Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 130
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Matthew and John. Mark wrote on behalf of Peter who knew Jesus and Luke was a disciple of all of the Apostles, who knew Jesus, as well as Paul. So, the works were either written by those who knew Jesus who on behalf of those who knew Jesus by those who knew them.
    now I don't have an apostle in this fight -- but from a casual reading I'd have to give the point to Blaze ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Even if true, this is consistent with what I said.

    Here's John.Here's Matthew.I cant see where the encylocpedia entry for either one says they are the authors.
    Then you didn't read your own citations very well. Both say that authorship was "traditionally" ascribed to John and Matthew respectively. Modern scholars who reject this are basically rejecting 1700 years of thought and research.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    now I don't have an apostle in this fight -- but from a casual reading I'd have to give the point to Blaze ...
    There's a shocker. But can you tell me why?
  4.    #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Then you didn't read your own citations very well. Both say that authorship was "traditionally" ascribed to John and Matthew respectively. Modern scholars who reject this are basically rejecting 1700 years of thought and research.
    1700 years of thought and research done by the Church.

    Remember, many of those years, they were the only ones even allowed to see or read it, and did not even seal the Bible until a couple hundred years ago.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Lol, wow what a literary mind. In literature a point of view is the related experience of the narrator, not that of the author.

    I can tell you have study ancient writing in detail.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    1700 years of thought and research done by the Church.

    Remember, many of those years, they were the only ones even allowed to see or read it, and did not even seal the Bible until a couple hundred years ago.
    You're thinking the only research was going on in the realm of Roman influence. But there was also research going on in the Eastern world, the African world, etc. Not to mention, not everybody in the Western church was in lock step with Rome--even before the Reformation.

    That aside, there are also plenty of scholars within the past two hundred years that ascribe to traditional authorship (see Warfield, Bruce, Berkhof, Meier, etc). Most scholars outside of the influence of the Tubingen school would agree.
  7.    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You're thinking the only research was going on in the realm of Roman influence. But there was also research going on in the Eastern world, the African world, etc. Not to mention, not everybody in the Western church was in lock step with Rome--even before the Reformation.

    That aside, there are also plenty of scholars within the past two hundred years that ascribe to traditional authorship (see Warfield, Bruce, Berkhof, Meier, etc). Most scholars outside of the influence of the Tubingen school would agree.
    There are also plenty of scholars that claim time began 5000 years ago, when Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs around the garden of eden.
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    There are also plenty of scholars that claim time began 5000 years ago, when Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs around the garden of eden.
    Who? Name them.
  9.    #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Who? Name them.
    Lol, somebody's angry.
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Lol, somebody's angry.
    Nope, not me. But would you care to respond to the question?
  11.    #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Nope, not me. But would you care to respond to the question?
    lol, evidence of a scholar that thinks Adam and Eve Rode Dinosaurs to church?

    hoovs, your sense of humor is terrible, even for a right wing idealog
  12. #112  
    Arguing the historical accuracy of the biblical accounts is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The whole things is based on a ridiculous premise, involving invisible all powerful beings setting up an elaborate charade to fool people with apparent science while promising them eternal life if they deny the evidence of their own eyes.

    Its not the middle ages any more.

    Surur
  13.    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Arguing the historical accuracy of the biblical accounts is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The whole things is based on a ridiculous premise, involving invisible all powerful beings setting up an elaborate charade to fool people with apparent science while promising them eternal life if they deny the evidence of their own eyes. Its not the middle ages any more.
    The answer is 10 angels, depending on how fat they are.

    Actually, i read quite a lot of books about the Historical Jesus. That one Illiterate, Medeterranian, Jewish Peasant has changed the world more than any human ever to live, and he did it without armies or money.

    It is more accuate to say that study of the Historical Jesus is VERY difficult. One of the authors i read "Dominic Crossan" equates it to attempting to get a picture of a molecule by watching how other nearby (or not so nearby) protons and electrons are acting. We never get a direct look at the man, we can only reconstruct his life and times based on how others react to him.

    There are certain things we know about Jesus because people who hated him, people who were indifferent to him, and people who worshiped him all agree on.

    Often times, the strictly biblical scholars focus on the latter.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Arguing the historical accuracy of the biblical accounts is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The whole things is based on a ridiculous premise, involving invisible all powerful beings setting up an elaborate charade to fool people with apparent science while promising them eternal life if they deny the evidence of their own eyes.

    Its not the middle ages any more.

    Surur
    What am I required to deny?
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Actually, i read quite a lot of books about the Historical Jesus. That one Illiterate, Medeterranian, Jewish Peasant has changed the world more than any human ever to live, and he did it without armies or money.
    Don't start arguments you can't finish.
  16.    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Don't start arguments you can't finish.
    lol, man you are just furious today
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The answer is 10 angels, depending on how fat they are.

    Actually, i read quite a lot of books about the Historical Jesus. That one Illiterate, Medeterranian, Jewish Peasant has changed the world more than any human ever to live, and he did it without armies or money.

    It is more accuate to say that study of the Historical Jesus is VERY difficult. One of the authors i read "Dominic Crossan" equates it to attempting to get a picture of a molecule by watching how other nearby (or not so nearby) protons and electrons are acting. We never get a direct look at the man, we can only reconstruct his life and times based on how others react to him.

    There are certain things we know about Jesus because people who hated him, people who were indifferent to him, and people who worshiped him all agree on.

    Often times, the strictly biblical scholars focus on the latter.
    you are correct in saying this man changed the world more than any human ever to live. A question for you, these changes were they for the better or worse?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What am I required to deny?
    You know, simple things, like the world wasnt created in 7 days, the world wasnt flooded for 40 days, all the species in the world cant fit in one 300 cubit boat, and man has more in common with animals than angels.

    Surur
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    You know, simple things, like the world wasnt created in 7 days, the world wasnt flooded for 40 days, all the species in the world cant fit in one 300 cubit boat, and man has more in common with animals than angels.

    Surur
    You know there are differing theories on all of these things. Very few churches make any of them "confessional" issues: e.g., you can't be part of this church unless you believe the world was created in seven literal 24 hour periods. In fact, a large number of conservative Christians believe the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 refered to an era or period of time--much like the modern word "day". Of course, there are others who believe that what we now know about the theory of relativity makes it easier to believe the world was created in 7 literal days.
  20.    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    you are correct in saying this man changed the world more than any human ever to live. A question for you, these changes were they for the better or worse?
    define better or worse
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions