by kwintestal 230 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
gospels do not contradict each other they all agree
Well, if they were all written independently all at the same time, that might be a good argument. But even the most dedicated apologists suggest that the gospels were written referencing each other. There is speculation that a lost source document was used as reference for the accounts.
Real one,
Are you kidding me? That's it? That is your proof?
Whilst I may be prepared to accept that there was a man who we now call Jesus that does not mean I am going to accept the word of people writing at least fifty years after his death. Tacitus was also writing a long time after the event and despite having a vested interest in maintaining christianity as Rome's fall guy he did not even know the name of Jesus. Which is interesting considering the Romans liked to record everything.
5000 people could have been witness to the resurrection, unfortunately not one of them thought to write a record of the event for posterity until a generation later. How strange! Also please bear in mind you do not have 50 seperate eyewitness testimonies, much less 500, what you have is the testimony of the handful of people who wrote the gospels. JGnats link was very interesting reading regarding the order the gospels were written and how at least two are (allegedly) a simple re-writing of an existing gospel.
Real one you also mentioned Shakespeare, his history plays are written in a similar time frame after the events of the wars of the roses as the gospels are after the life of Jesus. The history plays are not historically accurate and are written to please a Tudor court (the eventual winners of the war of the roses)
Real one, please look up the meaning of empirical otherwise you are never going to convert me!
I believe "real one" has moved on to new territory, homosexuality reform. He is tackling the issues in his characteristically terse manner.
Perhaps he believes he has sufficiently covered this subject all ready.
And, in rebuttal to your protestations, Caedes, how many people wrote things down two thousand years ago? Most people were illiterate. Never mind the horrors of preserving the papers afterwards.
This is one reason I find the image of early Witnessing, with the berobed fellows going door to door, scrolls in hand. They must have copied their watchtowers by lamplight every night by hand.
Jgnat
I quite agree, I was merely pointing out that RO was in error to suggest that there were 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection. However many people the gospels claimed witnessed the event is irrelevent, the fact is that the only evidence is the testimony of the gospel writers themselves. If their were 500 eyewitness testimonies recorded then RO might have a point.
It is however telling that there wasn't one record dated from the time of the event if we assume RO's assertion of 500 eyewitnesses to be correct. That suggests to me that there were not 500 eyewitnesses.
kwin who was it that blinded Saul on his way to Damascus?
science is just like the org...it changes all the time...what does not change?...God's word!
i'm sitting out most of this thread and just reading, but here's my thoughts on a couple of things:
most scolars agree that the gospel of Thomas is agnostic it was written by a non-jew
What if 'most scholars' are wrong? How can it be proven? (I assume you meant gnostic rather than agnostic!). The possibility that we may actually have the wrong gospels doesn't worry me too much - I serve the living God to the best of my ability using my current knowledge, I don't serve the book. How about you real one?
who was it that blinded Saul on his way to Damascus?
Should the question be what blinded Saul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_partial_seizure Personally I don't have a problem with a medical explanation because I believe that God can use that circumstance to convey His message if He wants. How about you real one? Don't forget - whether it changes or not, God created science too!
sad- the Book is God's word. It teaches us how to serve Him.
i said who because it was a who that caused him to be blinded
what do you mean by God created science?
what do you mean by God created science?
God put the laws of science in place. He also gave humans the intellect to pursue scientific knowledge - hence we are still learning the laws, we'll probably never fully know them.
Now, coming back to God's word in the Bible, taking the example of Saul's conversion experience - when it happened, the people who recorded the event didn't have sufficient scientific knowledge to explain it, now we do, he possibly had a seizure - BUT (this is important for you!) that doesn't discount Saul's experience - because as I wrote, God can use whatever means He wants to communicate His message.
Does it make sense?
