Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote:As I have read, the Gospels are a story of Jesus' life and teachings plus what the apostles taught after Jesus parted this world. So they didn't witness anything.

And with that there really is no point in carrying on with this conversation.

Other than Luke that admits that his gospel is a collection of the accounts of Jesus' life:

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things [a]accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having [e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [f]taught.

The other Gospels are the written accounts of DIRECT witnesses to Jesus's ministry.
Mark was a written account of Peter's views, Matthew of Matthew (the levi) and Johns' of the beloved disciple, and while there may be some issues with WHO that disciple was, there is no issue that he was an eye witness to Jesus's ministry.

@Byblos

And with that there really is no point in carrying on with this conversation.

Dude you take this way too seriously and I said this a few times; you also took my words out of context. Anyways, I think that this discussion about the Gospels is way too disputed and it doesn't relate to the topic anymore. There are so many views about it. I just presented one of them. I agree that this discussion is probably leading nowhere.

@Paul Sacramento

I won't argue with you anymore on the Gospels, because it seems that the discussion got derailed and in the end it's a matter of choice if you believe one thing or another. I think that from the comments that everybody posted, it's quite clear where each person stands and what they choose to believe. No point in continuing and say that my opinion is better than yours. Hope you and the others agree.

@Paul Sacramento

I won't argue with you anymore on the Gospels, because it seems that the discussion got derailed and in the end it's a matter of choice if you believe one thing or another. I think that from the comments that everybody posted, it's quite clear where each person stands and what they choose to believe. No point in continuing and say that my opinion is better than yours. Hope you and the others agree.

We are simply stating our opinion, as you are too.
It's not whether mine is better or yours is better.
You stated your opinion and why you believe it to be so.
We did the same thing.
That is all either of Us can ever do.
I believe the Gospels to be an accurate representation of what Christ did and said base don the accounts of those that heard him say and do those things.
I believe that based on the research I have done in regards to the authenticy and historical reliability of the Gospels AND the NT documents.
From BOTH sides of the argument.
I do NOT base my view on the fact that they are IN the Bible.

I hope that you too have based your view on research from BOTH sides of the discussion.

BryanH,

I'd be interested to see if you have done any real research where you have come to the conclusion that M,M,L, & J weren't written by eyewitnesses. I just assumed that it was accepted that the writers were contemporaries of Christ.

No it is not a matter of opinion. The Gospels have been researched, studied, flipped backwards and forwards a zillion times to answer this specific question of the so-called synoptic problem. There are basically 3 types of solutions to the problem: 1) oral dependence, 2) mutual dependence, and 3) earlier documents, all of which have been more than adequately answered. For those interested, please read the following link, the whole article if you can, but particularly starting at the paragraph titled Solutions of the synoptic problem.

@Furstentum Liechtenstein

I have an even gooder professy that BrandH cant touch:

The professy in Ezekiel 12:12-14 had its fullfullment in Jeremiah 39:4-7. So, the professy was write down 200+ years before the fullfullment.

OK BrandH, less see you shoot that one down, HA!

Need some clarification on this one. I read the prophecy and I understand what it says and how it happened.

Zedekiah was king starting 597 BC.
Jeremiah Book is placed to have been written between 627 BC and 567 BC
Ezekiel Book is placed to have been written between 593BC and 565 BC.

Why do you say that it was predicted 200 years before? I may be missing something on this. I am not very informed on this prophecy.

@Byblos

Read that link and it's quite interesting, but in the end the "Biblical Commission" ( i like how that name sounds) issued a decree that the Gospel of Matthew can be trusted 100% while the others are open to discussions and free disputing. Mainly they didn't know what to say or they didn't want to say the obvious.At least they cleared one of them out.

BryanH wrote:@Byblos

Read that link and it's quite interesting, but in the end the "Biblical Commission" ( i like how that name sounds) issued a decree that the Gospel of Matthew can be trusted 100% while the others are open to discussions and free disputing. Mainly they didn't know what to say or they didn't want to say the obvious.At least they cleared one of them out.

I don't know what you were reading but here's the full text of the note at the bottom of the article:

In answer to questions about the mutual relations between the first three Gospels, the Biblical Commission decided (26 June, 1913), that it is not inconsistent with their decisions already issued to explain the similarities or dissimilarities between these Gospels, to dispute freely the various conflicting opinions of authors, and to appeal to hypotheses of oral or written tradition, or to the dependence of one Gospel on another or on both that preceded it. The hypotheses known as the "two sources" is no longer tenable: to wit, the attempt to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke mainly by their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and on the so-called Sayings of the Lord.

First it says nothing that one Gospel is 100% trusted and the other not, and second, It specifically states that similarities (or otherwise) can be freely disputed by appealing to hypotheses of oral or written tradition. You must've missed that part, or are you appealing to an oral or written tradition I'm not familiar with? And note that last sentence re: the "two sources". Interesting indeed.

Post edit: Ah, I see what you're referring to, the paragraph above the note I quoted. I still don't think it says what you claim it says.

A FYI, while many scholar like to mention the hypothetical "Q" source, there is no evidence that it ever existed.

BryanH wrote:Need some clarification on this one. I read the prophecy and I understand what it says and how it happened.

Zedekiah was king starting 597 BC.
Jeremiah Book is placed to have been written between 627 BC and 567 BC
Ezekiel Book is placed to have been written between 593BC and 565 BC.

Why do you say that it was predicted 200 years before? I may be missing something on this. I am not very informed on this prophecy.

All these dates are approximate, don't forget. I have Jeremiah as written 627-587 BCE and for Ezekiel, there are several dates:

734-691 BCE,
around 200 BCE,
450-400 BCE,

...and the most probable, sometime before 597 BCE to 586 BCE.

In my original post about this prophecy I was using humor to make a point That is, we use the dates which suit our argument.

FL

In my original post about this prophecy I was using humor to make a point That is, we use the dates which suit our argument.

I understand your point, but no matter what date you actually use for this one, it's kind of not helping you anyways. The date I used helps your argument more than mine. I think it's interesting to believe that some people can foretell the future, but it also has some implications which contradict the concept of free will.

And ask yourself this: why don't we have prophets today?

BryanH wrote:And ask yourself this: why don't we have prophets today?

I've already answered that, because public revelation has been closed (fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ). That was prophesied you know .

I've already answered that, because public revelation has been closed (fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ). That was prophesied you know

So everything that has to do with any prophecy after that time is not to be taken seriously then?

BryanH wrote:

I've already answered that, because public revelation has been closed (fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ). That was prophesied you know

So everything that has to do with any prophecy after that time is not to be taken seriously then?

After everything that's written in the NT, yes (save for private revelations).

Yep, all that has to be prophesied has been, with Revelation "closing the book" on that.
Personal revelations from the HS is what we have now, though I often wonder if any of those should be made public.
Probably not.
So all those "end of the world" prophets are false prophets.