Freethought & Rationalism Archive

buckshot23 · 04-21-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

That's your opinion, not even a disputable fact. There is vast differing opinion among believers (never mind anyone else) as what constitutes "inpsiration". And that is a claim made by the Bible itself: the Bible says the Bible is inspired. What does that exactly mean or prove?

Not much really. There are human elements in the written accounts and if the bible was inspired by God this seems to me to be the only logical way for that to happen. Can I objectively prove anything? Nope and unlike some people I admit it.

Quote:

What are these "ridiculous" standards? Accuracy? Consistency? Please do inform us. I have no idea what these alleged "ridiculous" standards are that are being - as you appear to infer - impinged upon the Bible but no other document.

It is ridiculous to call something a contradiction just because YOU think something else should have been included. It is ridiculous to change the meaning of the word "contradiction" when talking about the bible.

rlogan · 04-22-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Using your translation you are right.

The very sections you quoted yourself, in plain english, do not have "Luke" claiming to have spoken directly to any specific eyewitnesses.

So the incredulity, contempt, and derision is pretty outlandish when based on a failure to actually read your own "evidence".

It was met with a lot of patience by Diogenes. A hell of a lot more than I could have mustered.

Anduin · 04-22-2006, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

What I do not understand is why the church would choose names like Luke, Mark Mathew for the gospel names if they were inventions of fiction. Why not use Peter? I think the simple answer is that these are the guys who actually wrote them.

I'm guessing you have never read the Gospel of Peter then?

http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html

buckshot23 · 04-22-2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anduin

I'm guessing you have never read the Gospel of Peter then?

http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html

Thanks for making my point. The gospel of Peter was rejected. The question still remains. Why would the early church use such secondary characters as Mark Mathew and Luke (you know the gospels that were accepted)? There is no good reason to do so that I can think of unless they actually wrote the gospels.

TomboyMom · 04-22-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Thanks for making my point. The gospel of Peter was rejected. The question still remains. Why would the early church use such secondary characters as Mark Mathew and Luke (you know the gospels that were accepted)? There is no good reason to do so that I can think of unless they actually wrote the gospels.

This is one of the weirdest arguments I have ever heard. The fact that the gospels were attributed to secondary characters shows that they're true? Why?

buckshot23 · 04-22-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

This is one of the weirdest arguments I have ever heard. The fact that the gospels were attributed to secondary characters shows that they're true? Why?

Where on earth am I making that argument?! This only touches upon them being the actual writers of the gospels and nothing more.

TomboyMom · 04-22-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Where on earth am I making that argument?! This only touches upon them being the actual writers of the gospels and nothing more.

Oh, I must have misunderstood you when you said that

Quote:

What I do not understand is why the church would choose names like Luke, Mark Mathew for the gospel names if they were inventions of fiction.

meant that you thought the names of the authors implied that they were not inventions of fiction. My mistake.

buckshot23 · 04-22-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Oh, I must have misunderstood you when you said that meant that you thought the names of the authors implied that they were not inventions of fiction. My mistake.

I can see where the confusion could arrise. Poorly worded on my part. Let me try and restate it. If the church placed authorship upon in the 2nd century I just do not know why they would use the names they did. The only logical conclusion is that the names attributed are the actual authors.

Aaron Rutledge · 04-22-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

The only logical conclusion is that the names attributed are the actual authors.

Well, that is not the only logical conclusion. Another conclusion is that they had a vested interest in establishing the authority of the writings that expressed the doctrines they believed.

buckshot23 · 04-22-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Rutledge

Well, that is not the only logical conclusion. Another conclusion is that they had a vested interest in establishing the authority of the writings that expressed the doctrines they believed.

Yes and that makes me question the choice of fictional authors for the gospels. Why choose the ones they did? How do using these fake authors advance that interest?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.