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.
The bible is an eyewitness account of the events of the past, written as the events took place! These eyewitness accounts are from Kings to Sheppards to Doctors like Luke.
Paul wasn't an eye witness, he didn't even know Jesus. Yet He seems to have been central in the early Christian movement and its movement away from Judeo-Christianity.
There was a difference in how those who followed Jesus saw him and the Jesus that came from Paul.
The Judeo-Christian movement that were simply a Jewish sect and the later Pauline Christians who had a very different view of Jesus, and was not a Jewish sect.
That is not what you said. You made a blanket statement, to wit....
"God, the bible and the "stuff" found therein are true."
Your statement proclaims that what is found in the Bible it true.
Epic fail on your part.
Nope! The author of 'Luke' was not an eye witness to your man-god. He wasn't a follower of Jesus but a follower of Paul. What 'Luke' did was to interview people who claimed to have known your man-god. So sorry but Luke's Gospel is nothing more than hear-say from others.
Same goes for the other three Gospel authors. Apart from the fact that 'Matthew' borrows heavily from 'Mark' (which an "eye witness" wouldn't need to do), there is no claim from the author of 'Matthew' that he was an eye witness.
'Mark'?? Well all he did was write down what Peter told him about Jesus. How did he know that Peter wasn't telling porkies??
The dating for the Gospel of John is around 100-110CE so that definitely wasn't written by any "eye-witness".
So who does that leave with regards to so called "eye-witness reports"? Only Paul I'm afraid...and he wasn't there, never met Jesus and claimed only to have seen Jesus in a dream/vision.
And even his delusion...vision...is related by different accounts.
Paul wasn't an eye witness, he didn't even know Jesus. Yet He seems to have been central in the early Christian movement and its movement away from Judeo-Christianity.
There was a difference in how those who followed Jesus saw him and the Jesus that came from Paul.
The Judeo-Christian movement that were simply a Jewish sect and the later Pauline Christians who had a very different view of Jesus, and was not a Jewish sect.
Exactly it's not Christianity but Paulianity that is being practiced today.
Paul presented a Jesus that was the same type of mythological sky god the pagans already knew of and were well acquainted with. Paul never presented Jesus as a real, flesh and blood human being...and the few verses that attempt to do this are known interpolations. Jesus didn't become a flesh and blood being until the gospels were written, which were well after Pauls letters were circulated and the temple had been destroyed. There are some that posit the gopels weren't even written until the 2nd century and the evidence for that is pretty compelling.
There are absolutely NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of anything written in the bible concerning a flesh and blood life of Jesus.
BTW...there is not one CONTEMPORARY HISTORIAN who even mentions Jesus...given that the multitudes that allegedly flocked to him (or so the bible posits) you would think that there would be one mention of him somewhere by historians who were alive at the same time he allegedly was, some mention of the uproar he caused by the multitudes....BUT THERE IS NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ETC!!!!
Oh brother...do you have any clue when the OT was actually written?? Obviously not based on the above.
Yes I do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyGrl
Luke didn't EYE WITNESS ANYTHING....he admits to that...it is a book filled with hear say. And everyone of the "Gospels" were assigned an author...they have no clue who actually wrote them...this is common knowledge and I find it very difficult to believe that you would spout the above nonsense given that.
The gospels were not assigned an author. I have multiple accounts from the early fathers and secular writters that the book of Matthew was written by Matthew for example. The books that are uncertin of a writter in the NT is the book of Hebrews. It is suspected to by written by Apollos, but many say it was Paul becuase near the end he writes of his aflictions. But not knowing the author does little to diminish the piece. For it was written by a scholar of the Hebrew bible who was current with the times.
BTW most of the NT was written by Paul who was Saul of Tarsus who sat at the feet of Gamilael; a Pharasee of Pharasees. Everyone knew who he was at the time because he was out to kill every Christian. His conversion is one of the most dramatic. There is no account against his writting at that time. There would have been some objection is his writtings were fictitious, but they are not!
I have multiple accounts from the early fathers and secular writters that the book of Matthew was written by Matthew for example.
Well then you need to stop being so vague. In the name of scholarship (to say nothing of either history or accuracy right here in this thread), for heaven's sake...reveal your sources to the world at large!
Paul wasn't an eye witness, he didn't even know Jesus. Yet He seems to have been central in the early Christian movement and its movement away from Judeo-Christianity.
There was a difference in how those who followed Jesus saw him and the Jesus that came from Paul.
The Judeo-Christian movement that were simply a Jewish sect and the later Pauline Christians who had a very different view of Jesus, and was not a Jewish sect.
Paul was a Pharasee who converted to Christianity. He bore witness to the stoning of Steven. He writes of his conversion to Christianity by meeting Jesus Christ in person on the way to Damascus to route out the Christians there.
Paul preached Jesus Christ. He is consistant with other writers. Paul had a greater knowledge of the Torah and the traditions then the other writters of the NT like Peter who was just a fisherman.
Well then you need to stop being so vague. In the name of scholarship (to say nothing of either history or accuracy right here in this thread), for heaven's sake...reveal your sources to the world at large!
Here are a couple:
"Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew language and everyone interpreted as he was able." Papias (60-130)
"Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church." Irenaeus (130-200)
"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language." Origen (185-254)
"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence" Eusebius
"They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" Epiphanius (315-403)
Paul was a Pharasee who converted to Christianity. He bore witness to the stoning of Steven. He writes of his conversion to Christianity by meeting Jesus Christ in person on the way to Damascus to route out the Christians there.
Paul preached Jesus Christ. He is consistant with other writers. Paul had a greater knowledge of the Torah and the traditions then the other writters of the NT like Peter who was just a fisherman.
Seems like there is a debate out there as to Paul, below is a url for an article and a url for the bio of the person who wrote the article.
What did Paul know about Jesus? Gregory C. Jenks
The question of Paul’s access to and influence upon the earliest Jesus traditions has been debated for nearly two hundred years. Was Paul drawing upon a primitive Jesus tradition inherited from the first disciples in Jerusalem, or was he contributing to the formation of an
emerging Jesus legend that would later find literary expression in the gospels?
Much earlier effort has concentrated on seeking passages in Paul’s writings that seem to cite, evoke or parallel material known from the canonical gospels. After decades of effort the trenches of that academic battlefront have been dug deeply and reinforced with impressive scholarship, but there is something of an impasse.
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.
