the time of eyewitnesses who could attest to the accuracy of those oral traditions and prevent them from becoming distorted.
Supposition. What citations do you have?

Quote:
As well, those scholars who hold to Markan priority generally believe in either the two source or four source hypothesis and posit the possible existence of sources such as 'Q,' 'M', And 'L,' from which much information was obtained for the Gospels.
The "Q", from Quelle, the German word for source, is a recent hypothesize. And that is all it is. It proves nothing.

Quote:
Luke admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he investigated everything carefully regarding those things handed down by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. The apostles who walked with Jesus were certainly among those eyewitnesses that Luke interviewed.
Yes, and supposedly Moses wrote the Pentateuch, even though it has been come clear there was not Moses. In fact, it is even more likely that Deuteronomy was written centuries before Genesis and Exodus.

Quote:
Scholars also acknowledge the existence of pre-Pauline traditions which were handed down from the beginning of the church. One such example of a pre-Pauline tradition or creed is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Paul states that he received that information which he was passing on. Most scholars believe that Paul received this information from Peter and James when he went to see them some three years after his conversion. What that means is that from the very beginning of the church it was believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and that He appeared to those mentioned in the passage.
There were a plethora of Jewish messiah cults in the 100 BCE to 100 CE era. Paul's version was just one of these. He was the Joesph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard of his time... a great marketer.

Quote:
Now while many scholars maintain that we can't know who the writers of the Gospels were, there are scholars who still hold to the belief that the early church held, that the four Gospels were written by the men whose names have been attached to them. Which means then that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, Mark got his information from Peter, and Luke, from eyewitnesses.
This is more and more a minority view, one that non-fundamentalist scholars are dismissing.

Quote:
Your unsupported claim carries no weight.
In fact, it carries much weight. But then, if you are dismissive of facts over supposition, it's tough to educate you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 12:15 PM
 
20,307 posts, read 15,665,676 times
Reputation: 7433
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Supposition. What citations do you have?
My statement that there were oral traditions which were passed down from the beginning of the Church during the time of eyewitnesses who could attest to the accuracy of those oral traditions and prevent them from becoming distorted, is far from supposition on my part.

Scholars have long known the importance of oral tradition in certain ancient cultures, including ancient Judea. And as mentioned in the video I post below, scholars have identified several early oral creeds and hymns quoted in the New Testament that pre-date Paul's letters. Those oral creeds, mentioned in the video, are 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; Galatians 1:23; Romans 1:3-4; Romans 10:9-10, 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Philippians 2:6-7; Colossians 1:12-20; Colossians 2:9-15; 1 Peter 3:18-21; Luke 24:34.

This is, again as stated in the video below, ''evidence of essential Christian doctrines in creeds written down by Paul that existed before the New Testament was written.''

To put it another way, Paul, as well as Peter and Luke, recorded in their writings creeds pertaining to essential Christian doctrines that existed before the New Testament was written.

Here is the video. It's less than 15 minutes long and contains comments from scholars such as Craig Blomberg, Kenneth Bailey, N.T. Wright, Darrell Bock. You can look up information on them yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE

Scholars such as J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace in their book 'Reinventing Jesus, How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture,' devote two chapters to discussing oral tradition. They note that before the gospels were written down, the apostles and the leaders of the young church were preoccupied with spreading the gospel orally.

There is a lot of information available regarding oral tradition and the New Testament which can be accessed on the internet.
Quote:
The "Q", from Quelle, the German word for source, is a recent hypothesize. And that is all it is. It proves nothing.
While 'Q' is a hypothesis, it proves, as does the information I provided above, that educated scholars do not believe your claim in post #10 that ''The gospels are based on what Paul wrote.''


Quote:
Yes, and supposedly Moses wrote the Pentateuch, even though it has been come clear there was not Moses. In fact, it is even more likely that Deuteronomy was written centuries before Genesis and Exodus.
That comment has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that Luke admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he investigated everything carefully regarding those things handed down by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.


Quote:
There were a plethora of Jewish messiah cults in the 100 BCE to 100 CE era. Paul's version was just one of these. He was the Joesph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard of his time... a great marketer.
As noted above, Paul did not invent Christianity. Again, scholars recognize the existence in Paul's writings of doctrines contained in creeds and traditions that go back to the beginning of the church. In other words, before Paul was even converted.

Quote:
This is more and more a minority view, one that non-fundamentalist scholars are dismissing.
While it is true that it is a minority view, there are still many scholars who do hold to the early church tradition that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels. And I agree with them.

Quote:
In fact, it carries much weight. But then, if you are dismissive of facts over supposition, it's tough to educate you.
And yet, you provide nothing with which to back up your claim. You simply make a naked, unsupported assertion that the Gospels were based on what Paul wrote, and you seem to expect everyone to just take your word for it. On the other hand, I have backed up what I said. The proof of that is at the top of this post.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-18-2016 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 04:13 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 5,742,037 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
My statement that there were oral traditions which were passed down from the beginning of the Church during the time of eyewitnesses who could attest to the accuracy of those oral traditions and prevent them from becoming distorted, is far from supposition on my part.

Scholars have long known the importance of oral tradition in certain ancient cultures, including ancient Judea. And as mentioned in the video I post below, scholars have identified several early oral creeds and hymns quoted in the New Testament that pre-date Paul's letters. Those oral creeds, mentioned in the video, are 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; Galatians 1:23; Romans 1:3-4; Romans 10:9-10, 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Philippians 2:6-7; Colossians 1:12-20; Colossians 2:9-15; 1 Peter 3:18-21; Luke 24:34.

This is, again as stated in the video below, ''evidence of essential Christian doctrines in creeds written down by Paul that existed before the New Testament was written.''

To put it another way, Paul, as well as Peter and Luke, recorded in their writings creeds pertaining to essential Christian doctrines that existed before the New Testament was written.

Here is the video. It's less than 15 minutes long and contains comments from scholars such as Craig Blomberg, Kenneth Bailey, N.T. Wright, Darrell Bock. You can look up information on them yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE

Scholars such as J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace in their book 'Reinventing Jesus, How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture,' devote two chapters to discussing oral tradition. They note that before the gospels were written down, the apostles and the leaders of the young church were preoccupied with spreading the gospel orally.

There is a lot of information available regarding oral tradition and the New Testament which can be accessed on the internet.


While 'Q' is a hypothesis, it proves, as does the information I provided above, that educated scholars do not believe your claim in post #10 that ''The gospels are based on what Paul wrote.''



That comment has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that Luke admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he investigated everything carefully regarding those things handed down by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.



As noted above, Paul did not invent Christianity. Again, scholars recognize the existence in Paul's writings of doctrines contained in creeds and traditions that go back to the beginning of the church. In other words, before Paul was even converted.


While it is true that it is a minority view, there are still many scholars who do hold to the early church tradition that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels. And I agree with them.


And yet, you provide nothing with which to back up your claim. You simply make a naked, unsupported assertion that the Gospels were based on what Paul wrote, and you seem to expect everyone to just take your word for it. On the other hand, I have backed up what I said. The proof of that is at the top of this post.

This may put it into perspective. It is a short, 11 slide presentation.


The Resurrection And The Salem Witch Trials
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 05:32 PM
 
20,307 posts, read 15,665,676 times
Reputation: 7433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
My statement that there were oral traditions which were passed down from the beginning of the Church during the time of eyewitnesses who could attest to the accuracy of those oral traditions and prevent them from becoming distorted, is far from supposition on my part.

Scholars have long known the importance of oral tradition in certain ancient cultures, including ancient Judea. And as mentioned in the video I post below, scholars have identified several early oral creeds and hymns quoted in the New Testament that pre-date Paul's letters. Those oral creeds, mentioned in the video, are 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; Galatians 1:23; Romans 1:3-4; Romans 10:9-10, 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Philippians 2:6-7; Colossians 1:12-20; Colossians 2:9-15; 1 Peter 3:18-21; Luke 24:34.

This is, again as stated in the video below, ''evidence of essential Christian doctrines in creeds written down by Paul that existed before the New Testament was written.''

To put it another way, Paul, as well as Peter and Luke, recorded in their writings creeds pertaining to essential Christian doctrines that existed before the New Testament was written.

Here is the video. It's less than 15 minutes long and contains comments from scholars such as Craig Blomberg, Kenneth Bailey, N.T. Wright, Darrell Bock. You can look up information on them yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE

Scholars such as J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace in their book 'Reinventing Jesus, How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture,' devote two chapters to discussing oral tradition. They note that before the gospels were written down, the apostles and the leaders of the young church were preoccupied with spreading the gospel orally.

There is a lot of information available regarding oral tradition and the New Testament which can be accessed on the internet.


While 'Q' is a hypothesis, it proves, as does the information I provided above, that educated scholars do not believe your claim in post #10 that ''The gospels are based on what Paul wrote.''



That comment has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that Luke admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he investigated everything carefully regarding those things handed down by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.



As noted above, Paul did not invent Christianity. Again, scholars recognize the existence in Paul's writings of doctrines contained in creeds and traditions that go back to the beginning of the church. In other words, before Paul was even converted.


While it is true that it is a minority view, there are still many scholars who do hold to the early church tradition that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels. And I agree with them.


And yet, you provide nothing with which to back up your claim. You simply make a naked, unsupported assertion that the Gospels were based on what Paul wrote, and you seem to expect everyone to just take your word for it. On the other hand, I have backed up what I said. The proof of that is at the top of this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
This may put it into perspective. It is a short, 11 slide presentation.


The Resurrection And The Salem Witch Trials

You appear to have abandoned your claim that the Gospels were based on what Paul wrote. As well you should, considering the evidence against your claim.

Having now changed your argument to attempting to disprove the resurrection of Jesus you try comparing the resurrection of Jesus to the Salam witch trials. Such a comparison is baseless.

There was no ''enthusiasm, hysteria, social pressure, anxiety, and religious fervor'' (those characteristics having been mentioned in your article concerning the Salem witch trials) involved in the sightings of the risen Jesus by His disciples. They had not even understood His repeated comments regarding the fact that He would be killed and that He would rise on the third day. For one thing there was no Jewish belief that anyone would be resurrected before the general resurrection of everyone at the end of the age. The disciples were not expecting to see Jesus alive again. And so there no ''enthusiasm, hysteria, social pressure, anxiety, and religious fervor'' involved.

Mary, the first to see Jesus didn't even recognize Jesus when she first saw Him after He had risen. She thought he was the gardener and had taken Jesus' body. And when she went and told the disciples that Jesus had risen, they didn't believe her. And when the disciples did see the risen Jesus and told Thomas, who hadn't been present, he didn't believe them until Jesus appeared to him as well.

And Paul? He had no expectations or desire to see a risen Jesus. His intent was to track down and arrest as many Christians as he could because of their belief that Jesus had risen. He was persecuting Christians in the cause of his own beliefs as a Pharisaical Jew. But then, on his way to Damascus to find and arrest more Christians he encountered the risen Jesus on the Damascus road. The men who were with him saw the light that accompanied the vision, and they heard the voice, though they could not recognize it as a voice. That fact means that Paul did not have an internally generated hallucination.

And James, the brother of Jesus? He had not believed before Jesus was crucified that his brother was who He clamed to be. And yet, later he became the leader of the Jerusalem church and eventually was martyred for his faith.

The disciples were all willing to suffer and even suffer martyrdom for what they were proclaiming about Jesus. They were willing to suffer and die for what they knew to either be true (because they were eye witnesses) or false. Not too many people are willing to spend the rest of their lives suffering, and dying for what they know to be a lie.

Jesus did in fact appear to numerous people over a forty day period under different circumstances. But His appearances were not some vague thing such as people seeing an image on a potato chip, or people thinking they saw some statue move, etc. The risen Jesus appeared to people and had conversations with them and ate with them. No hallucinations were involved. There are no naturalistic explanations that can adequately explain the appearances of the risen Jesus.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-18-2016 at 06:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Southwestern, USA
12,768 posts, read 10,778,998 times
Reputation: 14896
To me the need to know the answer is another trick from the devil's toolbox....Uncle Screwtape:*
"Psst, get them thinking about these details so they don't focus on the meat...
that being... such a huge offense to Jesus and Jesus did not love him any less."


* Most Christian's are familiar with CS Lewis', The Screwtape Letters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 08:09 PM
 
8,621 posts, read 11,898,858 times
Reputation: 3135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn View Post
To me the need to know the answer is another trick from the devil's toolbox....Uncle Screwtape:*
"Psst, get them thinking about these details so they don't focus on the meat...
that being... such a huge offense to Jesus and Jesus did not love him any less."


* Most Christian's are familiar with CS Lewis', The Screwtape Letters.
"The meat" being the most crucial part of the gospel. It's too bad that there are so many differing opinions on what that is.

Of course it is love. But too many people just don't get it. All you need is love.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 09:51 PM
 
37,553 posts, read 25,268,086 times
Reputation: 5858
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
"The meat" being the most crucial part of the gospel. It's too bad that there are so many differing opinions on what that is.

Of course it is love. But too many people just don't get it. All you need is love.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top