The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
And what roman documentation is this?
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
Isn't there another thread for what you're talking about?
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.
As I said, total denial. :)
Theres no such thing as the "Synoptic Problem" no doubt.
Theres no such thing as the "Synoptic Problem" no doubt.
They do stand up to historical analysis. Its accepted by historians that the gospels were an eye witness account of Jesus' life. They were written just after the time of Jesus by people who knew him.
That's a widely accepted fact. The only debate is if they are true or not i.e. is Jesus the Messiah or just a regular bloke.
That's a widely accepted fact. The only debate is if they are true or not i.e. is Jesus the Messiah or just a regular bloke.
Geffdof wrote:
> There is no debate on the origin of the Gospels. The only debate
> is about gospels that arent in the bible and possibly should be.
Err..yes there is and quite alot of it. However I dont find it surprising you're in total denial of this. They do not stand up to historical analysis and never have. If they did, dont you think the church would be on much firmer ground than it is?
> There is no debate on the origin of the Gospels. The only debate
> is about gospels that arent in the bible and possibly should be.
Err..yes there is and quite alot of it. However I dont find it surprising you're in total denial of this. They do not stand up to historical analysis and never have. If they did, dont you think the church would be on much firmer ground than it is?
Page: