Jonah and the Whale

[_gdemetz]

You are right Bond, It is believed that in the case of the Gospel of Luke (who probably wrote the Book of Acts also), that it was written sometime around 60+AD. It is believed that he recorded the first hand accounts of some of the apostles regarding Christ's ministry.

In other words he wrote about events he wasn't present for just like Just Me said.

(Please start using the quote feature. It's at the bottom of every post, just click it to respond to a post.)

Bond, the event which I referred to was an event recorded in the gospel of John (see John 9th chapter). John was an apostle of Jesus Christ who was with Him during His ministry. Also, as I previously stated, it is believed by scholars that Luke's account was written from direct information from the apostles also.

[_Bond James Bond]

Bond, the event which I referred to was an event recorded in the gospel of John (see John 9th chapter). John was an apostle of Jesus Christ who was with Him during His ministry. Also, as I previously stated, it is believed by scholars that Luke's account was written from direct information from the apostles also.

Yes the point is that the Luke account was written many years after Jesus's death when he had probably already beginning to be regarded more as god than a man with a vision. People talk about George Washington in fawning terms now, but he had his own contemporary critics. The point is that a lot of stuff gets whitewashed by writers who didn't know the person directly as well as by writers writing from a biased position.

[_subgenius]

Let me be more clear. Your statement that if one cannot find good reasons that show a story is false that they must conclude it is true is one of the stupidest ones I have seen.

Class, here we have a firm affirmation of my earlier statement about how most of the critics are actually not critical but instead just plain old run of the mill cynical people.
The presupposition that a "story" is false, when no good reasoning concludes it to be false, and unless the story has proof of being true is an absolute irrational and unreasonable position.
Basically, your assertion above illustrates your inability to both understand or refute the Principle of Credulity. (and likely contradicts your own behavior)

[_Themis]

Let me be more clear. Your statement that if one cannot find good reasons that show a story is false that they must conclude it is true is one of the stupidest ones I have seen.

Class, here we have a firm affirmation of my earlier statement about how most of the critics are actually not critical but instead just plain old run of the mill cynical people.
The presupposition that a "story" is false, when no good reasoning concludes it to be false, and unless the story has proof of being true is an absolute irrational and unreasonable position.
Basically, your assertion above illustrates your inability to both understand or refute the Principle of Credulity. (and likely contradicts your own behavior)

LOL Sub thinks hes a teacher. Maybe that is why he thinks he can't learn anything and never actually listens or tries to find out what people think. I never stated that unless we have evidence or proof that a story is true, or that evidence is lacking in showing it false, that the conclusion must be false. You need to get out of this black and white thinking. You may have heard of things like agnostic, but I doubt you even know what it means.

[_gdemetz]

I see your point Bond. However, John had a pretty intimate knowledge of the Saviors ministry, and also there are so many accounts of His miracles. I find it interesting also that so many people were willing to die for their testimony shortly after the time of Christ's ministry. I think that this would have never happened had there not been so much evidence of His divinity.

[_Drifting]

also there are so many accounts of His miracles.

Not quite sure this is correct.
There is one account of his miracles which a number of others rewrote.
If I recall correctly the Gospel of Mark is the original piece that the other Gospels took their information from.
So, just one account with lots of copies.

[_gdemetz]

That's a gross oversimplification and not accurate at all.

[_Drifting]

That's a gross oversimplification and not accurate at all.

Feel free to correct it with links and references.

[_gdemetz]

The example I gave from the Book of John was not taken from Mark's book. He performed at least thirty something miracles which are not all recorded in the Book of Mark.

[_Drifting]

The example I gave from the Book of John was not taken from Mark's book. He performed at least thirty something miracles which are not all recorded in the Book of Mark.

Come on, links and references that show Mark was not the source material for the other Gospels.