U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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 02-11-2009, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,834 posts, read 4,040,704 times
Reputation: 3002

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
Apparently, you've got it all wrong. First, you approach the Bible as a legal or historical document. It is neither. The Bible is a holy book for Christian and Jewish believers. It deals with the relations between humans and God. It is not meant to be scrutinized or compared with historical records, or with scholars thesis. You either believe in it, or not. From your post I understand that you are a non believer and somehow want to "prove" that things in the Bible are inaccurate. If so, you missed the whole point behind a holy book. As for scholars - their theories change constantly (they even don't agree with one another). If you asked a scholar 100 years ago one of your questions, you would probably get an answer that is very different from that one you get today. 100 years down the road, they will laugh at our theories. On the other hand, the Bible remains unchanged. Think about that.
P.S. Even if the Bible account coincides with scholar theories, would you become a believer? I doubt it. You would probably dig further looking for other "mistakes".
It isn't a question of believing the bible or not, it is in regard to Christians saying that the bible is the enerrorant word of God when the bible is filled with errors. I could care less in what people read, but to read something at face value and then try and convince me it is the total truth is in my opinion BS, when the facts speak for themselves. If one has to alter history just to fit their beliefs then their beliefs are not worth a damn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2009, 09:51 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,916,619 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by braderjoe View Post
Every one knows that the Evangeliums were written neither by Jesus nor his apostles, but long after their time by some unknown persons, who, judging well that they would hardly be believed when telling of things they had not seen themselves, headed their narratives with the names of the apostles or of disciples contemporaneous with the latter.
-- Fauste, Manichean, 3rd century

The Gospel manuscripts are the earliest versions of the four canonical Gospels.
The notion that the four gospels ... were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era') knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds.
"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."
-- Church father Irenaeus, late 2nd century

Of the four gospelers, only Matthew knew Jesus — yet Matthew copies extensively from Mark, who never met Jesus.


The gospels are each a collection of stories and sermons by Christ. These stories were well-known and accepted by the early Christians. The gospel writers starting writing them down as they started dying off. They wanted people to remember them.

These were not simply made up stories 100 years after. When they were written they spread rapidly. The story couldn't have been altered if someone had tried--there were too many manuscripts.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say or prove. Do a little research into where we actually got it and you'll be amazed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:03 AM
 
Location: LAT: 40.77 LON: 73.98
604 posts, read 963,249 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
The gospel writers starting writing them down as they started dying off. They wanted people to remember them.

Is this fact or wishful thinking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:07 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,916,619 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deguire View Post
Is this fact or wishful thinking?

fact.

We can accurately date the writing of the gospels according to stuff like the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:10 AM
 
995 posts, read 1,177,318 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
fact.

We can accurately date the writing of the gospels according to stuff like the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
Do you know something that even the Christian scholars don't??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,834 posts, read 4,040,704 times
Reputation: 3002
Oberon, you stated: Even if the Bible account coincides with scholar theories, would you become a believer? I doubt it. You would probably dig further looking for other "mistakes".

You asked become a believer,I would ask a believer in what? I don't view the bible as the enerrorant word of God any more than I believe that the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, Zend Avesta or any of the others are. These are teachings and as such, you get out of them what you put into them, if you focus on the teachings instead of the teacher then, the teaching are something you can apply in your life instead of just giving them to the teacher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:14 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,916,619 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by braderjoe View Post
Do you know something that even the Christian scholars don't??

Nope. That's what the scholars say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,764,476 times
Reputation: 12223
The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:24 AM
 
Location: LAT: 40.77 LON: 73.98
604 posts, read 963,249 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
fact.

We can accurately date the writing of the gospels according to stuff like the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
ALL of them in their final form?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 10:43 AM
 
995 posts, read 1,177,318 times
Reputation: 117
The gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits, as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened from the empty tomb. (The alleged postresurrection appearances reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's gospel.)

Mark was a non-Palestinian non-disciple, which would make his story mere hearsay:
  • ...First of all, Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges.
  • ...One further evidence of the inauthenticity of Mark is the fact that in chapter 7, where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus is made to quote the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah in order to score his debate point. Unfortunately, the Hebrew version says something different from the Greek.
    [Author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus, G. A.] Wells, observes...
    "That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely."
  • ...Mark displays a profound lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography. If he had actually lived in Palestine, he would not have made the blunders to be found in his gospel.
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
Similar Threads
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