RootsBooster Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 They don't even know what it is or what caused it, so to claim it's a fact, is absurd. Its just the most popular unproven theory of how the universe started and not everyone thinks it even start. Would you mind answering the question please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEDROCK Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Each culture's Bibles are the most fictitious books ever produced, the fact that has eluded so many weak minded followers for generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted December 10, 2013 Author Share Posted December 10, 2013 Would you mind answering the question please? Mine too while you're at it What's your position on the evolution of the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Each culture's Bibles are the most fictitious books ever produced, the fact that has eluded so many weak minded followers for generations. Each culture's Bibles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Okay, I'll bite. Well at least you're not suggesting that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I agree, eyewitnesses don't have to be in 100% agreement to maintain the general truth of events. Eyewitness accounts don't have to paint a perfect picture, just a plausible account. But what about Easter, the most important single day for Christians? If you try to use the Gospels to determine a narrative for that most important day, you'll end up in a most terrible confusion. It's not just slight differences in detail, it's enormous contradictions. Earthquake, or no earthquake? Stone already rolled away from the door of the sepulchre when the women arrived, or after? Who were the women? What time did they visit? Was it light or dark? Where was the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples? Where did the ascension take place? Did it take place? I could go on, but simply try and write down what happened and the sequence of events using the Gospels and you cannot. Either some of them were wrong, or all of them. They weren't all eyewitness accounts. How dare you. I really don't want to get into a deep discussion about the Gospels. It isn't that I mean to deliberately evade those subjects you've introduced. Its just that some questions are impossible to answer or explain, especially to a non-believer. I look at it this way, theologians and scholars have been studying the gospels for centuries. I'm sure there have been many sceptics among them. Much of belief relies on faith without full understanding, but that doesn't have to mean ignoring the scriptures and being totally unquestioning. I do believe the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts. You mention the resurrection, well the apostles didn't believe the women's account of the empty tomb at first, but something extraordinary must have happened to give them the courage to conquer their fear of being arrested, imprisoned or worse still possible execution. I will agree they're are vague details explaining the details of some events, but certainly not "enormous contradictions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted December 11, 2013 Author Share Posted December 11, 2013 How dare you. I really don't want to get into a deep discussion about the Gospels. It isn't that I mean to deliberately evade those subjects you've introduced. Its just that some questions are impossible to answer or explain, especially to a non-believer. I look at it this way, theologians and scholars have been studying the gospels for centuries. I'm sure there have been many sceptics among them. Much of belief relies on faith without full understanding, but that doesn't have to mean ignoring the scriptures and being totally unquestioning. I do believe the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts. You mention the resurrection, well the apostles didn't believe the women's account of the empty tomb at first, but something extraordinary must have happened to give them the courage to conquer their fear of being arrested, imprisoned or worse still possible execution. I will agree they're are vague details explaining the details of some events, but certainly not "enormous contradictions" There we have the debate 'trump card'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not merely authors, BUT witnesses. If you don't believe first-hand witnesses, who would you believe? Luke was not a first-hand witness. He was not even a second hand source. Luke was a companion of Paul (Saul). Paul who only came into the gameplay after the death of the first Christian Martyr, Stephen, reported as having happened in around the year 34CE. (of whose death, Saul/Paul approved at the time, according to the "Book of Acts" which was also written by Luke.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I look at it this way, theologians and scholars have been studying the gospels for centuries. I'm sure there have been many sceptics among them. So what. Most theologians, over the centuries, have worked from the assumption that the gospels are true; that Jesus did live, perform miracles, die and resurrect. Most were believers before becoming theologians. So they had a natural bias towards scripture and the claims made by their predecessors. Arguments to the contrary were often dismissed, ignored, banished or destroyed; works by early critics, such as Porphyry - who argued the accounts in the gospels were 'telling myths' and unreliable - are an example of that. Later critics, including Christians, had to tread carefully or risk being accused of heresy and blasphemy. And the consequences of that weren't very nice. Theologians invent the theology to fit with their own subjective beliefs and what is claimed in the gospels. When they find contradictions and other problems in the gospels, they behave like Star Trek fans who find contradictions and errors in scripts that build up the Star Trek universe: they ignore it or come up with all sorts of mind bending, and sometimes laughable, apologetics to get around the problem. I do believe the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts. Why? You mention the resurrection, well the apostles didn't believe the women's account of the empty tomb at first, but something extraordinary must have happened to give them the courage to conquer their fear of being arrested, imprisoned or worse still possible execution. But that's assuming the story is true. And what are you on about? Why would the apostles fear believing her story would result in them being arrested, imprisoned or worse? Just to add: The earliest mention of the resurrection, if I remember correctly, appears in the Gnostic Acts of Peter(something to do with a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one). It also mentions the resurrection of a tuna fish, talking dogs and flying wizards. There's no mention, from any other source than the Bible, of an earthquake taking place or zombies rising from their tombs and venturing into the city when Jesus was killed or resurrected. No mention of Jesus' death from any other source. Why do these witnesses, majority of whom are nameless, only appear in the Bible. And why do the named ones, gnostic and NT, report bat**** crazy stuff like earthquakes with rocks splitting in half, zombies, talking dogs and flying wizards. No other source, Jewish, Roman or whatever, mentions anything about those things taking place. Don't you find that odd, Janie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 There's no mention, from any other source than the Bible, of an earthquake taking place, or zombies rising from their tombs and venturing into the city when Jesus was killed or resurrected. No mention of Jesus' death from any other source. Surprising Josephus, who lived around that time does not mention the earthquake or the zombies, if these really happened. Unfortunately, we don't have the manuscript he wrote, and his comments on Jesus *could* be later copyist's additions. "The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus (Sorry. I'm quoting Wicked Pedia again, but it's easier to look up than the "scholarly" papers. Read the article, and it will give you the references) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Any of you heard of Georges Lemaitre? Interesting man, he was the first to propose the 'Big Bang' theory. He was a Belgian Professor of Physics at the University of Louvain. He was also a Roman Catholic priest - Monsignor in fact - and a Jesuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.