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.
Haven't you fallen into the "all" or "none" error? Some things in the Bible are historical events. Others are doubtfully historical, such as two different dates in Matthew and Luke for Jesus birth (ie. before 4 BC and in 6 AD.)
And have you noticed that the Resurrection account developes only gradually as time goes on?
Jesus was crucified about 30-35 AD (and supposedly was raised from the dead three days later) That would have been the most famous story of all time if it were true. The story would have spread widely and at least some who heard it would have written it down.
But apparently nobody did until Paul (a nonwitness) in about 57 AD, or 20 to 25 years after the fact.
Note that Paul's account does not match the sequence of events given in Matthew, Mark, or John. Paul doesn't even have an "empty tomb" story or an initial appearance to women, or an Ascension.
John, who some try to tell us wrote the Gospel of John, doesn't recall on what day the crucifixion occurred, claiming the day before Passover, so he don't mention any Passover supper or the institution of the Eucharist.
There are many contradictions. Luke has Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany on the evening of the same day he was raised, while Acts of the Aposples has Jesus ascend to heaven 40 days later from the the Mount of Olives. Curiously, both accounts by tradition were written by the same man.
Obviously, very much in the New Testament is contradictory and in such cases at least one version must be false, or both versions!
You deserve a rep for that. You have got the case against Bible reliability exactly right. The unreliability of the Gospels is demonstrable to anyone willing to look and who is not determined to believe that they are reliable in spite of how they look.
The way the story has developed and been elaborated can also be seen in the gospels and that has been noted by scholarship.
What hasn't and has to come eventually is how the gospels develop the story from Paul rather than Paul having been given the story in the gospels. Once scholarship twigs that and that Paul (and the apostles) talked of a spiritually resurrected Jesus and a resurrection to come when the messiah returned and not a solid walking resurrection to come as soon as we die (1) and as described (in contracting ways) in the resurrection accounts, it will be job done and they will realize that they have been looking at the problem from within the Box the whole time.
(1) come to think of it - what Christian believes that we will be solid bodies in heaven rather than spirits?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2015 at 06:48 AM..
There are indications that Paul had an epileptic seizure at the time. There is quite the difference as to did his fellow travelers see something or not? Did they hear something or not?
It can't be both.
Oh brother, let's see, for that to be the case all the many people with Paul had to experience an epileptic seizure at the same exact time as he. Will you folks ever cease to appeal to these ridiculous ideas?
Haven't you fallen into the "all" or "none" error? Some things in the Bible are historical events. Others are doubtfully historical, such as two different dates in Matthew and Luke for Jesus birth (ie. before 4 BC and in 6 AD.)
Interesting that neither Matthew or Luke gave a date for Jesus' birth. It was the rulers they were born under which give the timing of his birth. So you can't say one said "4 BC" and another "6 AD."
Quote:
And have you noticed that the Resurrection account developes only gradually as time goes on?
Jesus was crucified about 30-35 AD (and supposedly was raised from the dead three days later) That would have been the most famous story of all time if it were true. The story would have spread widely and at least some who heard it would have written it down.
It spread over the known world. Therefore it was true since you said if it did happen it would have been the most famous story of all time which it was and still is 2,000 years later.
Quote:
But apparently nobody did until Paul (a nonwitness) in about 57 AD, or 20 to 25 years after the fact.
Oh brother!
Quote:
Note that Paul's account does not match the sequence of events given in Matthew, Mark, or John. Paul doesn't even have an "empty tomb" story or an initial appearance to women, or an Ascension.
Why should Paul re-write everything the gospel writers did? And Paul did write about the ascended Christ.
Paul also wrote this:
"1 Corinthians 15:3-8 For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, (4) and that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the scriptures, (5) and that He was seen by Cephas, thereupon by the twelve." (6) Thereupon He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the majority are remaining hitherto, yet some were put to repose also." (7) Thereupon He was seen by James, thereafter by all the apostles." (8) Yet, last of all, even as if a premature birth, He was seen by me also."
Quote:
John, who some try to tell us wrote the Gospel of John, doesn't recall on what day the crucifixion occurred, claiming the day before Passover, so he don't mention any Passover supper or the institution of the Eucharist.
You are blowing hot air. This is what John wrote:
"John 13:1-2 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus, being aware that His hour came that He may be proceeding out of this world to the Father, loving His own who are in the world, He loves them to the consummation." (2) And at the coming of dinner, the Adversary already having cast into the heart of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, that he may be giving Him up,"
Jesus was crucified on Passover, which was a sabbath, as the Passover Lamb. Later that week there was another sabbath.
Quote:
There are many contradictions. Luke has Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany on the evening of the same day he was raised, while Acts of the Aposples has Jesus ascend to heaven 40 days later from the the Mount of Olives. Curiously, both accounts by tradition were written by the same man.
There are no contradictions. Just misunderstanding on your part. I suggest you get The Companion Bible by Bullinger. He goes over all the "supposed" contradictions in his notes.
Quote:
Obviously, very much in the New Testament is contradictory and in such cases at least one version must be false, or both versions!
Actually he deserves to be chastised for his ignorance. By "ignorance" I am not saying "stupidity." He may be very smart. But we are all ignorant on different matters.
Now you are being evasive. Demonstrably Luke lies in Acts about why Paul (according to Paul himself) had to escape Damascus. He alters it from escaping the leader of the Nabatean army why were about to occupy Damascus to escaping a plot by Jews to kill him. That is lying in my book.
No, Arequipa. I am not being evasive and never am. And your unsupported opinion is not demonstrable proof.
As I said, I already explained in post #38 why Luke does not contradict Paul. I'll repeat it here.
Why do I think Luke blamed the Jews rather than king Aretas? As you yourself just stated above, the Jews didn't like Paul who they regarded as an apostate. Paul came under persecution from Jews and Gentiles alike as can be seen in Acts 14:1-5 for example. It was the Jews in Damascus that wanted Paul dead and were on the watch for him. To oblige them the governor of Damascus under king Aretas had the guards who guarded the city day and night attempt to keep Paul from escaping the city. Luke simply omitted the mention of the king and focused on the fact that the Jews wanted Paul dead.
Quote:
I also say that Paul is talking nonsense (lying, if you want to use the term - though I wonder whether Paul knew the difference) in claiming that the Nabatean General was after him. I cannot believe that the Nabatean army knew or cared about Paul.
And that is your 'demonstrable' proof that Luke and Paul are liars. 'You say.' 'You cannot believe.'
While you cannot believe the accounts of Luke and Paul concerning Paul's experience in Damascus, those who have no trouble believing understand from both accounts that it was a joint effort of the Jews and the governor under King Aretas to capture Paul although the Jews were the major movers in that effort.
Quote:
I forgot this. You are being a bit semantic here. I am saying he freely adapted the material of the gospels he worked from -the same material the other synoptic writers had - and adds his own material. And he does the same with the material he had about Paul's activities, and adds to that too. And I say again that Luke's lies, fiddling and invention in Acts is demonstrable so to refuse to address it is refusing to face facts. The facts being that he did not accurately record what Paul himself wrote (which is dubious enough in hi own words) and I very much doubt that he ever knew Paul or spoke to him.
And again, this is your demonstrable proof. 'You say.' 'You doubt.'
Luke knew Paul and was a close associate of his. He was able to get his information about Paul first hand.
While you doubt that Luke knew Paul, Paul speaks of Luke briefly in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Tim. 4:11.
Col. 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas.
2 Tim. 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.
Quote:
Don't blame you. it is demanding work. But your argument depends on the 'just because he didn't say it doesn't mean he didn't know it or agree with it'. argument.
You can't make an argument from silence as you have attempted to do. Your requirement that Paul confirm Luke's statement of his conversion, that he provide the same detail as Luke did as proof that what Luke wrote is true is simply not valid.
Quote:
While talking about how he came to where he is, that he doesn't explain how he was struck blind, heard Jesus talk, was converted etc. makes it impossible that this actually happened to him but he didn't think it worth mentioning.
Galatians 1.13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
You will see that the underlined section indicates that Paul became converted before he went to Arabia and then to Damascus and that is where he should have described this amazing apparition as per Acts, if it was true. You still think it is ok that it isn't there?
Galatians 1:17 refers to the fact that Paul returned to Damascus. He had previously gone there after having been converted on the Damascus road on his way to Damascus. After having been converted he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. But your opinion that Paul should have gone into more detail than he did in this passage doesn't make it so, and doesn't invalidate Luke's account.
Quote:
I should have said 'confirmed' rather than endorsed, because of course it is a question of Paul having not mentioned something important that Luke writes in Acts. Of course Acts was written after Paul had gone from the scene. There is no question of his writing an approving preface to Acts.
Again, that is only your opinion. And as I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, a very good case can be made that Acts was written in the early 60's while Paul was very much still around. And most conservative scholars do date Acts to around A.D. 60-61. Of course Galatians was still written first having been written probably in A.D. 48, but that still doesn't mean that Paul felt the need to go into the detail you require of him. Instead, Paul simply stated in Gal. 1:13-16 that he used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, but then God called him through His grace and revealed His Son in him. That's all that Paul deemed necessary to say about it in the letter. And it in no way contradicts or invalidates what Luke wrote. Again, Luke and Paul knew each other and so Luke would have known the details of Paul's conversion. Furthermore, the New Testament documents only give us a snapshot of what was said and done during the early church. By A.D. 48 the details of Paul's conversion were likely already known to the church since he had been converted within two or three years of Jesus' crucifixion which was in either A.D. 30 or 33.
Actually he deserves to be chastised for his ignorance. By "ignorance" I am not saying "stupidity." He may be very smart. But we are all ignorant on different matters.
No. He deserves a rep and you deserve some gentle correction for your rather footling and dunderheaded responses.
I'd respond to your comments myself, but your last few exchanges with me were so completely of the wall that I suspect that you have completely Lost It and there is no more point is debating with you on the Gospels and Paul than in debating with you on evolution.
Haven't you fallen into the "all" or "none" error? Some things in the Bible are historical events. Others are doubtfully historical, such as two different dates in Matthew and Luke for Jesus birth (ie. before 4 BC and in 6 AD.)
And have you noticed that the Resurrection account developes only gradually as time goes on?
Jesus was crucified about 30-35 AD (and supposedly was raised from the dead three days later) That would have been the most famous story of all time if it were true. The story would have spread widely and at least some who heard it would have written it down.
But apparently nobody did until Paul (a nonwitness) in about 57 AD, or 20 to 25 years after the fact.
Note that Paul's account does not match the sequence of events given in Matthew, Mark, or John. Paul doesn't even have an "empty tomb" story or an initial appearance to women, or an Ascension.
John, who some try to tell us wrote the Gospel of John, doesn't recall on what day the crucifixion occurred, claiming the day before Passover, so he don't mention any Passover supper or the institution of the Eucharist.
There are many contradictions. Luke has Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany on the evening of the same day he was raised, while Acts of the Aposples has Jesus ascend to heaven 40 days later from the the Mount of Olives. Curiously, both accounts by tradition were written by the same man.
Obviously, very much in the New Testament is contradictory and in such cases at least one version must be false, or both versions!
First of all, my purpose of posting on this thread was to reply to Blue Cheese (see post #42) that despite her opinion, most scholars recognize that Jesus existed, and that He was crucified. And most scholars recognize that the early disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus.
Second, you are not paying any attention to what I have written. In post #42, I stated that scholars recognize that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 in which Paul delivers the Gospel which he had received with reference to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is a pre-Pauline tradition which he had heard from Peter and James probably when he met with them three years after his conversion. Jesus was crucified either in A.D. 30 or 33. Paul was converted within two or three years after that, and met with Peter and James three years after his conversion. That means that what Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 was received by him around the mid 30's. And that means the tradition of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection goes back even further. It in fact goes back to the very beginning of the church. And the story, the tradition of His resurrection WAS spread widely by the disciples orally. The early church grew rapidly as shown in the Book of Acts which covers the first 30 years of the church.
I have not bothered to refute what you believe to be contradictions, nor am I going to. It's too time consuming, and you are just going to just keep on posting the same old arguments just as you did when you posted as Ancient Warrior. I am fairly certain that you are the same person.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,944,335 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Oh brother, let's see, for that to be the case all the many people with Paul had to experience an epileptic seizure at the same exact time as he. Will you folks ever cease to appeal to these ridiculous ideas?
Fine, but you totally ignored that there are two different versions of what his co-travelers said they witnessed.
Errr... the gospels were written AFTER Paul. Please don't tell us you did not know that.
While the Gospel of John was written c. A.D. 95, a very good argument can be made for dating all of the synoptic Gospels to the early 60's when Paul was still very much alive. Since Luke was written before Acts, and an argument can be made for dating Acts to the early 60's since Acts doesn't mention the death of Paul, or Peter, or James the brother of Jesus, or of the destruction of the temple, that means that Luke would also have to be dated to the early 60's at the latest. And since Luke was written after Matthew and Mark, then they also would have been written by the early 60's.
Most conservative scholars do in fact date Acts to around A.D. 60-62.
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.
it is demanding work. But your argument depends on the 'just because he didn't say it doesn't mean he didn't know it or agree with it'. argument.
