- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: He is risen
Posted on 4/2/18 at 9:38 am to Revelator
Posted on 4/2/18 at 9:38 am to Revelator
quote:
What other way could it have been written?
By Jesus? Not to mention it was written decades after his life. Even if it was written by man then accounts lose accuracy over time.
Let's just put it this way. Trump tweets every morning and the MSM reports about their interpretation. Which do you believe is more accurate?
1
Posted on 4/2/18 at 9:42 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
By Jesus? Not to mention it was written decades after his life. Even if it was written by man then accounts lose accuracy over time.
So Jesus should have written about himself after he died?
The writings from the diciples were written not long after the death of Christ, and in some writings, such as Paul's to the churches, he writes that eye witnesses of some of the accounts were still alive at the time of the writings.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 9:44 am to Revelator
quote:
So Jesus should have written about himself after he died?
they still wouldn't believe, even if one came back from the dead
Posted on 4/2/18 at 9:49 am to Revelator
quote:
So Jesus should have written about himself after he died?
Why not? Supposedly he had 40 days. Also, who says most of the writings needed to be done after his death?
quote:
The writings from the diciples were written not long after the death of Christ, and in some writings, such as Paul's to the churches, he writes that eye witnesses of some of the accounts were still alive at the time of the writings.
They were written decades or generations after his death, and read exactly how you'd expect third-hand accounts filled with intentional exaggeration to read.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 9:52 am to Revelator
quote:
So Jesus should have written about himself after he died?
Did I say after his death?
quote:
The writings from the diciples were written not long after the death of Christ
What period of time are we talking about here?
quote:
he writes that eye witnesses of some of the accounts were still alive at the time of the writings.
Meaning what exactly?
A particular problem for eyewitnesses such as Jennifer Thompson is that our memories are often influenced by the things that occur to us after we have learned the information (Erdmann, Volbert, & Böhm, 2004; Loftus, 1979; Zaragoza, Belli, & Payment, 2007). This new information can distort our original memories such that the we are no longer sure what is the real information and what was provided later. The misinformation effect refers to errors in memory that occur when new information influences existing memories.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 10:04 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Did I say after his death?
So Jesus should have spent his very short ministerial time writing books about himself instead of doing actual ministry? And if you don't believe in Jesus, somehow, him writing about himself would have convinced you to believe?
And no, you didn't say after his death, but how else would writings about his death, burial and resurrection be recorded by him before death?
quote:
What period of time are we talking about here?
40 years
quote:
Meaning what exactly?
Meaning that Paul was writing things about Jesus that were so current, they could have easily been disproven by non believers who were still living if his words were inaccurate.
This post was edited on 4/2/18 at 10:28 am
Posted on 4/2/18 at 11:38 am to Bayou
quote:
Both are rooted in paganism
uh oh, Jehovah in the His house!?!
Posted on 4/2/18 at 12:04 pm to KeyserSoze999
quote:
get older, then get back with me
Pondering it is akin to worrying. I doubt I'd be considered worthy of eternal paradise so why should I worry about it? I try to live my life aligned with the values of Jesus but I'm a flawed person and frequently fall short. I guess I'm more concerned with helping earth become better than thinking about what will happen to me when I die. I'll never know beforehand anyway.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 12:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I doubt I'd be considered worthy of eternal paradise
No one is. If we could be worthy of eternal life on our own, by our own works, Jesus wouldn't have had to die for our sins.
This post was edited on 4/2/18 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 4/2/18 at 2:03 pm to Argonaut
quote:
They were written decades or generations after his death,
What would have been the end game in this? Why face the persecution so long after the fact? You are talking about a very small faction of people.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 3:20 pm to Lg
quote:
What would have been the end game in this? Why face the persecution so long after the fact? You are talking about a very small faction of people.
Are you saying they weren't written well after the fact?
Posted on 4/2/18 at 3:55 pm to Argonaut
quote:
Are you saying they weren't written well after the fact?
I'm just saying, that if Jesus wasn't real, why would someone put themselves in the cross hairs of persecution so long after the fact? If He wasn't real, His legend would have been forgotten about within a couple of years.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 4:14 pm to Revelator
quote:
So Jesus should have written about himself after he died?
quote:
So Jesus should have spent his very short ministerial time writing books about himself instead of doing actual ministry?
In the context of an omnipotent and omniscient being, these questions are ridiculous. How are we to know what he SHOULD have done? The point is that if as advertised in the bible, he certainly COULD have, if he wanted to. So the more relevant question may be, since he didn't, why didn't he? Why allow the potential fate of all humanity to rely on misinterpretation, translation errors, lost or destroyed pieces, etc.?
Posted on 4/2/18 at 4:15 pm to Lg
quote:
I'm just saying, that if Jesus wasn't real, why would someone put themselves in the cross hairs of persecution so long after the fact? If He wasn't real, His legend would have been forgotten about within a couple of years.
I didn't say he wasn't real. I haven't seen anyone say that.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 4:20 pm to lsufanz
quote:
In the context of an omnipotent and omniscient being, these questions are ridiculous. How are we to know what he SHOULD have done? The point is that if as advertised in the bible, he certainly COULD have, if he wanted to. So the more relevant question may be, since he didn't, why didn't he? Why allow the potential fate of all humanity to rely on misinterpretation, translation errors, lost or destroyed pieces, etc.?
He used the Holy Spirit which is a part of the Godhead, so in essence, God did write the Bible himself. And by doing so, he assured the disciples and future Christians that the Holy Spirit was real, active and available to those who seek him.
This post was edited on 4/2/18 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 4/2/18 at 4:41 pm to Revelator
quote:
God did write the Bible himself.
He should take some writing classes at his local community college.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 4:43 pm to Argonaut
quote:
He should take some writing classes at his local community college.
You are a regular riot.
Posted on 4/2/18 at 4:46 pm to Revelator
Here all week...
On a serious note, you really think the Bible is a quality collection of writings? What about the inconsistencies and inaccuracies? Just another test for us?
On a serious note, you really think the Bible is a quality collection of writings? What about the inconsistencies and inaccuracies? Just another test for us?
Posted on 4/2/18 at 7:11 pm to Revelator
quote:I'm well aware of the claim, but that doesn't answer your original questions or mine.
He used the Holy Spirit which is a part of the Godhead, so in essence, God did write the Bible himself.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:38 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I'll provide a specific in depth example:
The Roman census requiring men to return to their ancestral home. Not only is this intuitively absurd on its face given the time period it supposedly occurred, but we have detailed Roman census records and know this was not how they operated. Additionally the gospel of Luke states this was the census of Quirinius, which not only occurred 10 years AFTER Herod's death in 4 BCE but around 9-10 years after the estimated year of Jesus' birth. There was NO broad Roman census between 6 and 2 CE, the range of data generally provided for Jesus' possible birth.
It is absolutely impossible for the story in Luke to have occurred. It is demonstrably false. It is most likely a contrived attempt by the author of Luke 80 years after the fact to allow Jesus to fulfill of the OT prophecy which says the messiah will be born in Bethlehem.
I had wanted to respond to this earlier but didn't have time then. I'll try to be as succinct as I can.
There was no need for Luke (I assume Lucan authorship) to include details about a Roman census. A simple statement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem IAW OT Scriptures would suffice.
Evangelical scholars are fully aware of the challenge of reconciling secular historical records with Luke's statements. And there are plausible solutions.
But beside that, why are Tacitus, Josephus, et al afforded 'accuracy' and Luke not? Luke is found trustworthy when one can check his claims against secular accounts in other cases. And as noted above, his narrative could have progressed without even mentioning the census. The text appears to go out of its way to jog readers memories about 'that' census and not the one of AD 6 that caused a ruckus.
Historical accounts are typically partial and seldom tell the whole story. This is especially so when dealing with ancient history.
As an illustration from more recent times, if a farmer from south LA claimed their property was destroyed in '92 by Hurricane Andrew, someone not fully informed at how hurricanes behave could prematurely conclude that either his year or storm or both were in error since Andrew made landfall and devastated south Florida (and for which it made its legacy). But Andrew passed over the FL peninsula and into the GoM and made another landfall in LA. So once it's known that hurricanes can make multiple landfalls, the report can be deemed credible.
There is no compelling reason to dismiss Luke's account as false. That we don't know how his account fits with other ancient records is not reason to reject his claims. FTR, the Romans did permit their subjects to retain certain cultural traditions so it's not inconsistent to think that a Roman census would direct Jewish subjects to their ancestral towns.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News