Prayers and praying.......

[The Iceman]

Would you agree with that yourself J70 or what are your thoughts?
Although I am not happy with the state of things today I have enjoyed the discussion here and unpacking some of this...

[balladmaker]

As humans, I think we are incapable of truely comprehending something which has no beginning and no end, something which has no start date and no end date. In our minds, we cannot truely comprehend something which is infinitive.  We need a beginning and an end so as to understand.

This is the reason why we can debate the meaning of life, the universe, why we are here etc. for as long as we like - we will never understand or answer those questions, because, as humans, we are incapable of doing so ... imo.

[theskull1]

Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.

Not at all IM. I'm trying to find some detailed university lectures I have somewhere on a hard drive. I intend to reply 

[The Iceman]

Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.

Not at all IM. I'm trying to find some detailed university lectures I have somewhere on a hard drive. I intend to reply

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

[Eamonnca1]

Quite a rant there J70.
For the record I couldn't give a toss what you challenge or question regarding ones religious beliefs I just don't think there is a need to be an arrogant p***k when doing so.

It's very hard to challenge religious belief without people taking it personally and labelling you as 'arrogant'.  Personalising the debate isn't going to do much good mind you. I've met plenty of arrogant people on the other side who have talked down to me as if I'm some sort of deluded eejit going through "a phase" and come back to "his" faith. It could get very tedious if we start playing the arrogance card, so let's just play the ball and not the man.

[Eamonnca1]

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.

[The Iceman]

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.

I think we have already addressed this.

[ONeill]

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.

Eamonnca1, I just listened to a song and your avatar kept beat perfectly for the whole ditty. It was mesmerising. Surely that's another sign!

[laoislad]

I've met plenty of arrogant people on the other side who have talked down to me as if I'm some sort of deluded eejit going through "a phase" and come back to "his" faith.

I agree and have already stated that in previous posts that there may be people on the other side of the debate whom do have faith that act just as arrogant.

It could get very tedious if we start playing the arrogance card, so let's just play the ball and not the man.

Wrong thread, I think this is the one you are looking for..

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18718.0

[Eamonnca1]

It could get very tedious if we start playing the arrogance card, so let's just play the ball and not the man.

Wrong thread, I think this is the one you are looking for..

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18718.0

I walked into that one, didn't I?   

[Maguire01]

Yes, but a few other points:

1 - There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies between the bible, even the synoptic gospels. And it's fairly clear that there was a bit of copying going on between these three.
What difference does that make to the thread? That different people said different things at different times. That different eye witness accounts are different? That different people recounted different perspectives? What does that add Maguire?

2 - As another poster has pointed out, what books have been ommitted and why?
Again of no relevance.

3 - How close are the current texts to the originals?
I think you were involved and contributed to a thread on this very question. The typology of the bible was addressed.

4 - There is considerable debate as to whether some of the gospels were actually written by their supposed authors.
Debate yes, fact? ....?

5 - Some were written well after the death of Jesus.
Would you have preferred if people wrote things down as they went along?

It's very easy to throw in questions. Its harder to go and find out the answers for yourself. Which road will you take?

I have a keen interest in the bible from a literary / historical (rather than spiritual) perspective and studied the synoptic gospels in a bit of detail quite a few years ago. Why did I make these points? because you said "Its in the Bible lad" in an earlier post, as if the bible was a definitive and reliable source of information. It's far from it. And my questions were largely rhetorical.

But to address each:
1 - Related mainly to reliability of the document - not a question, rather a comment. I assumed the relevance would be obvious.
2 - Surely you understand that acts of omission shape a story just as much as what is said? Maybe other writings didn't 'fit' with what those editing the bible wanted to say.
3 - I can't remember the contribution made. Again my point was in relation the reliability of the document. There are significant studies pointing to changes in these texts.
4 - I didn't say fact. But you're the one holding it up as gospel. Although there is a general consensus on the authorship of quite a few of the books.
5 - Again, my point was in relation to reliability of a document that was written 20, 30 or even more years after the event. An oral tradition preceeded the written record of these stories and as such, these works are prone to evolving / embellishment.

Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.

Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.
This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.

In relation to the original post that I had replied to, you had a go at 'the skull', advising him to do some research when he commented that the stories were written by people who 'didn't even meet the man'. You then refer to the authors of the 4 gospels:
- Matthew - Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us. Doesn't sound like this Matthew met Jesus.
- Mark - Author unknown, but thought to be someone who listened to Peter's preaching in Rome, as you refer. Again, sounds like Mark didn't meet Jesus.
- Luke - Pretty much accepted that he didn't meet Jesus.
- John - Most scholars now dispute that John the disciple was the author.

Now of course all of these are open for debate (probably better done by people with a bit more time and knowledge than ourselves), but you were a bit quick of the mark to suggest that another poster needed to do some research.

[Maguire01]

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.

I think we have already addressed this.

So what age do you think people lived to 2,000 years ago?

[The Iceman]

Maguire nothing you posted on the authors of the Gospel carries nay weight though if its simply a case of some scholars or most scholars.......
You choose your words well: Mark was someone who heard Peter preach..... come one, He heard him Preach and was able to write an entire account of Jesus' life from this?
Yes these things do require more research as to the written word. Equally important is the oral traditions that have been based down and carry equal weight.

My point with skull was that if he could be so off the mark on something as straightforwards as the authors of the 4 Gospels, what else is he or anyone else missing?
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.

[The Iceman]

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.

I think we have already addressed this.

So what age do you think people lived to 2,000 years ago?

Look lets think about this logically Maguire. Why would Matthew or John or Peter or any of the apostles pen the gospels while Jesus was still alive? They didn't know what they were witnessing until later on in His ministry and they were only with Jesus for 3 years. 60-100 years is Cold Teas' claim - does not mean it is true or correct.

[The Iceman]

We covered the accuracy of the Bible as a document back in the Religious Views thread (original one). J70 and Maguire seem to be well read posters, From a content purpose (i'm not talking about whether its true or not) from a literary perspective, based on bibliographic testing the New Testament is recognized as the most accurate of all the ancient texts known to man. Here is some light reading for you (only one page) on this:
http://www.newmediaministries.org/Bible/Bibliographic_S.html