messianic prophecies

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its historically established.

So you assert with your copy and paste. I acknowledge that you have made this assertion. But the material I copy and pasted states quite clearly that Bible scholars today do not see it the same way as early church historians. Don't get me wrong; you are perfectly entitled to subscribe to the JW organisation's opinion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps i have not made it clear enough, for example, if someone states that a person
was ill and Luke, a physician states the nature of the illness and its extent, it leads one
to the conclusion that the author was more observant and/or well versed in that
particular discipline, thus adding weight to the claim that they authored the respective
book, because its what one would expect from a physician, tis it not?

You wouldn't accept such weak circumstantial evidence if it were in support of something you did not subscribe to.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because they say as much.

I see.

So your claim that the Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus can be substantiated with these facts -

1. The Bible says it's true.
2. The early Christian Apologist writers say it's true.

I think you and me might be a little out on what we mean by facts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps i have not made it clear enough, for example, if someone states that a person
was ill and Luke, a physician states the nature of the illness and its extent, it leads one
to the conclusion that the author was more observant and/or well versed in that
particular discipline, thus adding weight to the claim that they authored the respective
book, because its what one would expect from a physician, tis it not?

Finally something we can agree on -

it leads one to the conclusion that the author was more observant and/or well versed in that particular discipline

But that is it, that is the only conclusion you can draw from that statement.

Originally posted by FMF
You wouldn't accept such weak circumstantial evidence if it were in support of something you did not subscribe to.

irrelevent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
irrelevent.

The fact that you've cited such weak circumstantial evidence is entirely relevant.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Finally something we can agree on -

it leads one to the conclusion that the author was more observant and/or well versed in that particular discipline

But that is it, that is the only conclusion you can draw from that statement.

I see, so if i wrote an account that identified me as an engineer and that demonstrated
that I indeed had a working knowledge of engineering you would be no more inclined to
believe me if I was a salesman saying i was an engineer, interesting.

Originally posted by FMF
The fact that you've cited such weak circumstantial evidence is entirely relevant.

weak is your term, references to what i subscribe to are irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
weak is your term, references to what i subscribe to are irrelevant.

What circumstantial evidence you yourself would or would not accept is entirely relevant because it is quite clear here that you are accepting weak evidence because it supports the stance you wish to take.

Why would an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, if that is what Matthew was, rely so heavily on Mark's gospel for information about things that happened, especially when no one seriously thinks Mark's gospel was written by someone who knew Jesus or that it was written any earlier than AD 70?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, so if i wrote an account that identified me as an engineer and that demonstrated
that I indeed had a working knowledge of engineering you would be no more inclined to
believe me if I was a salesman saying i was an engineer, interesting.

What?

If you wrote an account claiming you were an engineer and that account contained specific knowledge related to engineering, that would substantiate your claim you were an engineer. If you claimed you were an engineer who knew Attila the Hun, your engineering knowledge would support the your claim as an engineer but not that you knew Attila the Hun.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't believe I, nor any human being in history, nor any religion, have a 100% handle on everything.

In fact, it's my hunch that there are a good number of surprises in store for us in the afterlife.

It's just not possible in my view, that any of us could ever get it 100% correct, when we exist in a dimension outside of where we are headed when we cr ...[text shortened]... ) -- I also believe that there is a good bit of secondary stuff left open to interpretation.

you dont think any religion is 100% correct but you think the bible is 100% correct? when you say 'original text' are you referring to the hebrew old testament?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
weak is your term, references to what i subscribe to are irrelevant.

robbie, you seem to have pretty good knowledge of the contents of the bible. is it true that matthew was the only person to write that during the resurrection of christ, dead saints were also resurrected and walked the streets of jerusalem?

Originally posted by FMF
What circumstantial evidence you yourself would or would not accept is entirely relevant because it is quite clear here that you are accepting weak evidence because it supports the stance you wish to take.

Why would an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, if that is what Matthew was, rely so heavily on Mark's gospel for information about things that happened, es ...[text shortened]... s gospel was written by someone who knew Jesus or that it was written any earlier than AD 70?

rely so heavily on Marks gospel????, 42 percent of Matthews gospel is found no where
else in the other three gospels*, sigh, these type of so called higher critic assertions
are old hat and completely without either substantiating evidence or any kind of
validating data.

* Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 1896, B. F. Westcott, page 201

Originally posted by stellspalfie
robbie, you seem to have pretty good knowledge of the contents of the bible. is it true that matthew was the only person to write that during the resurrection of christ, dead saints were also resurrected and walked the streets of jerusalem?

stellspalfie, my dear sir, you know that i only deal with what can be established
empirically, that is with substantiating evidence. Saints or those who were canonised is
not to my knowledge a Biblical teaching, its a product of the catholic church, where did
you hear that they walked the street of Jerusalem during the resurrection of Christ? It
reeks of apocrypha! Matthew is thought, on the basis of textual documents, admittedly
given much later, to have written his gospel in 41. C.E, a few years after the
resurrection of Christ which happened around 33/34 C.E

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What?

If you wrote an account claiming you were an engineer and that account contained specific knowledge related to engineering, that would substantiate your claim you were an engineer. If you claimed you were an engineer who knew Attila the Hun, your engineering knowledge would support the your claim as an engineer but not that you knew Attila the Hun.

It would also substantiate that i was telling the truth and not making it up, wouldn't it.