Reply to Is the Charleston church shooting making anyone doubt their Faith?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Is the Charleston church shooting making anyone doubt their Faith?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
gotcha?  lol

PP, you are a hot mess.  There are many primary sources - as in firsthand accounts - dating back to antiquity that are more ACCURATE than the gospels.  Furthermore, the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. They are stories - starting with Mark - on the story of Jesus - with the clear intent of indoctrinating the masses.  Matthew, Luke and John copied Mark's version and added their own spin to these so-called accounts.  So the gospel is really ONE person's version.

And even IF someone doesn't believe in miracles, s/he would have recorded them, as these "miracles" are anomalies, yes? So if I don't believe in UFOs but I see some odd flying object in the sky, do you honestly think I'd keep it to myself?  lol

You eventually saw the towers fall, yes?  You've seen the Dec of Ind, right?  You've seen footage of the towers from national and international news sources, right?  And you've clearly read primary accounts of the Revolutionary War in your history classes.

and with regard to the non-Christian accounts of Jesus? There is still no proof that there was ONE Jesus.

I'm done.  If you can't be bothered with other sources, then live in your La La Land and wave to me down below as I burn in hell.

[/quote]

What a hypocrite you are.

You're applying opposite standards to the gospels vs. the Greek and Roman sources you venerate. Did you say primary sources from the Greeks and Romans? Bwahahaha! Don't you realize that many of these were written for rulers/emperors who dictated the contents, and there were no Pinocchio columns in the Post to keep the authors honest? Heck, even Shakespeare probably warped the story of Richard III because Shakespeare was writing under Elizabeth I (although it turns out Richard was a hunchback at least).  At least the gospels weren't written for any ruling power, which actually argues in their favor. And do you really have no clue that documents and any footage, like that of the falling towers, can be faked?  Really, you had no clue?

And don't get me started on whether we should trust *you* to weigh in on the accuracy of *anything*, including the color scheme of this website, let alone the accuracy of the gospels or classical authors. Why should we listen to somebody who thinks John came from the same authorial tradition as Matthew, Mark and Luke (hello, Q version) when practically every real scholar out there disagrees with you.

Hypocrite. Or maybe you're just not very intelligent. But then we shouldn't expect anything more intelligent from a pot-stirring jerk who calls others a "hot mess", rambles on about "La La Land", confuses being a "primary source" with being "accurate," and thinks that John is just like the other gospels.

Yikes.

Glad you're "done here," you won't be missed.[/quote]

It's hot in hell - like a trip to the islands!

Anyway, genius, do some research:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

[quote]Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.[/quote]

So Jesus died btw. 30 and 33 AD.  Mark wrote about Jesus' life 40 years after the fact.  I hardly think his memory was that good.  And note how long it took John to write his?  Therefore, their accounts were not contemporary!

Furthermore, there's no evidence showing that these four men even wrote these accounts themselves.  They never mention their names for one. And these were "gospels according to . . . ," which distances the author from the material.   Therefore, internal evidence is lacking.

I've already addressed external evidence.  However, keep in mind that early on, any references to the gospels were general - referred to as the memories of the apostles. In fact, the names weren't added until the end of the second century.  again - not a contemporary account

Yet Pliny wrote directly to Tacitus - contemporary as well as external evidence.

get it?

Literacy was NOT for the masses.  I recognize that. Again, that's why Greek plays and pageant wagons were used in a didactic fashion to get the word out to the masses.

With THAT in mind, while there was speculation that these men (if they were indeed real) were literate, it certainly took them long enough to get the word out, eh?  and even longer to get their NAMES out . . .

You have no leg to stand on, sweetie.

[/quote]

Ultimately Christians don't depend on historical facts or scientific evidence for their belief in Jesus.   It's a matter of faith, deep faith, that may occasionally be shaken by facts, but always returns if you're a true Christian and you don't allow cognitive dissonance and empirical information to get in the way.  Many people have lost their faith this way, or at least had it shaken for a while, but if you try hard and truly want to believe, you can.

Pp does not have a factual leg to stand on, but she never did and truly faithful people understand this.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics