the gospels do not contradict each other they all agree and if you study them they do not elude to falsehood
real one --- please provide proof here
by kwintestal 230 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
real one
i have heard about the gospel of thomas and find that it is not credible
-
real one
mark and Luke were not apostles they were purely eyewitnesses
-
kwintestal
What makes the gospel of Thomas any more or less credible? Was it because he doubted?
Kwin
-
real one
paul if you mean saul he was an eyewitness to Jesus ressurection
-
real one
most scolars agree that the gospel of Thomas is agnostic it was written by a non-jew
-
kwintestal
From Wikipedia
St. Paul the Apostle ( Hebrew: ???? ????? ? Ša?ul HaTarsi, meaning "Saul of Tarsus", Ancient Greek: Sa??? Saul and Sa???? Saulos and ?a???? Paulos [1] ), the "Apostle to the Gentiles" [2] was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just, [3] the most notable of early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus prior to the latter's crucifixion. [4] According to Acts, his conversion took place as he was traveling the road to Damascus, and experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. [5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ". [6]
Paul NEVER met Jesus.
Kwin
-
real one
kwin thats what i said
-
kwintestal
paul if you mean saul he was an eyewitness to Jesus ressurection
No, this is what you said. How can he be an eyewitness to the resurrection if they never met? Am I missing something?
Kwin
-
jgnat
jgnat sorry i dont have time to write pages of a lot of unuseful info. KISS, i get to the point
Then you don't have time to develop your argument. You have not connected the dots for the readers for all your points and lay it out in a logical manner. That is, if you intend to confront logical people, you do have to take the time. Here we are days and pages later, and you have not been simple, and you have not got to the point. Your reasoning has flown all over the map.
I suspect time is not the issue here. I suspect you don't know how to lay out a logical argument.
Luke, Matt,John,Paul...Tacitus
Luke was not an eye-witness. He related the accounts of others. Was Paul at Jesus Cruxifiction? I can't remember him relating an eyewitness account. Similarly, Tacitus' account is third-hand.
That leaves the accounts of Matthew and John. They are still not primary sources, as we have written fragements of their testimony, copied many times. That is, Matthew and John are not here to verify if their stories are true. The copies, also, are not exact duplicates. Accuracy was not a chief concern of early Christians.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
I should also point out that there are other texts, rejected by the Nicene Council, relating to Jesus' childhood and so on. Why were they considered, three hundred years later, to be unreliable? It wouldn't be, perhaps, because it did not fit in with the approved doctrine?