I didn't quote each and every verse I referenced and the document doesn't list all of them but here are the ones the jump out at me the most.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Who is Jesus?
I didn't quote each and every verse I referenced and the document doesn't list all of them but here are the ones the jump out at me the most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are many, many, many more possibilities than only three. Just FYI.
ReplyDeleteI see no other possibilites given what Jesus said about himself. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or he is Lord. What other possibiltes are there? C.S. Lewis was spot on.
ReplyDeleteMisquoted...
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that one possibility is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter,James, Jude, and Paul all misquoted Jesus? Funny.
ReplyDeleteYes, misquoted, made up, or amalgomated from multiple preachers. Lots of different possibilities.
ReplyDeleteI mean either Matthew or John would have had to have misquoted him. Was Jesus willing to do miracles to prove himself or not?
Yes at times Jesus was willing to do miracles to prove himself. That does not mean that he always did in all circumstances.
ReplyDeleteCan you prove that Jesus was misquoted or anything was made up? What evidence do you have that such a possibility even exists?
Without involving the historical critical method or the consensus of biblical scholars on authorship, I can prove that "Luke" wasn't an eyewitness. So that minimual standard introduces that the Luke author likely didn't have it exactly right.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Luke was not an eye witness to the events of the Gospels (although he was there for many of the events recorded in Acts) is not in dispute. Why should that be a standard to determine if he got it right or not? I've read the Gettysburg Address from a lot of different sources, most of whom were not there when Lincoln gave that speech. Why should you or I think they got it right? Why shouldn't careful research and investigation count for something? I mean that's what all history books we have is supposed to be based on. That is what Luke says he did. I know, Ryan, you think healthy skepticism is good. I agree...as long as you have evidence to back up your skepticism. How about it? Can you name a single event, person, place, custom, or any fact that Luke recorded in his Gospel or in Acts that contradicts with known historical and cultural facts from the first century? Take your time. I'll wait.
ReplyDeleteYour question doesn't make sense, what is a cultural fact and how would the Luke author not contradicting "cultural facts" demonstrate that his narrative was truthful? Keep waiting sparky.
ReplyDeleteSince you don't know know what a cultural fact is, it means something about how the people in the first century did things that was based in their traditions and culture. And if you can find that Luke said that the way they did something is not the way people in that day and age thought and behaved then you have proven that the author of Luke did not know what he was talking about. It's called "viable and verifiable" evidence. Far be it from me to make your arguments for you...thought you can use the help considering that you have nothing of value to offer. You are right there is no need for me to wait because you have nothing to provide to disprove anything Luke wrote.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are saying that Danielle Steel novels have to be true because her novels accurately reflect the time and region they are set in?
ReplyDeleteUm, No. But if a piece of writing does not accurately describe people and their culture and setting then you Know for sure that any fact given is suspect! You have a good reason to think it's not true.
ReplyDeleteWow, so Luke is not defintiely not true because it was written by someone from the culture he was writting about. Great...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder you don't understand what the Bible says. You can't understand what I say. You know I'm saying that if there is conflict between what the author says how the people lived and where and what we know for other historical sources, the the writing is probably not true. If it does agree, then you can't outright say it's wrong. Don't forget context.True depiction of culture and people is necessary but not sufficient to prove that writing is true. So since you can't provide any cultural evidence how about some historical evidence? Architecture? Something? Anything.
ReplyDeleteWhat in the sam hell are you talking about??? Why are you asking me to provide cultural or historical evidence? Sometimes I think you get so caught up in an argument that you forget what you are arguing. I couldn't agree with you more that Luke is definitely not not true because it was written by someone from the culture that the Luke author was writting about.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in the picture for this post, why is Jesus Caucasian?
Let us recap: Ryan said that he could prove that Luke was not an eye witness, and therefore we cannot trust anything he recorded Jesus said or did.
ReplyDeleteI pointed out that didn't matter and issued a challenge to provide some historical event, place, or person that he can prove that Luke got wrong. Ryan fails to recognize that getting settings and incidentials wrong means that you can easily identify a work of fiction. However, no one do this with Luke's books. Further he has failed to offer any evidence for why we should not believe Luke's Gospel. None. I have asked for something historical....some event that contradicts Luke's account. I'm not holding my breath.
As for why I use Caucasian depictions of Jesus it is because I can't draw. No one knows what Jesus' race (as we think of race today) is. I think the debate is poinless. When I get to heaven the thought of Jesus' complexion will not even be consideration. All I know is Jesus is Jewish and Jews come in many complexions.
Marcus; Danielle Steel does not get settings and incidentals wrong.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are saying that unless I can show that the Luke author made a historical or cultural statement that can be shown to be in conflict with another source, we have to believe the everything in the gospel of Luke (and Southern Lights, by Danielle Steel for that matter).
I did not say we have to believe the everything in the gospel of Luke (and Southern Lights, by Danielle Steel for that matter) because Luke did not get settings and incidentals wrong. I'm saying because Luke did not get those wrong (and thanks for admitting that he did not get them wrong) that automatically proves everything in it is right but it does mean we have evidence that we can corroborate what Luke says with reality. If there was no corroboration it would mean that you would be right to assume that it's just fiction. But you can't. You have no evidence that Luke's Gospel is fiction.
ReplyDeleteHistorical fiction. I can corroborate historical and cultural evidence from Charleston SC to Danielle Steel's "Southern Lights".
ReplyDeleteIf I couldn't, she wouldn't be a good author.
NOTE: I've not actually read any Danielle Steel, I am male...
Can you prove that Luke is historical fiction, Ryan? No. Why do you think that Luke is historical fiction is even a viable possibility? Given that Luke gets so much right (as you have admitted) what is that make you conclude that it should be thrown out as myth or legend? Ah....I see. You have no evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou have no evidence that the Aeneid is fiction. Virgil nails Roman culture and history.
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, when Schliemann found the ruins of what was probably Troy, was everyone suddently rationally obligated to believe that Achillies was actually the son of a Nymph and had been dipped in the River Styx as an infant?
ReplyDeleteirrelevant. try harder
ReplyDeleteSo you say...
ReplyDeleteShow the relevance.
ReplyDelete