Eusebius - "Father of Church history." (gospels, bible, Christianity)

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

How much do you know about this guy? What was his part in shaping modern Christianity?

[kdbrich]

He was one of the ECFs. I honestly don't know a lot about him. He said some good things, some bad....but I wouldn't say his writings are inspired.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

He was one of the ECFs. I honestly don't know a lot about him. He said some good things, some bad....but I wouldn't say his writings are inspired.

I strongly suggest reading up on him.

[SomewhereInND]

I am always disappointed to find that the great bible historians were always born several hundred years after christ.

Look how bad we are at understanding recent history: Columbus, any war...even Boston Tea Party.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by SomewhereInND

I am always disappointed to find that the great bible historians were always born several hundred years after christ.

Look how bad we are at understanding recent history: Columbus, any war...even Boston Tea Party.

The best ones were eyewitnesses and wrote their accounts in the Gospels.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

The best ones were eyewitnesses and wrote their accounts in the Gospels.

Sorry...Wrong again. The gospels were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Sorry...Wrong again. The gospels were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.

No. They weren't.

If they were written more than 35 years after, that would have placed them after about 70 AD. Not a one of them mentions the temple being destroyed by the Romans.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

The best ones were eyewitnesses and wrote their accounts in the Gospels.

I failed to ask you the last time you said this: what proof are we working with on this? Their word or the assumption of others?

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

I ailed to ask you the last time you said this: what proof are we working with on this? Their word or the assumption of others?

corroborating testimonies, for one.

historical traditions showing the rapid growth of a religious movement based on the person of Jesus, for another.

The huge numbers of manuscripts show the route that the written accounts took throughout the area. One branch went north, another south to Africa. When you get into the analysis of such manuscripts you find that there really is a huge amount of evidence.

[sanspeur]

Luke himself clearly states that he was no follower of Jesus. Nor could Matthew have been a follower of Jesus, for he depends almost entirely on Mark for the skeleton of his story. And Mark could not have been a follower of Jesus because the narrative portions of his story are made up almost entirely out of the Old Testament.

In other words, Mark’s work is fiction, and Matt and Luke are based on fiction. If Mark had any eyewitness accounts, he chose either to overwrite them, or ignore them in constructing his story.

Perhaps you should learn a bit about the history of book you so revere.
The New Testament Gateway | NTGateway.com | Dr Mark Goodacre