1. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Dec '07 01:23
    'Nuff said.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    31 Dec '07 02:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    'Nuff said.
    Show us where they are not.
  3. tinyurl.com/ywohm
    Joined
    01 May '07
    Moves
    27860
    31 Dec '07 03:08
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    'Nuff said.
    The were written 50-80 years after the initial events, to diffferent audiences and focusing on different aspects of the events. The authors of Luke and Matthew had the assistance of the book of Mark being written before theirs, but 50 years is a long time to wait before recording events.
  4. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Dec '07 03:33
    I'll put some time into this if there's a lively debate. If everyone else thinks they are consistent I'll let the thread die gracefully.

    However take a look at Thread 83953. That's where I got the idea.
  5. Joined
    22 Aug '06
    Moves
    359
    31 Dec '07 07:48
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    The were written 50-80 years after the initial events, to diffferent audiences and focusing on different aspects of the events. The authors of Luke and Matthew had the assistance of the book of Mark being written before theirs, but 50 years is a long time to wait before recording events.
    Actually, we have some idea of when the Gospels began being CIRCULATED, but the record of the events may have been WRITTEN shortly after the events took place. There is some logic to the idea that there was no need to immediately circulate a record of the events since those events were perhaps widely known at the time.
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    55242
    31 Dec '07 07:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    Show us where they are not.
    Well... for instance... the birth place of Jesus...
  7. Joined
    02 Apr '06
    Moves
    3637
    31 Dec '07 09:071 edit
    Originally posted by gaychessplayer
    Actually, we have some idea of when the Gospels began being CIRCULATED, but the record of the events may have been WRITTEN shortly after the events took place. There is some logic to the idea that there was no need to immediately circulate a record of the events since those events were perhaps widely known at the time.
    That does not make sense. If there was an earlier record, why invent one that disagreed with the others; at some point, there must have been disagreement about what happened, and that has translated into the gospels as we now know them.

    Further, to change an existing record is positively fraudulant, however I will accept that may have happened, especially regarding the later construction of the books of the bible in 300-400ad

    I don't know how much you know about the human brain and the way we construct reality, but even hours after events take place there are vastly differing accounts from eyewitnesses of the same event. There is substantial evidence for this wonderful ability of ours to make stuff up.
  8. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    31 Dec '07 12:19
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Well... for instance... the birth place of Jesus...
    bethlehem, tho how he got thier is open for different gospels
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 12:222 edits
    I am looking for major inconsistency in the Gospels.

    Does anyone have any ? THousandYoung, didn't you start the assertion that they were not consistent ?

    Your examples, please ?
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 12:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    Show us where they are not.
    I'm looking to see if I missed anything.

    But I get the feeling that ThousandYoung's bold assertion on the other thread seems to have been changed into a public question on this thread.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    31 Dec '07 12:39
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I am looking for major inconsistency in the Gospels.

    Does anyone have any ? THousandYoung, didn't you start the assertion that they were not consistent ?

    Your examples, please ?
    We've went through several many times.

    For example, was the Last Supper the Passover meal? (the Synoptics say yes; John says no).

    How many people were at Jesus' tomb?

    How did the people crucified with Jesus act toward him?

    Etc, etc, etc, etc.
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 12:473 edits
    ====================================
    I don't know how much you know about the human brain and the way we construct reality, but even hours after events take place there are vastly differing accounts from eyewitnesses of the same event. There is substantial evidence for this wonderful ability of ours to make stuff up.
    ========================================



    Have you taken into account that the writing of the New Testament reveals that the apostles seemed to have been very vigilant that stuff was NOT being made up and added to the Gospel?

    In Acts we see the apostles and elders quite concerned that stuff was not being fraudulently added to the original message.

    In Paul's epistles and in Peter's they both express caution that things were not being added to the message.

    All the record that we have in the New Testament is that the writers were keeping a wary and watchful eye over what was circulating.

    So you have the Council in Jerusalem about circumsizing the Gentiles. You have the correction of mistakes preached by Apollos. You even have a younger man Paul rebuking senior man Peter publically not to change the message of Jesus.

    You have Paul's many warnings to Timothy to charge the co-workers not to teach differently.

    You have Peter's warnings about apostasy similar to that seen in the Old Testament. You see the Apostle John warning about false teachers denying that Jesus came in the flesh. You have Paul warning the Ephsesian elders that "wolves" would come in and that they should be wary of men leading the disciples off after their own brand of teaching.

    Everywhere we see the writers taking caution that apostasy is not setting in and that the purity of the teaching is being preserved.

    These are our oldest records of what the gospel was. And they were written while many of them were contemporaries of one another.

    Plus the fact that after they died you did not have only ONE copy of a document being transmitted. You have multiple copies of documents being transmitted. A that means for less probability of serious perversion. Or it makes it much easier for textural critics to spot serious perversions.
Back to Top