Mageth

What? They could have left any time they wanted to. Some of them actually did leave.

Or are you saying Jesus locked the apostles in a warehouse against their will?

Magus55

I see, and saying my ignorance makes Him want to drink himself into a stupor is just peachy?

Gooch's dad

Um, Magus, way to totally miss the point. This is supposedly the SON OF GOD you're talking about. Was he only concerned about getting his message to the people of that very generation? No, being omniscient, he would have known that we, today, would be discussing this very topic. And he would have written a clear message for all of posterity, or at least told his followers to write that message.

So you think oral tradition was "good enough"? Then did the goddess Diana *really* do all the things reported in the Iliad? If not, then why not? Did General Vespasian (later emperor) actually heal a blind man with his holy spit?

Magus, you just got yourself trapped in a corner. If the gospels are "reliable oral tradition" then why isn't any other ancient document that reports resurrections, miracles, and the actions of a god on earth?

Mageth

It's my understanding of the Jewish culture at the time that most boys, anyway, were taught to read and write, at least some. That's pretty critical for the Jewish faith, even to today.

And the bible indicates in a couple of places that Jesus could read and write....he being a poor carpenter's son.

Further, your claim that "oral tradition was more authentic in those days than writing" rings a bit hollow to me. Weren't the "scribes" of the day (mentioned in the Gospels) always busy with carefully copying the ancient manuscripts, so that people like you could make claims about how "accurate" the Bible has remained over the millenia?

And if you're at all familiar with oral traditions, you should know that such oral traditions tend to "grow" (or shrink, as some things are forgotten or changed beyond recognition) through decades or centuries of retelling. Oral traditions are not as reliable as written histories, plain and simple.

Godless Wonder

That would be in agreement with Mark 9:1.

Magus55

Who said He didn't write a clear message? I'd say there would be a lot less confusion in the original writing. Its not easy translating dead languages into the hundreds/thousands of languages in the world today and still get the exact message.


They don't have prophecy, and they don't have the accuracy through copied manuscripts.

Mageth

I'll repeat what I said above:

"Further, your claim that "oral tradition was more authentic in those days than writing" rings a bit hollow to me. Weren't the "scribes" of the day (mentioned in the Gospels) always busy with carefully copying the ancient manuscripts, so that people like you could make claims about how "accurate" the Bible has remained over the millenia?"

So now you switch from the superior authenticity of "oral tradition" to the "accuracy through copied manuscripts" (illustrating the point I made in my post nicely, thank you). Can you not see the contradiction you are making?

BTW, the gospels don't have prophecy either. They have prophetic elements conveniently added long after the events to "beef up" the claims of the accounts.

Ellis14

You hearby blow all bible credibility out of the water Magus, well done! If God could ensure a correct original writing but not correct translations, then we don't know how accurate or inaccurate the bible is. How do you know which parts were translated correctly or not, Magus??
If God wanted to have the bible writtten to communicate something to us, he would have made sure that all versions are inerrant and identical to the original, otherwise such an endeavour would be pointless. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, he would have known how to make the bible accurate and been able to make sure it was translated properly, no problem!

So if the bible we have now is not a true representation of the original, or is somehow flawed, then God has failed in his task, and the bible is not reliable.

Well done Magus, you yourself have disproved the authenticity of the bible! We'll make an atheist of you yet! :notworthy

Sparrow

I'd say there's evidence the message isn't so clear when there are tens of thousands of different sects, all claiming to be Christians, yet with different doctrines. Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on the number of books in the Bible. Doctrinal differences exist on which laws of the OT are still to be kept.

Or is it your claim that these are all just details and it's the "big picture" message which is so clear? i.e (and with a tip o' the cap to Chevy Chase) "I'm God and you're not". I do get a clear message from the Bible, but it's not the same one you get.

Plognark

I apologize for the insult; long day.

Seeing the same logical falacies over and over and over and over and over and over again from not only different people but the same person has been wearing on my nerves.

Perhaps i'll take a breather for a few days