Why is the Bible so short on precise details? (miracles, scripture, evidence)
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.
Yes, Jesus does exist. He did walk the earth almost 2000 years ago.
He did feed 5000. Two feedings are actually recorded...maybe that's your issue.
Not sure where you get thing about his birth time.
He said the Laws would remain, but he fulfilled the Law. He is our righteousness, and Hebrews refers to him as our "Sabbath" -- meaning that we can rest in him. Or, you can attempt to fulfill the Law. Good luck with that.
What list?
So you just admitted that you believe anything that is written down.
Exactly. The order and design of snowflakes could be used as proof of a designer - but who in their right mind thinks so. Not BF, for certain, and he took it as an insult.
190 AD. Tertullian, writing around 200 AD said John ended at chapter 20. The last chapter was yet to be included.
Yes, I was surprised to realise that. What is interesting is that I already knew that the episode of the miraculous draught of fish appears in Luke in the context of the calling of the disciples. Which then of course conflicts with Matthew and mark as they have no such event. I remember that latter point surprised me when I first compared the gospels. Hadn't anyone noticed? Did they keep quiet about it? Would they play the different point of view' card?
I know how Eusebius would explain it - There were two such events.
Exactly. The order and design of snowflakes could be used as proof of a designer - but who in their right mind thinks so. Not BF, for certain, and he took it as an insult.
I should have used a smiley. I was poking fun at him for allegedly calling someone a snowflake.
Why would you think I care what Tertullian said in 190 AD? Why would you believe him?
Well...good grief - he ought to know whether John was in the form we now have it or not, and if it wasn't, that isn't significant to you? Perhaps not. I know that some people don't think it matters that Mark and John don't have nativities. It didn't bother Bible apologists -much - that Mark has no appearance of the risen Jesus.
Oh yes, I know they all knew of a resurrection claim and an empty tomb. That's about the last thing they do agree on.
The attempt to argue that it wasn't necessary (Mark was earliest and didn't need to explain what later gospels needed to?) or 'different point of view' (Like never having heard of an appearance of Jesus on that day - no more than he's heard of a birth in Bethlehem) or the 'ending got lost' explanation (and apparently the nativity at the start, too - very careless they were with Mark) are really pointless once you realise that the resurrections conflict almost totally, because each was invented separately. And the reason you have to invent a resurrection appearance is because there wasn't one. And that's Mark's omission explained.
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.
