aChristian

I am curious as to what makes you think that Luke knew about the destruction of Jerusalem when he wrote his gospel.

Diogenes the Cynic

He said so.

aChristian

He tells of the many eyewitnesses in chapter 15, implying that the readers can ask them themselves. They already knew where and when, he didn't need to write the whole gospel in the letter, they were already familiar with the when and the where. The resurrection is spread all through Paul's letters and he isn't vague. It may appear vague to you because you are forgetting everything else that Paul had already told them on his missionary jouneys. Read Acts 13 to get a typical declaration of the gospel that Paul gave around the world.

To me, the conservative scholars' positions are put forth with good logic. It seems to me that the liberals' positions are untenable, requiring blind faith to believe in.

What evidence have you given that shows that your position is more likely than the position that God gave more than one person an accurate account?

How do you know this? How do you know that each didn't write an accurate history mentioning different details?

They appear to me to just be honest with the evidence. The liberals have blind faith in a made up history that they seem to desperately want to be true. They just don't have the evidence to support their position. The reason for this is they are sinners in rebellion against God. If they honestly examine the evidence, they will be forced to face their own guilt before God and their need to repent. Unfortunately men love their sin so much that they will not let God save them from their misery. God is still seeking after them, telling them of His love, hoping they will turn to his love. He has not hidden himself. If you honestly examine the evidence, you will find the Bible is true.

aChristian

Where?

Jehanne

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Torpedo/Intro.html

Or, is everything written to be regarded as "authentic"?

Diogenes the Cynic

Luke 21.

gregor

Jehanne

The council of Nicea was to address the proper date setting for Easter and to quash the arian controversy on whether Jesus was begotten or not.

When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome -- by Richard E. Rubenstein;

gregor

aChristian

You realize that many here recognize the vacuous nature of your ipse dixit.

Please pick an issue, present a cogent argument, backed up with research and evidence. Otherwise, you realize your screed sounds like this . . .

"The moon landings were faked. We all know that. Those NASA scientist were proven false. It was in all the papers. I can't believe you guys still believe this stuff."

aChristian

That is a prophecy by Jesus. It hadn't happened yet when Luke wrote it.

Amaleq13

That does provide a rather vague time reference. It would appear that the point stands and your protest has no merit. Paul is quite vague, in terms of time and place, for most of his gospel claims.

You seem to have lost track of the original claim. The vagueness of Paul was in terms of stating his beliefs as historical fact. Historical facts are generally stated in very specific terms. Event A took place at Location B in Year C. Get it? Paul does not do this, therefore, he is vague rather than, as you insist, declaring a historical fact. He is, instead, declaring his faith. Making that declaration in the context of history doesn't seem to be important to him.

The evidence is your Gospels and you don't appear to be describing the actual contents.

Why would God have to give eyewitnesses any information?

It appears to me to be the best explanation of the textual evidence when I read the passages side-by-side. Your suggestion, on the other hand, seems to me to have more to do with your faith than the actual evidence. For example, the assertion of "accurate history" seems to require a great deal of faith since there are numerous claims throughout the texts that, at the very least, lacks substantiation. Sticking to the OP, none of the authors identify themselves and the author of Luke doesn't identify his alleged eyewitness sources. If your claims don't rely on faith, you need some sort of substantiation to assert that the authors were eyewitnesses.

So all the Christian scholars who disagree with the conservative Christian scholars, with regard to whether the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, are deliberately lying?

What, specifically, convinces you that the conservative Christian scholars are being more honest with the evidence when it comes to identifying the Gospel authors as eyewitnesses?

Why would these other Christian scholars "desperately want" people to not believe the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

You claim doesn't appear to be true of the Christian scholars I've read. I get the distinct impression that Meier, for example, would much prefer to be able to state that the Gospels were written by the original followers of Jesus. He feels compelled by the evidence, however, to conclude otherwise.

I wasn't aware that all the Christian scholars who find the evidence to indicate that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses also considered themselves free from the need for repentance. As far as I can tell, this hasn't changed their faith in the ultimate significance of Christ's sacrifice. Do you have specific evidence that Meier, for example, denies the need for repentance because the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?