by sabastious 53 Replies latest social humour
If writings did exist they were not apparently inspired by God
Maybe the original writings were not inspired by God but the copiests were! And they made the necessary changes to make sure the "message" made it through.
Wee-doo-wee-doo, wee-doo-wee-doo.
-Sab
On a serious note, I would in all sincerity appreciate anyone who can shoot holes in this argument to speak up. I would much prefer being corrected on something than to continue to present a flawed argument. If the Gospels were reliable accounts of the life of Christ, what is the basis of the assertion?
Nick - First - we don't have any original copies, right? So we don't know when they were written, do we?
Second - If there was nothing written in the forty years following Christ's death/resurrection, there are a few possible reasons for that:
1- the people were in hiding
2- they lived by the Spirit, and knew that meant more than any writing. The Spirit taught them, and would teach others who ask through their message.
3- they expected Christ to return within their lifetime or quickly thereafter... so why write about it anyway
4 - its all made up
There may be other possibilities that I don't know of, but the fourth seems far more unlikely to me than any of the first three.
I also don't think a fraud or forgery would have any discrepancies. In fact, I think the discrepancies prove that there were many different sources and many different people believing and influenced by Jesus' life.
Tammy
Thanks, Tammy. If you have a fundamental belief that the story is true, you may be more inclined to accept the testimony of non-eye-witnesses (the legal definition of heresay) on the basis of your faith that the testimony of the unidentified original writers must be true. But what is the basis of your faith? If the chroniclers of Christ's life were quoting the credible writings of others then why did they not cite their credible sources? If nothing else, the New Testament is usually careful to cite references (from the Old Testament) to legitimize events it records. We come full circle. If this is the Word of God, why did He make it so ambiguous if not to test our faith in something that one cannot prove to be true? It all demands faith, which is belief without evidence. The New Testament itself says it is Truth, so it must be telling the Truth, this is a circular argument.
But what is the basis of your faith? If the chroniclers of Christ's life were quoting the credible writings of others then why did they not cite their credible sources?
Every Christian has a fuzzy wuzzy story that proves the Bible correct (some sort of Personal Revelation).
This revelation is required for serious converts of Christ.
So I have seen.
-Sab
^ Therefore the Bible's contents (specifically the Gospels) doesn't require empirical evidence (for that individual).
-Sab
I also don't think a fraud or forgery would have any discrepancies. In fact, I think the discrepancies prove that there were many different sources and many different people believing and influenced by Jesus' life.
I'm unsure of what you are saying, because there are important discrepancies of omission in the accounts of the four gospels which are easily itemized. Are you saying the story is true because there are discrepancies or true because there are no discrepancies?
Are you saying the story is true because there are discrepancies or true because there are no discrepancies?
Because there are discrepancies. It doesn't make it true - just makes it seem to me as if it is not a fraud. An actual fraudulent writing would have better planning, it would seem to me, anyway.
If the chroniclers of Christ's life were quoting the credible writings of others then why did they not cite their credible sources?
I'm not sure what you mean here? Luke at least does say that he investigated all these things and assures Theopholus (sp?) that what he says is accurate. Did every writer of a personal letter to their own group of believers cite their sources back then?
If nothing else, the New Testament is usually careful to cite references (from the Old Testament) to legitimize events it records.
Yes, but someone did that long after the letters and such were written. There were no footnotes in the Hebrew scriptures and such, or chapters and verses, were there?
We come full circle. If this is the Word of God, why did He make it so ambiguous if not to test our faith in something that one cannot prove to be true? It all demands faith, which is belief without evidence. The New Testament itself says it is Truth, so it must be telling the Truth, this is a circular argument.
First, I don't believe the bible is the Word of God. (I also do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible) Christ is the Word of God. The bible is made up of written accounts from different people, most all pointing toward and/or talking about Christ. The NT can't say anything about itself. It is letters and accounts from different people that weren't written to be put into a 'bible'. Not one of those accounts or letters can speak for another one - except perhaps the consecutive letters from Paul to a specific congregation.
The NT ( or at least most of the letters/accounts in the NT) say that Christ is truth. Not their writing.
Tammy
Yeah. Thanks.
Are you angry?
I can't prove it to you, Nick. I can only share my thoughts. I know a lot of it seems circular, because I started with what I was told, moved onto the bible and God and Christ, believed in the inerrancy at first (I mean it never occurred to me not to believe in it). Then I started thinking about things, and being here on this forum tested a lot of what I previously thought and believed. But not about my faith in Christ's existance. I never lost faith in Christ. I love him, believe in the things he taught - which helps me to believe in him (yes, that are written that he taught), and so I cannot believe Him or his teachings and then not believe in the Father that he also believed in.
Yes, I am taking much on faith. I know this. But I cannot abandon the one I love. I simply cannot.
Tammy
