The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Do you believe in life after death?. Following being diagnosed with cancer my life was put on stop, my world changed instantly. I and my family were in shock but I was not mad or asked why me?. I was however mad at the system that allowed me to get in this situation because there was history in my case that appeared not to mean a thing. I then had experiences that only convinced me that there are stranger things in heaven than on earth. Not a stranger to mystical events in the past I started a mission to work with cancer
Page:
What, that Matthew, Mark and Luke have all written similar things and in a similar order? Firstly, I don't see that as a problem. Secondly, what does that have to do with the date the Gospels were written? We were discussing the dating of the gospels and this doesn't alter the fact that they were first hand accounts.
Isn't there another thread for what you're talking about?
I only ever mentioned the origins of the gospels, clearly dating is going to be a part of that but its not the only aspect.
That you dont see some gospels apparently being copies of others as a problem is irrelevant. We arent talking about your beliefs. I was merely pointing out that people outside the church DO NOT accept them as the historical documents you believe they are. And the "Synoptic Problem" is just the tip of the iceberg. But whatever gets you through the night. :)
That you dont see some gospels apparently being copies of others as a problem is irrelevant. We arent talking about your beliefs. I was merely pointing out that people outside the church DO NOT accept them as the historical documents you believe they are. And the "Synoptic Problem" is just the tip of the iceberg. But whatever gets you through the night. :)
If you read the gospels, they don't seem to be copies of each other, but that's besides the point.
There are plenty of independent historians who date the gospels to the time of Jesus. I suppose its one of those catch 22 situations. there will always be people who try to dispute the authority of the bible.
There are plenty of independent historians who date the gospels to the time of Jesus. I suppose its one of those catch 22 situations. there will always be people who try to dispute the authority of the bible.
Geffdof wrote:
> There are plenty of independent historians who date the gospels
> to the time of Jesus. I suppose its one of those catch 22
> situations. there will always be people who try to dispute the
> authority of the bible.
*laugh* plenty of independent historians eh? Plenty of independent scientists dont believe in global warming too, doesnt make them right or credible. Simply you're making a worthless statement.
Having said that, I dont think theres much dispute regarding age (which is why I never specifically mentioned age). But the fact that you can date a document doesnt make it historically accurate. Otherwise you can just say Lord of Rings must be true because we can date when it was written.
> There are plenty of independent historians who date the gospels
> to the time of Jesus. I suppose its one of those catch 22
> situations. there will always be people who try to dispute the
> authority of the bible.
*laugh* plenty of independent historians eh? Plenty of independent scientists dont believe in global warming too, doesnt make them right or credible. Simply you're making a worthless statement.
Having said that, I dont think theres much dispute regarding age (which is why I never specifically mentioned age). But the fact that you can date a document doesnt make it historically accurate. Otherwise you can just say Lord of Rings must be true because we can date when it was written.
It was Nin who mentioned age which is what started this whole debate. As for historical accuracy, There are non-biblical texts such as Roman documentation that confirms Jesus existed and was crucified on a cross. In fact there is apparently more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is of the existence of Julius Caesar and you'd be a fool to deny his existence.
Jesus is a real historical figure who had a large following, and thats an historical fact even without the gospels.
Jesus is a real historical figure who had a large following, and thats an historical fact even without the gospels.
And what roman documentation is this?
Do you know when you go to a museum and you see Roman remains or Egyptian papyrus or any other such item, well stuff like that.
If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an ISBN number then I cant help you.
Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an historical account of his life?
Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
Also,
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[3]
Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do. There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant expect everyone to believe in everything.
If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an ISBN number then I cant help you.
Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an historical account of his life?
Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
Also,
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[3]
Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do. There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant expect everyone to believe in everything.
Geffdof wrote:
> Do you know when you go to a museum and you see Roman remains or
> Egyptian papyrus or any other such item, well stuff like that.
>
> If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an
> ISBN number then I cant help you.
You claim knowledge of something, I dont think its unreasonable for me to ask for specifics. So basically you want to say theres "roman documentation" and "historical records" proving all these things but you dont know what they are? :)
> Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing
> the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an
> historical account of his life?
My personal view is that Jesus probably existed. Yet there is a large gap between my own personal feeling on the matter and what is historical fact. The difference between me and you is that I dont have my faith wrapped up in it. So I can yes he probably existed but at the same time I dont think the sources of information are authoritative enough to claim his existence as fact.
And no I dont believe the Gospels are a historical account of his life. I think if I did, I'd be a christian. ;)
> Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was
> mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus,
> Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
See, here is my problem. You're claiming knowledge you clearly dont have and just make brief searches of the internet to back up your claims about the historical accuracy. For instance...
Pliny the Younger lived around 100 ad (if I remember correctly) and did not mention Jesus at all in his writings. He talked about christian worship practices and how the roman empire should deal with them. Basically this offers no credible validation of Jesus' existence or his role in christianity.
> Also,
> Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history
> agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was
> regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
> accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders
> of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by
> crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never
> existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or
> mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities
> and heroes.[3]
Quoting wikipedia doesnt help anything.
> Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do.
> There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few
> odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant
> expect everyone to believe in everything.
Belief in Jesus does not automatically mean everything ever written about him is true. By the same token its almost certain that King Arthur existed, but it doesnt mean he was given a sword by a lady in a lake and kept company with Merlin the magician.
> Do you know when you go to a museum and you see Roman remains or
> Egyptian papyrus or any other such item, well stuff like that.
>
> If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an
> ISBN number then I cant help you.
You claim knowledge of something, I dont think its unreasonable for me to ask for specifics. So basically you want to say theres "roman documentation" and "historical records" proving all these things but you dont know what they are? :)
> Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing
> the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an
> historical account of his life?
My personal view is that Jesus probably existed. Yet there is a large gap between my own personal feeling on the matter and what is historical fact. The difference between me and you is that I dont have my faith wrapped up in it. So I can yes he probably existed but at the same time I dont think the sources of information are authoritative enough to claim his existence as fact.
And no I dont believe the Gospels are a historical account of his life. I think if I did, I'd be a christian. ;)
> Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was
> mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus,
> Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
See, here is my problem. You're claiming knowledge you clearly dont have and just make brief searches of the internet to back up your claims about the historical accuracy. For instance...
Pliny the Younger lived around 100 ad (if I remember correctly) and did not mention Jesus at all in his writings. He talked about christian worship practices and how the roman empire should deal with them. Basically this offers no credible validation of Jesus' existence or his role in christianity.
> Also,
> Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history
> agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was
> regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
> accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders
> of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by
> crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never
> existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or
> mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities
> and heroes.[3]
Quoting wikipedia doesnt help anything.
> Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do.
> There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few
> odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant
> expect everyone to believe in everything.
Belief in Jesus does not automatically mean everything ever written about him is true. By the same token its almost certain that King Arthur existed, but it doesnt mean he was given a sword by a lady in a lake and kept company with Merlin the magician.
To be honest, I think that the bible itself is an historical document that explains in great detail the life of Jesus. Just because its a religious text doesnt mean it cant be used as a record of history. The amount of information in one gospel alone is more than sufficient to paint a picture of what Jesus was like.
I was simply pointing out that Jesus was mentioned in non-biblical sources too, just in case you don't accept the bible as an historical source. I have no expert knowledge of such material so a quick look on wiki threw up a few suggestions that you could look into yourself, should you wish. Obviously Wiki isnt a definitive source but its at least a starting point.
Even without any Roman texts, the gospels tell us loads about Jesus.
I was simply pointing out that Jesus was mentioned in non-biblical sources too, just in case you don't accept the bible as an historical source. I have no expert knowledge of such material so a quick look on wiki threw up a few suggestions that you could look into yourself, should you wish. Obviously Wiki isnt a definitive source but its at least a starting point.
Even without any Roman texts, the gospels tell us loads about Jesus.
Page: