• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

We Now Know When Jesus Returns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Resistible said:
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are contemporary even Acts, James, Peter and Jude.
Click to expand...

They are no more contemporary than Shakespeare's Macbeth was a contemporary history. Shakespeare used his artistic talents to retell stories than had been passed down for generations and even scribbled down by others - just not as well-told as Young William did. The writings that you consider contemporary were rewrites of popular tales and myths surrounding the Jesus fella, crafted by some clever dudes in the 2nd and 3rd centures CE.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The writings that you consider contemporary were rewrites.
Click to expand...
Textual criticism tells these were the original writings. And they didn't change because early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd century quote all but 11 verses of the NT.
 
Craig B said:
I can find only this meagre total of possibles, not 25k certainties. Josephus (certainly a later interpolation), Suetonius, writing after 110 AD, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, also 2nd century. And except for the reference in Josephus (certainly interpolated later) these authors merely attest to the existence of Christianity after 110 AD which nobody denies. They have nothing to tell us about Jesus' life.
Click to expand...
The earliest sources are the NT. This was their original view and set up the churches on their eyewitness testimony.
 
What matters is they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead for which there is no naturalistic explanation so it is true.

They never changed their minds and willingly died for that claim not to save their lives.
 
Resistible said:
it was completed before his biography of Paul in Acts that was completed before Paul died since it makes no mention of his death.
Click to expand...
I am starting, shamefully, to doubt your capacity to reason. Acts leaves Paul in Rome and says NOTHING about what happened to him in respect of the reasons why he was taken there. He lived how long, he died when? We are simply not told by Acts.
 
Acts gives a full account of Paul and Paul gives a full account of himself in his many letters. Since Acts makes no mention of his death obviously it was written before Paul died around 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions.
 
Again, the problem you must face is the fact the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation thus proving Jesus resurrected because He is God. And they clearly set up the churches based on their eyewitness testimony of seeing the Lord Jesus resurrected.
 
Speaking of "per capita", what's the record for posts in 12 hours? Our irresistible friend is heading for 150 in 7 hours - that'd be 250-ish for 12 hours.

Go! Go! Go!
 
Again, the problem you must face is the fact the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation thus proving Jesus resurrected because He is God. And they clearly set up the churches based on their eyewitness testimony of seeing the Lord Jesus resurrected.
 
Resistible said:
The earliest sources are the NT. This was their original view and set up the churches on their eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...
And there are 25,000 documents in the NT? And Luke doesn't even CLAIM to be an eyewitness: Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Click to expand...
 
Why does Luke need to claim he was an eyewitness? He said he gave a careful account from eyewitnesses. He was a doctor you know.
 
Resistible said:
Why does Luke need to claim he was an eyewitness? He said he gave a careful account from eyewitnesses. He was a doctor you know.
Click to expand...


Troy, please provide evidence that the author of Luke was a Doctor. You don't even know who wrote Luke.

Norm
 
The problem you must face-still not facing-is the fact the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation thus proving Jesus resurrected able to because He is God. And they clearly set up the churches based on their own eyewitness testimony of seeing the Lord Jesus resurrected. No way around it!
 
Not so concerned about someone centuries later who said Luke was not a doctor. Paul knew so he said it. They were close associates.
 
The problem you must face-still not facing-is the fact the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings for which there is no naturalistic explanation thus proving Jesus resurrected able to because He is God. And they clearly set up the churches based on their own eyewitness testimony of seeing the Lord Jesus resurrected. No way around it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom