 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Wrong, you believe what some men say Christ said and did. On top of that, you have the problem of later additions to the Gospels and the letters of Paul. The only thing you nkow about Jeshua ben Joseph is what has been said about him by others.
|
quote:
Heck, two of the Gospels are attributed to people who didn't even know the man, and none of the Gospels were written within a generation of Jeshua's death. So you are trusting the memories of men.
|
Good points. However, I will challenge the attribution of the Gospels.
Mark and Luke I presume you say never knew or met Christ? That does not rule out the fact that they can and do use eyewitness testimony.
quote:
Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.
|
This comes from Eusebius, http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html
We have very good evidence that Mark is based on an eyewitness to Christ, Peter.
The same can be said for Luke, who used a variety of eyewitness testimony to Christ to compile his Gospels, among whom likely included Mary who did see Christ.
Anyway if you want to continue discussing the historicity of the Gospels, we can go right ahead.
Even if we were to discount the evidence of Mark and Luke, you still have John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Now, as for the problem of relying upon men, you touch on a point very near and dear to my heart. How do you know there existed a Communist revolution in Russia in 1917? Were you an eyewitness of said event?
In short, we rely upon authority for almost all that we know. This includes Christ. We believe in Christ not only because he is God, but also because of the Gospels, and how they are written.
Now, if we were to compare the Gospels by the same standards of any other work of the time, we see that all of the other historical books and documents far fall short in both the number and the completeness of the manuscripts.
In short, if we are to believe anything of history, it is in the Gospels.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of Jesus not rising from the dead. How then do we account for the empty tomb, presupposed not by the Christians, but by the Jews?
Please, give me a plausible counter explanation that fits all the details for Christ's resurrection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, as for the problem of relying upon men, you touch on a point very near and dear to my heart. How do you know there existed a Communist revolution in Russia in 1917? Were you an eyewitness of said event? |
Ahh, but there are pictures of the revolution. In fact, ther are all sorts of primary records that can be examined and interpreted. The same cannot be said of Jeshua. I have no doubt the man existed. But given that even the earliest work about him was written at least thirty years after his death, I would have to believe that the memories of men do not change, that men are not infallible.
quote:
In short, we rely upon authority for almost all that we know. This includes Christ. We believe in Christ not only because he is God, but also because of the Gospels, and how they are written. |
I actually happen to find early Christianity fascisinating. While I'm not a scholar or the period, I might be described as an interested person. I'm currently reading Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels. So you'll know that I'm going to say that your awsertions are disputed by many scholars of the period. Since I'm not a scholar of the period, the best I can do is be truthful and say, I don't know whose argument and evidence is superior, but most of what I've read, even when I was a believer, pointed towards a later date than you claim.
quote:
Please, give me a plausible counter explanation that fits all the details for Christ's resurrection. |
Someone stole the body. A bunch of looney cultists believed they saw their former leader alive and began telling people about it. Kinda like Elvis sightings. I don't mean to belittle your faith, but the human mind is funny and it tends to fill in details when given partial and fragmentary information, especially during times of stress. I could swear I thought I saw my cat around the house, just in the corner of my eye for a month of so after she died. That doesn't mean she was there. or maybe she was!
Friends, let me tell you the good news of the risen Annie!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Ahh, but there are pictures of the revolution. In fact, ther are all sorts of primary records that can be examined and interpreted.
|
If you saw a picture of Christ, you would believe?
Secondly, the Gospels, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses counts as primary source material.
quote:
The same cannot be said of Jeshua. I have no doubt the man existed. But given that even the earliest work about him was written at least thirty years after his death, I would have to believe that the memories of men do not change, that men are not infallible.
|
Show me another historical event 2000 years ago with records dating only 25 years after the event.
No, the memories of one man is not infalliable, but show me where the resurrection could be completely distorted by not one, but 4 different men writing at different times.
"Form critics call into question the integrity of the disciples. The disciples had seen and heard Jesus. They had even been a part of his ministry. Yet, if the form critics are correct, they did not control the accuracy of the tradition...Is it conceivable that in its own discussions and disputes the early church would not have examined doubtful statements concerning Jesus' ministry? If the church, in fact, did not scrutinize such statements, why is there such close agreement as to the nature and details of that minsitry? A community that was purely imaginative and lacking in discrimination would have found it impossible to form a consistent tradition."
quote:
Someone stole the body.
|
That obviously took a great deal of thought, che.
Read the account. The Jews posted guards just to make sure the Christians did not pull out any hanky-panky. They placed a huge stone over the crypt.
quote:
even when I was a believer, pointed towards a later date than you claim.
|
How late?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-10-2003 03:38
.
FEX IS BACK!!!!! 
Clearly they only accepted the four gospels because they were consistent with available testiomony.
Given that they were the available testiomony, that's a circular argument. They're right because they argree with themselves. 
|