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.
Are you refering to the "fall of Jerusalem" that took place in c586BCE........the destruction of Jerusalem "prophecised" in the book of Daniel.......the book of Daniel that is now accepted by biblical scholars as being written c165BCE.........421 years after the event?
No, Matthew was one of the twelve, being an eyewitness
In Matthew 9:9, the author is talking about the call of Matthew by JC:
As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him.
Doesn't sound much like an "eyewitness" account by the author to me.
Quote:
and probably the earliest gospel.
Nope! Mark was first c70CE.
Quote:
Thats true, he wasn't an eyewitness, but he didn't claim to merely copy/interpret what others wrote. He sought out eyewitnesses: "it seemed fitting for me as well, having INVESTIGATED everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught" Luke 1:3
"Eyewitness accounts" approximately 60 years after the alleged events! Mmmmm!!
Quote:
There is such a volume of information on this debate that you cannot dogmatically state such a thing. One side of a story always sound true, until you hear the other side.
That works both ways.
Quote:
So the apostle's creed of the 2nd century does not affirm Jesus' Divinity?
"and in Jesus Christ, our Lord"
Nor the Nicene Creed of 325 AD?
"Very God of very God, begotten not made, being of the same substance as the father."
You are incorrect in your statement that it wasn't until the Council of Chalcedon that Jesus' divinity was recognized by a council.
You are correct here and I conceed my mistake. I was discussing the Council of Chalcedon in another forum and totally mixed up my info. My bad!
Wait, dang, I've gotta buy this thing??? Arghhhhhh. A stumbling block, which flies in the face of my inherent cheap-itude. Well, maybe...I do have a birthday coming up...I think I'll also buzz by my library and see if there's some chance they have it. I doubt it but one never knows.
Reading the reviews of the book, it seems like these scholars did use a variety of means, including linguistics...that gives me a bit more confidence in it...sometimes "he said/he didn't say" publications rely on earlier published Biblical works but that ends up as a circular thinking sort of thing. Plus, it would have made the newer book just one more edit, which wouldn't make it any more true than the former ones. But this one according to the reviews uses some very basic cut-and-dry methods. Hmmmmmmmmmm. I'll see if I can get a hold of this and then will report back with what I think. Thanks again for the referral, ADV.
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.
