Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Typical stupidity from you. The text speaks of a fourfold gospel likened to the corners of the world which Voorbus links to Irenaeus and you claim that's going too far. I don't bother to engage you in the other forums but now you're encroaching in my space. For those with interest I found Nau's 190...

Our source Papias, as well as comparisons of the gospels supports the idea that these works are compilations of various sources by at least some people that may not have been eyewitnesses at all. that doesn't follow. you think eye witnesses are like documentaries where they follow the same pattern ...

First, thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. Before I look at your thoughts on the matter of innerancy, etc..I will need to address the specifics, because to me they are a big deal because of the degree of their differences: no big deal. Luke liked Mary. He probalby used as a source. His li...

Metacrock, I have no problem with accepting all early dates for parts of the gospels. But, for me, I have a BIG problem with Matthew and Luke differences in the birth accounts and resurrection accounts. They are quite simply, not compatible. It takes a tremendous stretch of imagination to say that t...

Are you kidding? You are just dead wrong in saying that the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts. They read like a story about a man, his sayings, and doings. How is that information obtained? It could be from 1st hand, 2nd hand, 3rd hand, etc, imagination, scriptural inspiration, and on and on...

IMO there is no such thing as a Christian who doesn't interpret history. The faith requires belief in historical claims. Certainly Christians have a view on history. But if you're talking with them about history, so do you. So, I would think, does every educated person. Surely? For sure that is true.

I tried that already when I mentioned differences in Luke and Matthew, the inclusion of 90% of Mark in Matthew, and the testimony of Papias, the first testimony (that I know of) about the existence of any written gospels, a full 60-90 years after the crucifixion. He didn't show any willingness to ha...

Mental, I'll jump in on these: I'm going to add several errors in your claims that you probably didn't think of: 1. The gospels are in absolute agreement (and their "specificity" suggests they were written during Jesus' lifetime and could NOT have been written later) I gave you the birth a...

The gospel writers (and all other historical sources, for that matter) are not subject to YOUR standards of authenticity. Agree, but all have to apply our own standards anyway. Human nature. The purpose of the gospels was for eye-witnesses to relate what they saw Who says? Maybe it was to relate wh...

Belief comes from something though.. Christian belief (we call it "faith") comes from only one place: a personal relationship with an existing deity, whom we communicate with usually on a daily basis. Don't mistake our religion for everyone else's. Our faith can't begin with the reading o...