The literal & infallible word of God

[Smoke]

Yeesh, sorry about that. But Matthew and John WERE both disciples and definitely alive when Jesus was.

But again, neither wrote the Gospel to which his name is attached.

And Luke was definitely a respected historian in the Jewish culture of the time.

Luke was a Gentile, and what acclaim he may have as a historian is based entirely on the third gospel and Acts, if indeed he wrote them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ditto ...

 

[SassDiva2000]

I have taken 100's of statements in my 12 years as a cop and I can tell you that it doesn't matter even if you are an eye-witness, your account of an event can still be very unreliable. I am often amazed at how statements from "reliable" witnesses can be so different.

I was going to point this out... Just look at how differently three eyewitnesses can recall the same car accident: the light was red, the light was green, the red car was in the intersection, it wasn't...you know how it goes...

 

[SassDiva2000]

John is accounted in his own book, since he was there, referring to himself as 'the one Jesus loved' or 'beloved'.

Matthew, again, was one of the disciples, so was definitely an eye-witness.


Mark was Jesus's brother and became a follower of him, probably before his death, so he would have had his own and the accounts of Jesus's followers as a direct source. It's the historical equivalent of our modern day documentaries and historical accounts.

I mean, these books are different in the same way that different history books and documentaries are different today! And they are so similar to each other with so few contradictions that it can definitely be considered reliable by modern standards. The real argument is whether or not they were authored by who they say they were, which as I stated above, would be pretty hard to do since it's generally accepted that all of these books were written within 100 years of Jesus's death.

I'm sorry but notwithstanding any of this, none of the writers of the gospels identify themselves and the gospels are, in fact, anonymous. You have no way of knowing whether Matthew was actually written by the disciple Matthew and so on.

 

[tomspug]

But again, neither wrote the Gospel to which his name is attached.

Opinion, not fact.

I think that's as far as this can go for now... Neither side is going to convince the other at this point, unless you've got another point to make.

 

[Smoke]

Opinion, not fact.

Of all the people alive in the century after Jesus' death, why do you think those two particular men wrote those two gospels?

 

[SassDiva2000]

Opinion, not fact.

I think that's as far as this can go for now... Neither side is going to convince the other at this point, unless you've got another point to make.

How is this opinion? Can you point to a section in Matthew where the writer identifies himself as Matthew, the tax collector who was a disciple of Jesus? Can you do this for Mark as well?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good, so let's just disregard everything that was ever written... ever.

You seem to have come embarrassingly close to achieving this goal. Tell me, tomspug, have you ever read any scholarship on the Synoptics?

 

[Somkid]

Every historical document is full of 'errors' and we don't reject THEM. Why do you think the Bible is so special that you get to decide that you can only accept it 100% or reject it 100%?

Maybe because it is so surprisingly uniform, or maybe because you have been brainwashed to despise it?

Because what I stated is the truth the bible is NOT used by any historical institution as a historical document nor is it taught in any university as truth (with the exception of Christian university standing). Victors write history we know that so, of course there is a margin of error but as we move forward we try to correct the errors for example we no longer consider people of African descent or Native American descent to be savage animals to rule over as the Christians of the past held to be true we have rewritten this history to say we the white American people were the oppressors. There is very little truth to the bible I believe the actual accuracy is like 30% but that is only by chance and in the case of natural disasters and the like.

As far as being brainwashed I'm far from that I am an independent thinker and not easily swayed without empirical evidence (this makes me dangerous and a liability in the USA) in fact I got so sick of political correctness and lies I left my country and everything I had behind and settled in a new country where the truth is a good thing and is not sugar coated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I got so sick of political correctness and lies I left my country and everything I had behind and settled in a new country where the truth is a good thing and is not sugar coated.

Thailand? Rubbish!

 

[Katzpur]

It's simple to know if one's interpretation is correct. If it agrees with God's Holy Word, true Science, and History, it's as close to the One Truth as is Humanly possible.

Excuse me, but are you saying that if our interpretation of the Bible agrees with the Bible, it's correct?

 

[Katzpur]

The Bible is 100% man made. No question about it. Try "God: A Biography" by Jack Miles, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Biography and then make an assessment of the Bible.

And Jack Miles is 100% God-made. No question about it. (At least not in my mind.) Do you see what we're trying to say here, Kadzbiz? Your statement that the Bible is 100% man-made may be 100% true. But your statement that there is "no question about it" is 100% false. A lot of people have questions about it. People believe in it to varying degrees. Don't pretend to know something that no human being can possible know. It makes you look a lot less intelligent than you undoubtedly are.

 

[kadzbiz]

Good, so let's just disregard everything that was ever written........

Might be a good start.

 

[Somkid]

Thailand? Rubbish!

I'm not sure what you mean by that, care to elaborate?

 

[kadzbiz]

...... Don't pretend to know something that no human being can possible know. It makes you look a lot less intelligent than you undoubtedly are.

Hmm, I'm getting told that a lot lately. Maybe I better start eating my greens again.

 

[Francine]

Your statement that the Bible is 100% man-made may be 100% true.

It's closer to 99.98% man-made. God wrote Exodus 20 on stone with his own finger.

 

[kadzbiz]

It's closer to 99.98% man-made. God wrote Exodus 20 on stone with his own finger.

I don't think that's right. I'm reading it now and it begins "And God spoke all these words, saying:......" Exodus 20 was written by man of what God said, or at least, would God supposedly said.

 

[Francine]

I don't think that's right. I'm reading it now and it begins "And God spoke all these words, saying:......" Exodus 20 was written by man of what God said, or at least, would God supposedly said.

Exodus 20 is the beginning of the Law which God indeed spake to Moses, but the Ten Commandments he wrote himself, as revealed slightly later in the book:

Exod.31:[18] And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

 

[kadzbiz]

Exodus 20 is the beginning of the Law which God indeed spake to Moses, but the Ten Commandments he wrote himself, as revealed slightly later in the book:

Exod.31:[18] And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Francine, I'm very well aware of the allegation that God wrote the commandments in stone, which is what Exod 31:18 is saying, but He didn't write any part of Exodus, He only allegedly wrote on the stone. Exodus is man's written account of the event. An account that I don't believe actually occurred.

 

[Francine]

Francine, I'm very well aware of the allegation that God wrote the commandments in stone, which is what Exod 31:18 is saying, but He didn't write any part of Exodus, He only allegedly wrote on the stone. Exodus is man's written account of the event. An account that I don't believe actually occurred.

On the contrary, the part of Exodus 20 referred to as the Ten Commandments (and Deuteronomy 5 for that matter) are not merely an account but actual copies in ink and parchment of what God wrote on the stone. The Hebrews were meticulous people, and Moses would not have been content to paraphrase what God wrote. And it wouldn't sit well with the Author either.