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.
1 John 4
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Corinthians 13
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Exodus 20
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Why are you so sure that "accuracy was the highest priorty on the author's mind"? Which author? How do you know? All four? Again, how do you know? How do you know that "the gospels were meant to be historically accurate"? If that were the case, they would not have received the decidedly biased titles "Gospels" ("Good News").
The Gospel writers were Christians, believed in the Good News and this bias shows forth in their writing. Good historical writing does not proceed from such a bias. Of coruse there is bias in historical writing, but we are talking about works written by members within the Christian movement - which raises the possibility for bias 100%.
When Matthew altered his geneology to remove certain people, in order to meet his gematriac idea that every 14th generation produced someone special and important - this was not "accuarate historical writing" - this was ideological, theological interpretation of genealogical lists. This doesn't sound like someone who was "interested in historical accuracy".
Most of the things you said in your post are mere assumptions, AND from a biased party as well. Of course you would claim they are accurate historical records - what member of a tradition would claim that their most sacred documents were NOT? Does this make your statements any more credible? Of course not - it actually makes them LESS credible. Stuck within your tradition, and apologetically trying to defend the writers against common sense observations, and speak for them - you wouldn't be expected to act in any other way, so I forgive you. I know several other religious groups who swear up and down that their own sacred scripture are accurate - historically and otherwise.
It is 2012. Our knowledge of the Gospels has grown immensely. Unfortunately, that knowledge does not support your statements. I know, I know - anyone who disagrees with conservative views must be some sort of "liberal scholar" or "pawn of Satan". That's fine and dandy, and is exactly why Fundamentalism has absolutely no voice in modern Theology. The only time their voice is heard is when they are making headlines protesting certain things, or claiming that tsunami victims got what they deserved from God.
The Bible is not a history book. It is a journal of our spiritual evolution and the Gospels were written to be spiritually discerned.
The Bible is actually a book concerning the History of the lineage of the Messiah as well as other lineages and a History of the nation of Israel continued into the New Testament. The message of the Messiah as recorded in the four accounts called "gospels" is to be spiritually discerned. The message Paul brought to the nations must also be spiritually discerned.
Why are you so sure that "accuracy was the highest priorty on the author's mind"? Which author? How do you know? All four? Again, how do you know? How do you know that "the gospels were meant to be historically accurate"? If that were the case, they would not have received the decidedly biased titles "Gospels" ("Good News").
Because I see the divine accuracy in their writings. I don't call them "gospels." I call them "the four accounts."
Quote:
The Gospel writers were Christians, believed in the Good News and this bias shows forth in their writing. Good historical writing does not proceed from such a bias. Of coruse there is bias in historical writing, but we are talking about works written by members within the Christian movement - which raises the possibility for bias 100%.
Well, duh! Of course they are biased! If you saw your Saviour killed, entombed, you lost all hope, then three days later your Saviour is risen from the dead and talking to you I am sure you'd be biased tool. Right? I mean, if you were a rational human being I take it you'd be biased.
Quote:
When Matthew altered his geneology to remove certain people, in order to meet his gematriac idea that every 14th generation produced someone special and important - this was not "accuarate historical writing" - this was ideological, theological interpretation of genealogical lists. This doesn't sound like someone who was "interested in historical accuracy".
This whole genealogy difference between accounts called Luke and Matthew has been answered time and again since the day they were written. It all makes perfect sense. The account called Matthew was perfectly accurate as was the account called Luke.
Quote:
Most of the things you said in your post are mere assumptions, AND from a biased party as well. Of course you would claim they are accurate historical records - what member of a tradition would claim that their most sacred documents were NOT? Does this make your statements any more credible? Of course not - it actually makes them LESS credible. Stuck within your tradition, and apologetically trying to defend the writers against common sense observations, and speak for them - you wouldn't be expected to act in any other way, so I forgive you. I know several other religious groups who swear up and down that their own sacred scripture are accurate - historically and otherwise.
You are biased against the four accounts so why should I take your word against them? Gheesh!
And I suppose you believe your view is not correct? Or would you lump yourself in with the very groups you castigate who say they are correct?
Quote:
It is 2012. Our knowledge of the Gospels has grown immensely. Unfortunately, that knowledge does not support your statements. I know, I know - anyone who disagrees with conservative views must be some sort of "liberal scholar" or "pawn of Satan". That's fine and dandy, and is exactly why Fundamentalism has absolutely no voice in modern Theology. The only time their voice is heard is when they are making headlines protesting certain things, or claiming that tsunami victims got what they deserved from God.
See, your bias is showing. And you use ad hominum and guilt by association attacks to make my view look bad.
Let me ask you some direct questions: Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah? Do you believe He died to save mankind?
Matthew and Luke record two actual, historical accounts of Jesus giving talks to two different groups at two different locations at two different times and on each occassion spoke on digferent subject matter. That priest in wrong.
RESPONSE:
Really? Tell me how long after the alleged event did the writers of Matthew and Luke write their accounts?
Were either witnesses to the event they described?
Whoppers, the gospels were meant to be historically accurate in spite of what that priest says. Accuracy was the highest priority on the author's mind. Why would they take all the pains to write to prove Jesus is the Messiah by being sloppy? No, I will never buy that.
RESPONSE:
Really? Does your present belief system require you to reject the evidence to the contrary and just believe on "faith."
Faith not supported by the evidence is gullibility.
The Bible is actually a book concerning the History of the lineage of the Messiah as well as other lineages and a History of the nation of Israel continued into the New Testament. The message of the Messiah as recorded in the four accounts called "gospels" is to be spiritually discerned. The message Paul brought to the nations must also be spiritually discerned.
RESPONSE:
Does "spiritually discerned" mean not considereing the evidence?
One of the most remarkable concessions made by the Jews is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43A. There it is definitely stated that Jesus, the son of Mary, was "a kin of the royal family."
Originally Posted by Eusebius Matthew and Luke record two actual, historical accounts of Jesus giving talks to two different groups at two different locations at two different times and on each occassion spoke on digferent subject matter. That priest in wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
RESPONSE:
Really?
Would I lie to you?
Quote:
Tell me how long after the alleged event did the writers of Matthew and Luke write their accounts?
Well, that's an interesting question seeing as how the writers did not put a date on their writings so anyone who says they were written during the time Christ lived, just after or very much after would just be speculation. However there is internal evidence which I believe would call for an early date writing.
Quote:
Were either witnesses to the event they described?
Here is a link on the two genealogies of the true Messiah of Israel:
The Virgin Birth, by Adolph E. Knoch (http://gtft.org/Library/knoch/TheVirginBirth.htm - broken link)
With a chart.
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.
