 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
There is another quatrain that describes a King of Terror to come in September, 1999. It is unclear if this is the antichrist, but it could be Usama, perhaps Nosty was just off by a couple years. Then again, Bush won the Republican nomination in September, 1999! He is definitely a king of terror right now! It is interesting how these quatrains could so easily apply to both Bush and Usama! I still think it is possible that the Mabus character actually was a representation of both of them. |
I realize facts have no place in a discussion of apocalyptic Christianity, but Bush was nominated in the summer of 2000, not Sept. 1999; the primaries that led to the nomination didn't even begin until Feb. 2000.
Besides, the world won't end until Ragnarok, when Odin, Thor, and their compatriates perish in a terrible battle with the Frost Giants. You'll know this is happening because the great wolf Skoll will swallow the sun. Until then, just chill.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 24
John 20-21
- sunday morning Mary, Salome and Mary Magdalene (and several others) go to see the sepulchre, bringing weet spices.
- they wonder how to remove the stone
- earthquake, angel descended from heaven and rolled back the stone
- Matthew describes him as he was lightning.
his appearance is white
- the keepers shake became as dead
- woman arive the women see the stone has been removed already. And they see his body is not there anymore. They meet the angels.
- Angel speak to the women
- angel tells women to tell the disciples
- angel tells women they'll see him
- angel tells women they shall tell the disciples jesus will meet them on the mountain
- women run to the disciples
- mary stays
- Jesus meets Mary
- jesus speaks to them
- watchmen report to chief priest
- watchmen are bribed to not spread this story
- priets claim disciples stole the body
- disciples don't believe the woman
- Pete and John run to check it themselves
- Pete and John don't find his body and report this
- Jesus meets 2 people heading to Emmaus
- Jesus meets his gathered disciples but thomas (1 visit)
- they do not believe at first sight but he convinces them
- jesus speaks several things to them
- jesus departs
- Jesus meets his gathered disciples again, now thomas is among them. (2nd visit)
- Jesus departs
- jesus meets disciples on the shore after telling them to fish on the other side of the ship (3rd visit)
- Jesus departs
- the 11 went to a mountain Jesus told them to go to
- they meet jesus up there and worship him
- jesus teaches them several things |
What a loads of bollocks- the three accounts cannot be reconciled.
quote:
The Resurrection Maze
Farrell Till
When two or more statements contradict one another, they cannot all be right. If we apply this rule of evidence to the testimony of the "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection, we have to conclude that at least some of the testimony was erroneous. If some of it was erroneous, then the Bible inerrancy doctrine itself must be erroneous.
Inconsistencies in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection are too numerous to discuss in a single article, so I will limit discussion at this time to just a few. Matthew began his narrative of the events of that day by telling us that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the sepulcher "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (28:1). The time factor that he identified contrasts sharply with the testimony of Mark, Luke, and John, who said, respectively, that the time was "very early on the first day of the week... when the sun was risen" (16:1) or "on the first day of the week, at early dawn" (24:1) or "on the first day of the week... while it was yet dark" (20:1). By stretching imagination, perhaps we could reconcile the testimony of Matthew and Luke. If it was "beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week," we could maybe grant that this could be called "early dawn," but how could the sun already be risen if it was only beginning to dawn? And if the sun had already risen, as Mark claimed, how could it have been "yet dark," as John said? For that matter, how could it have been "yet dark" if the morning had reached any stage that could be correctly described as "dawn"? I grew up on a farm, so I can remember getting up many times as it was "beginning to dawn" or while it was still "early dawn," but it certainly wasn't "yet dark." By looking outside, I could see clearly enough to recognize objects. Certainly by the time the sun had risen, it was never "yet dark" outside. So how could it possibly be that John was right in the time factor that he specified but the other three were also right in their time factors? This is a chronological discrepancy that bibliolaters have never satisfactorily explained.
As noted, Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb. Mark identified the women as "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (16:1). Luke said that the women who went to the tomb were "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them" (24:10), and John mentioned only Mary Magdalene (20:1). We have all heard the Gleason Archer-John Haley type of explanation for the "variances" in these names. Matthew chose to identify only two of the women, John chose to identify only one, but their failure to mention the presence of Salome or Joanna or "the other women" would not mean that they were not there. The same line of reasoning is usually applied to the variations in the number of angels reported at the scene. Matthew said that "an angel" (one) descended from heaven (28:2). Mark spoke of "a young man... arrayed in a white robe" (16:5), who was presumably an angel, but Luke (24:4) and John (20:12) wrote of two angels. If there were two, then there had to be one, inerrantists will say, but in a matter as vitally important as the testimony to a resurrection, inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, this kind of "explanation" has dubious merit at best. However, it is the stock explanation of inerrancy defenders in matters like these, so I will simply mention it, leave it to the readers to judge its merit, and go on to other discrepancies that no stretch of imagination can satisfactorily resolve.
After the women arrived at the tomb, Matthew said that a "great earthquake" occurred and "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it" (28:2). Mark, Luke, and John, however, disagreed. Mark said that the women found the stone already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb (16:2). Luke agreed with Mark and said that the stone was "rolled away from the tomb" when the women arrived (24:2), and John said that the stone had been "taken away from the tomb" when Mary Magdalene arrived (20:1). So who was right? Matthew or the other three? It simply could not have been that the stone was both in place and rolled away too when the women came to the tomb? Our rule of evidence demands one of two conclusions: Matthew was right and the other three were wrong, or the other three were right and Matthew was wrong. Both versions of the story cannot be right.
Matthew wrote that the angel who descended from heaven and sat upon the stone said to the women, "He (Jesus) is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay" (28:6). Luke's angels (plural) also reminded the women that Jesus had said that he would be raised:
Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again (24:5-7).
As noted in an earlier article, Luke said that the women, upon hearing this, "remembered his words" (v:8). Although Matthew didn't specifically say that the women remembered the words of Jesus that the angel reminded them of, he certainly implied that they did, because he immediately said that the women "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word" (28:8). This is essentially what Luke said too. After saying that the women "remembered his (Jesus's) words," he said that the women "returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest" (24:9).
Now if the women "ran to bring his disciples word," as Matthew said, and if they "told all these things to the eleven," as Luke claimed, then surely they told the eleven about the angel (angels?) and what he (they?) had told them. In other words, Matthew's and Luke's versions of the resurrection story both present the women at the tomb as ones who had been informed about the resurrection and convinced that it had occurred before they ran to tell the disciples what they had seen.
One would never guess this, however, by just reading John's version. John was the one who chose to mention only the presence of Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and he said that Mary, upon seeing the stone taken away from the tomb, ran and told Simon Peter and "the other disciple" (20:2). She did this before seeing the angels, because it wasn't until after she had returned to the tomb that she saw the angels (vv:11-13). So when John's Mary ran to Peter and the other disciples, did she run with the "great joy" that Matthew mentioned? And did she tell the disciples "all these things" that Luke said the angels had told them? Apparently no, according to John's story! When John's Mary found the disciples, she said, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (20:2). Obviously, there was no "joy" in what she was saying here. She was quite distressed.
More perplexing than that, however, is the fact that John's Mary believed that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the tomb. Why would she have thought that IF she had seen angels at the tomb (as Matthew, Mark, and Luke claimed), who had reminded her of Jesus's promise to rise again on the third day, and especially IF she had "remembered his words" after the angels had jogged her memory? Obviously, John was not aware of any prior contact that Mary had had with angels or of any assurances she had received from angels that Jesus had been resurrected. His Mary was a distraught woman who, at the time of her report to Peter and "the other disciple," had no idea that Jesus had risen from the dead. Even after she returned to the tomb with Peter and the other disciple, she still thought that the body of Jesus had been stolen, because the angels that she encountered this time inside the tomb asked her why she was crying, and she said, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him" (Jn. 20:13). But why would she have thought that at this time IF prior to going to get Peter an angel or angels had told her, "He is risen" (Mt. 28:6; Mk. 16:6; Lk. 24:6)?
Gleason Archer, in his typically far-fetched style, has offered this answer to the question:
She apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord had risen again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all she could think of was that the body was not there; and she did not know what had become of it. Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 348-349).
That sounds pretty thin to me, but inerrantists are famous for this kind of circumlocution when they are confronted with obvious discrepancies in the Bible text. Luke flatly stated that the women at the tomb, who would have included Mary Magdalene, "remembered his (Jesus's) words" when the angels reminded them that Jesus had predicted his resurrection while they were "yet in Galilee" (24:7-8). Despite the clarity of this statement, Archer wants us to believe that the obvious discrepancy between it and John's depiction of Mary in his resurrection story was only "apparent," because she "had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her the Lord had risen again." As an explanation of the problem, it is too transparent to deserve serious comment. What "full import" was there to take in? The angels said, "He is risen," as he had promised while he was "yet in Galilee," and the women "remembered his words"!
While yet in her state of confusion about what had happened, John's Mary encountered Jesus by the tomb--and didn't even recognize him! She thought that he was the gardener (20:14-15). So we are supposed to believe that angels had some time prior to this told her that Jesus was not "here," that "he is risen," as he had said would happen while he was "yet in Galilee," and that she had "remembered his words," but when finally she came face to face with the risen Jesus at the empty tomb, she didn't even know who he was. If a missionary preaching a religion we had not grown up with should come into our country with a story as inconsistent as this, who would believe it?
But it gets even worse. Mary's encounter with Jesus at the tomb in John's version clearly happened after Mary had found the stone rolled away and had run to tell Peter and had returned to the tomb, but this runs completely contrary to Matthew's version of an encounter with Jesus near the burial site. Matthew said that the women, upon receiving instructions from the angel (just one) to go tell the disciples that Jesus would go before them into Galilee, "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word" (28:7-8). But look at what Matthew then said:
And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me (28:9).
Perhaps Jesus thought that the angel's message had not been clear enough, so he made an appearance himself to tell the women the same thing the angel had just said to them. Maybe he knew what he was doing too. A person as confused as Gleason Archer's Mary Magdalene would probably have to be given a message like this at least twice before she would understand it. At any rate, Matthew said that the women met the risen Jesus as they were running to tell the disciples that an angel had told them to meet Jesus in Galilee, and this flatly contradicts John's version. John said that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus after she had fetched the disciples and returned to the tomb. Before any inerrantist tries to tiptoe around this problem by claiming that John's failure to mention an encounter with Jesus while Mary was running to get Peter doesn't mean that such an encounter did not occur, let him explain why Mary didn't recognize him in the garden if she had already seen him before this and had even taken "hold of his feet and worshipped him" (Matt. 28:9). She had done all of this on the way into town but now back at the tomb again she wasn't even able to recognize Jesus! If I may resort to slang for just a moment, come on, give me a break!
The holding of Jesus's feet mentioned by Matthew poses yet another problem, for when John's Mary finally recognized Jesus at the tomb, he specifically forbade her to touch him: "Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended unto the Father" (20:17). What ascending to the Father would have to do with a restriction on touching Jesus is anybody's guess (I just read the scriptures; I didn't write them), but Jesus plainly stated this as a reason why Mary should not touch him. Yet, in Matthew's story, when the women, who would have included Mary, met Jesus on the way to "bring the disciples word," they "took hold of his feet and worshipped him." Now if they took hold of his feet, then they surely touched him. How else could they have taken hold of his feet? But at this encounter Jesus said nothing about not touching him, even though at this time he had most certainly "not yet ascended unto the Father." How could he have done so, since this encounter happened as the women were running into town to find the disciples, and the encounter with Mary, when Jesus told her he had not yet ascended, happened after she had found the disciples and had returned to the tomb?
The encounter with Jesus as the women were running into town raises yet another problem. Matthew plainly said that after the women "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy" (28:8), they met Jesus and "took hold of his feet and worshipped him" (v:9). Now if the women met Jesus and worshipped him, they surely recognized him and realized that he had been resurrected. Why then did Mary say what she said when she found Peter and the other disciple? "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (Jn. 20:2). I earlier noted that this statement made no sense at all in light of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke said that the angel(s) told the women at the tomb and what Luke specifically said the women "remembered," but now that we know that the women, on the way into town to find the disciples, encountered Jesus, touched him, and worshipped him, Mary's statement to Peter goes beyond making no sense. It becomes an insult to the intelligence of all rational people who are asked to believe in the resurrection despite glaring discrepancies like this.
Juxtaposed and considered as a single story, the four resurrection accounts form a veritable maze of contradictions. So once again I must remind readers of the rule of evidence that says falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). When alleged witnesses to an event contradict themselves as flagrantly as did the four gospel writers in their accounts of the resurrection, everything that they said must be viewed with suspicion. These writers claimed that a man who was physically dead returned to life. A claim that extraordinary requires extraordinary proof, but there is certainly nothing extraordinary in the resurrection testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is so riddled with inconsistencies that no one but the hopelessly credulous could possibly believe it.
Last summer, as I was working in my front yard, two Jehovah's Witnesses came by and engaged me in conversation. As we stood talking, I explained my background and familiarity with the Bible. I referred to the resurrection stories to illustrate the fact of inconsistency in the Bible text. One of the JW's nodded at the cars going by and said that if an accident happened and the police asked us to write reports, they would have inconsistencies in them, but that wouldn't mean that the accident did not happen. "No, it wouldn't," I agreed, "but if we were all three inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity while we were writing our reports, there wouldn't be any inconsistencies." The only response to this was a sheepish smile.
So it is with the resurrection accounts in the four gospels. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--all four of them--had really been guided and directed by an omniscient, omnipotent deity while they were writing their gospels (as the inerrancy doctrine claims), there would be no maze of inconsistencies in the juxtaposition of their stories. There would be that perfect unity and harmony that fundamentalist preachers talk about so much--but which doesn't really exist. I'm very afraid that the faith of Christians who have put so much hope in the resurrection will prove to be vain and that they will, unfortunately, never know that "they are of all men most miserable."
|
As I said, the accounts cannot be reconciled. Most mainstream theologians accept this. Its only the loony Christian fundamentalist fringe, with their hopelessly inaccurate biblical scholarship, which tries to claim otherwise. Thus discrediting their claims of literal interpretation.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 27-03-2003 at 04:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
"testified by both the Jewish officials and the Christians?"
You don't see the opponents of Zeus or Poseidon agreeing with these people.
Here, the Jews admit the same thing as the Christians... The tomb is empty.
Where's the body, Kramerman? |
Like UrbanRanger, im curious how exactly is this testimony given? Is it just said in the Bible that they gave testimony, or are there official Roman documents? From waht I know, and i know a lot, the only source of information relating to the dissappearance of Christ's body and his subsequent ressurection comes from the Bible, a document filled with myth and legend.
EDIT: Id believe a lot of things before I believe something that is eaqually rediculous to me as the Greek Parthenon, Native American mysticism, and Far east spirituality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
IIRC, the birth of Christ is described in only 3 of the 4 books, and in each of those it is completely differnet, tho, for some reason the popular 'manger scene' is the most widely accepted. |
1. Each book has different purposes. Must all 4 books record the same event for said event to be true?
2. Luke provides the most comprehensive account of the birth of Christ, so that is why Christians accept the Nativity.
3. Only two books provide accounts of the birth of Christ,
not three, Matthew and Luke.
quote:
If his birth can be filled with so many wide and farflung discrepencies, then his death most certainly can too. |
4. "Wide and farflung discrepencies?"
All you have done is alluded to the differences.
You'll have to do better than that.
5. Even if there are wide and farflung discrepencies in the birth accounts, you still have to deal with the death and resurrection. Are there any 'wide and farflung discrepencies' in the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ?
If so, what are they?
quote:
Remember, IIRC it was nearly 200 years before the four books were written down. The stories were passed by word of mouth before that... and im sure we are all aware of how stories change and are exaggerated and such when told by word of mouth.
|
Wrong. The latest date for any of the Gospels given is around 90AD for John.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are usually given dates anywhere from 50AD-75AD depending on the scholar.
In any case, this is less than 60 years from the event, for all four of the Gospels. At the time, there would still have been living witnesses to the Gospel's account, remarkable for any historical event of the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
Obi Wan- I don't think the problem has ever been when the gospels were written, because they were probably written during the periods you claim. (The earliest known copies that we have are significantly later though, it should be noted. The main problems arise in the political editing of the bible that took place in the early middle ages. For example, the controversial Council of Nicea in 325 decieded to create the official biblical canon that we know today. There were once hundreds of different gospels, some of which only exist in fragmentary form today, most do not exist all. In any event, the council decieded that the four gospels we all know, plus a few of the Pauline letters should form the official New Testament canon. All other books were declared heretical and burnt. The few fragments of the lost books, plus the apocryphal "Gospel of Thomas" paint a far different image than the one that we know. Moreover, the gospels that we do have are subject to extensive editing and recopying, further blurring Christ's message.
Not to necessarily criticize the four gospels because, even in their current form, they are still amongst the most divinely inspired works that mankind has ever known, and I hold them in only the highest regard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Like UrbanRanger, im curious how exactly is this testimony given? Is it just said in the Bible that they gave testimony, or are there official Roman documents? From waht I know, and i know a lot, the only source of information relating to the dissappearance of Christ's body and his subsequent ressurection comes from the Bible, a document filled with myth and legend.
|
We are missing parts of Tacitus covering the period of Christ's trial, which is greatly unfortunate.
There are other sources that cite:
"Christians believe... etc."
such as the Josephus quote I provided earlier.
The Bible is the only document that I know of that provides the account of Christ's trial, death and resurrection.
However: "Bible, a document filled with myth and legend."
Looking at the Gospel accounts, we have good reasons to believe that this is accurate historical testimony, especially when one uses the same methods to examine the Gospels as one would use for any other book.
60 years is too short to compose a legend since there would still be eyewitnesses who remembered the truth. For the synoptics, you are looking at 40 years, even closer to the event at hand.
What parts of the Gospels cause you to presuppose a myth and legend?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
monkspider:
When Kramerman says 200 years, I have to rebut and refute the legend hypothesis first.
Now we are talking about canonical problems.
quote:
the controversial Council of Nicea in 325 decided to create the official biblical canon that we know today.
|
By controversial, you allude there was a great deal difference in opinion between one list of canons and another. There was widespread agreement as to the accepted books, both OT and NT.
Secondly, you have the wrong council and the wrong date.
"The first known list which includes the 27 books which Christians recognize today appeared in the Festal Letter written by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, to the churches when announcing the date of Easter in 367 A.D. Later, Jerome and Augustine produced canonical lists containing the same 27 books."
"
In summary, the New Testament canon was not produced by the simple decree of any church governing body. Rather, like the Old Testament, the New Testament took shape over a period of time as the oral teachings of the original apostles were written down and distributed among the early Christian churches. The early church then documented and formalized the already recognized list of authoritative writings in order to prevent the distortion of the truth over the passage of time."
http://www.nomatterwhatonline.com/o...New%20Testament
As for the alluded political editing, the OT books do not show much difference from the Dead Sea Scrolls written before the time of Christ. This shows to me that there is very little that can be changed in the OT by the council of Nicaea.
quote:
The few fragments of the lost books, plus the apocryphal "Gospel of Thomas" paint a far different image than the one that we know. |
Paint a far different picture of what? Of Christ? Of his death and resurrection? Please elaborate.
The Gospel of Thomas was rejected on the grounds of Gnosticism.
The rest of the NT apocrypha is not considered authoritative. Burnings of the NT apocrypha? Unlikely. Why would they need to burn books that they consider to be inaccurate, when they have better books? Could the lack of books be explained by a lack of interest in the preservation of the NT apocrypha?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
I'm not going to repeat myself from the other Jesus thread, but obiwan is right and Kramerman obviously doesn't know crap about the Bible except for what he wants to believe.
Monkspider, you're not quite right. All the other books weren't burnt. The book of James, book of Mary, the Protovangelian, the book of Nicodemus, the letters of Barnabus are still around. They weren't put in the Bible because the authorship was questionable and they didn't harmonize with the more solidly authentic letters of Paul and the gospels. If you read them you'll see they are much more fanciful and likely the product of a later writting of 200 AD or so. They are still interesting to read because many of them reflect some common held beliefs of the early Christians.
Regarding editing and recopying. If the changes you believe happened, we would have many more versions of the Bible than we have today. Just think about how many copies of the Bible are out there. Do you really think it would be that easy to change such a widely distributed book like that?
Besides, the catholics weren't much into letting people get their hands on a Bible and read it for themselves. They taught that only the priests were properly trained to interpret it. They didn't need to change anything, they just kept people ignorant of what they didn't want them to know. Still the catholic church was split, there were many monk sects, changing the Bible was even beyond the Catholic church. Its was too hard to flood the churches with enough hand written versions compared to how many were in circulation at any one time.
I swear, just a small application of logic would let people see how ridiculous this belief in widespread changes is.
Damn, I ended up repeating myself anyway
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
by Tolls
It took less than 60 years for the myths around Joseph Smith to build up, or Brigham Young for that matter. A whole mythology existed in less than 50 years... |
I don't think thats right. Joseph Smith did exist. You can believe his story or not, but I don't think there is anything mythological about it.
Bible literalists are a lot more common than you'd think. Our Sunday School class of 16 has 7 literalists. I'm talking people who believe in the 6 day creation, the ark, everything, from Genesis to Revelation as the God breathed literal truth. Believe me, they are just as pig headed obstinant in the face of any evidence you might have as unbelievers are in the face of the evidence for Jesus. Some of them are very intellegent, its just surprising what different beliefs people form in the face of the same evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
Joseph Smith claimed to have found the gold tablets. You can believe him or not. Thats not a myth that was built up over time. It was either a revelation from God or a fabrication from Smith, but it was not myth or legend.
Sure there are Elvis sightings. Elvis impersonators are all over the place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
Tolls, I don't know where you get 60 years. Paul wrote in 55 AD, and thats only 25 years after the fact. There were plenty of eyewitnesses to the actual events that would prevent layers of myth. The beliefs in Jesus were established well before Paul started writing as he studied for years with the apostles before going out to preach himself. So the timetable for the basic articles of Christian faith is even less than 25 years.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2003 11:02
). So, I do take him seriously, but with a certain grain of salt. 
Monkspider.
. Lots of Ancient Greeks claimed to have seen Zeus, or Poseidon, or to have been seduced by Aphrodite... does that make those Gods just as real as yours?
|