Debate!!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lol!
Do you mean blood literally?
I do agree with your point generally.
Being rich is relative.
I would be a wealthy man in a third world country whereas I'm only considered lower class here...

I guess the blood is literal in that it was actually shed on a cross roughly two thousand years ago, but not literal in the sense that it is also the legal basis for a contractual agreement.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't for a second believe that your conclusions were reached after a careful and objective study of the New Testament. Rather, your assumption that Christ did not say the things attributed to him is based entirely on a naturalistic bias. You, like those in the Jesus Seminar, are forced by your preconceived notions to invent ways of reinterpreting or ...[text shortened]... ons were reached in an objective fashion or that the evidence even remotely supports your case.

My conclusions are drawn from a number of sources, only one of which is the bible. I am heavily indebted to Bart Ehrman, Bishop Spong, the Jesus Seminar, Liberation theology, the Hutterites, the whole, long history of Christian socialism, Gerard Winstanley and the Diggers, and others.

That you could say my conclusions are "preconceived" is ludicrous. I don't see how you can preconceive anything with that many sources. On the contrary, my friend, it is you who has the preconceived notion, from which you will not allow yourself to deviate one iota.

Originally posted by rwingett
My conclusions are drawn from a number of sources, only one of which is the bible. I am heavily indebted to Bart Ehrman, Bishop Spong, the Jesus Seminar, Liberation theology, the Hutterites, the whole, long history of Christian socialism, Gerard Winstanley and the Diggers, and others.

That you could say my conclusions are "preconceived" is ludicrous. I ...[text shortened]... who has the preconceived notion, from which you will not allow yourself to deviate one iota.

The NT language is quite clear: Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead. The apostles proclaimed this to the world and even went to their deaths proclaiming it. What you should be saying to yourself is, "It's just possible that the disciples of Christ actually saw what the gospels say they saw." And if there's no other way of accounting adequately for the evidence, investigate that possibility.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The NT language is quite clear: Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead. The apostles proclaimed this to the world and even went to their deaths proclaiming it. What you should be saying to yourself is, "It's just possible that the disciples of Christ actually saw what the gospels say they saw." And if there's no other way of accounting adequately for the evidence, investigate that possibility.

The gospels were not written by first person eyewitnesses. None of the bible was. They were all written decades after Jesus' death by people who never met him. Careful biblical scholarship clearly indicates a progressive embellishment of the Christian mythology over time. If you ever bothered to read anything outside your narrow comfort zone, you'd see this.

Originally posted by rwingett
The gospels were not written by first person eyewitnesses. None of the bible was. They were all written decades after Jesus' death by people who never met him. Careful biblical scholarship clearly indicates a progressive embellishment of the Christian mythology over time. If you ever bothered to read anything outside your narrow comfort zone, you'd see this.

Ridiculous!

Originally posted by josephw
Ridiculous!

Preposterous!

Originally posted by rwingett
Preposterous!

which one of the apostles never met him lets see, Matthew, now that cannot be, for Christ personally picked him, Mark, no he was most probably present and the young man who got away when the soldiers came to arrest Christ, John, hardly since he was described as one of Christ most beloved disciples, Luke, the beloved physician states that he himself ascertained from genealogies and eyewitnesses that these events really took place. Perhaps that leaves Peter, a man willing to be martyred for a man he apparently never met, the same of course must be said of Christ own half brother James. Now we may ask our friend, on what basis these persons never met Christ, for every time i read the gospel i find the details incredibly consistent, in both customs of the day and in the chronologies mentioned, therefore if you please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
which one of the apostles never met him lets see, Matthew, now that cannot be, for Christ personally picked him, Mark, no he was most probably present and the young man who got away when the soldiers came to arrest Christ, John, hardly since he was described as one of Christ most beloved disciples, Luke, the beloved physician states that he himself a ...[text shortened]... nsistent, in both customs of the day and in the chronologies mentioned, therefore if you please.

None of the gospels was written by the people they are attributed to. Only the most die hard fundamentalists still cling to that fiction. The synoptic gospels were all written anonymously and later attributed to a certain Mark, Matthew and Luke. John was apparently written by someone named John, but there's no way to know which John. As Bart Ehrman says in his book, Jesus, Interrupted, "Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said. At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries. Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian."

Originally posted by rwingett
None of the gospels was written by the people they are attributed to. Only the most die hard fundamentalists still cling to that fiction. The synoptic gospels were all written anonymously and later attributed to a certain Mark, Matthew and Luke. John was apparently written by someone named John, but there's no way to know which John. As Bart Ehrman says in ...[text shortened]... e forgeries. Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian."[/i]

Well if Bart said so, it must be true I guess.

Originally posted by divegeester
Well if Bart said so, it must be true I guess.

Bart should be required reading.

Originally posted by rwingett
Bart should be required reading.

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by rwingett
None of the gospels was written by the people they are attributed to. Only the most die hard fundamentalists still cling to that fiction. The synoptic gospels were all written anonymously and later attributed to a certain Mark, Matthew and Luke. John was apparently written by someone named John, but there's no way to know which John. As Bart Ehrman says in e forgeries. Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian."[/i]

as i suspected complete and utter unadulterated speculation and founded upon what? nothing! The fact of the matter remains, you have no way of knowing, who wrote the gospels, which makes their claim, that they were written by their respective writers equally as valid! As is usual with those who deny the divine, not a shred of evidence other than a mere opinion is produced to swerve us from our conviction! i ping this assertion away as if it were an annoying fly of an assertion! As for Bart, perhaps he would like to comment on the actual content of the scripture rather than what is not present. spit ding!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i suspected complete and utter unadulterated speculation and founded upon what? nothing! The fact of the matter remains, you have no way of knowing, who wrote the gospels, which makes their claim, that they were written by their respective writers equally as valid! As is usual with those who deny the divine, not a shred of evidence other than a ...[text shortened]... e to comment on the actual content of the scripture rather than what is not present. spit ding!

The fact of the matter remains, you have no way of knowing, who wrote the gospels, which makes their claim, that they were written by their respective writers equally as valid!

You make two erroneous claims here.

#1 "you have no way of knowing" God is the author.

#2 "..equally as valid!" Not!

Originally posted by josephw
[b]The fact of the matter remains, you have no way of knowing, who wrote the gospels, which makes their claim, that they were written by their respective writers equally as valid!

You make two erroneous claims here.

#1 "you have no way of knowing" God is the author.

#2 "..equally as valid!" Not![/b]

yes God is the author, however we are referring to the persons that God used to write his thoughts under inspiration. Note i believe as you do that the gospels are authentic, however i am also prepared to admit the limitations of the statements that i can make. I cannot prove that Luke wrote his gospel, i have taken it upon trust, from an examination of scripture that it has all the hallmarks of authenticity, his references and knowledge of ailments for example indicates that yes, indeed it was written by a physician or at least someone with medical knowledge. To state that it was written by God and site that as evidence of inspiration is simply cannon fodder for those who do not hold that it is inspired, therefore we must be realistic with the assertions that we make!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I cannot prove that Luke wrote his gospel

Luke was one of StPaul's assistant, and medical doctor. And he wrote it in the years around 80.
He wasn't an eye witness of the events he described.