quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

---

In biblical studies it's what's known as univocality.

---

Not necessarily. I'm just talking about reading the New Testament the same way we read similar documents or collections of documents. JXL's Titanic example is on point. To read history as TS insists we should read it would lead to absurd results.

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

You made claims about contradictions. Do you have authority outside of your own opinion or feelings?
I only ask for the authority on which you base your conclusions for the statements below
You posted:
That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University.

---

Several of these claims have been proven wrong as archeology and textual analyses progresses

---

If you're talking about religious claims, I agree.

---

You agree that some of the birth narrative claims of Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Dr. Brent Landau, University of Texas, Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina, Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, University Vanderbilt, Dr. David Runia, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University are not true?

We agree

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

---

In biblical studies it's what's known as univocality.

There are in fact many voices, which is why Elhanan killed Goliath and then David killed Goliath so they had to create a fictional brother of Goliath and have Elhanan kill that guy.

---

Or, the discrepancy is likely due to scribal error in 2 Samuel 21:19.

I Samuel, which says David killed Goliath, indicates that Goliath was killed during Saul's reign as king of Israel. But the context of Elhanan killing "Goliath" in 2 Samuel was when David was king of Israel, not Saul. So these likely were two different time periods.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

---

In biblical studies it's what's known as univocality.

There are in fact many voices, which is why Elhanan killed Goliath and then David killed Goliath so they had to create a fictional brother of Goliath and have Elhanan kill that guy.

---

Or, the discrepancy is likely due to scribal error in 2 Samuel 21:19.

I Samuel, which says David killed Goliath, indicates that Goliath was killed during Saul's reign as king of Israel. But the context of Elhanan killing "Goliath" in 2 Samuel was when David was king of Israel, not Saul. So these likely were two different time periods.

---

Sure, it's always scribal error. That may explain why Goliath's brother has a name that is non-Semitic.

Or why Saul makes David his armor bearer and chas with Jesse and then David kills Goliath and Saul acts like they've never met, inquiring as to who David's father is. Scribal error. Is the error in 2 Samuel or Chronicles?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

---

In biblical studies it's what's known as univocality.

There are in fact many voices, which is why Elhanan killed Goliath and then David killed Goliath so they had to create a fictional brother of Goliath and have Elhanan kill that guy.

---

Or, the discrepancy is likely due to scribal error in 2 Samuel 21:19.

I Samuel, which says David killed Goliath, indicates that Goliath was killed during Saul's reign as king of Israel. But the context of Elhanan killing "Goliath" in 2 Samuel was when David was king of Israel, not Saul. So these likely were two different time periods.

---

The battle involving David took place at the valley of Elah. The battle involving Elhanan took place at Gob (which, yes, are two different places - Gob is well to the north of the valley of Elah). .

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two.

---

In academic jargon, this is what is known as a history.

---

In English literature, it is what is known as fiction.

---

In biblical studies it's what's known as univocality.

There are in fact many voices, which is why Elhanan killed Goliath and then David killed Goliath so they had to create a fictional brother of Goliath and have Elhanan kill that guy.

---

Or, the discrepancy is likely due to scribal error in 2 Samuel 21:19.

I Samuel, which says David killed Goliath, indicates that Goliath was killed during Saul's reign as king of Israel. But the context of Elhanan killing "Goliath" in 2 Samuel was when David was king of Israel, not Saul. So these likely were two different time periods.

---

Sure, it's always scribal error. That may explain why Goliath's brother has a name that is non-Semitic.

Or why Saul makes David his armor bearer and chas with Jesse and then David kills Goliath and Saul acts like they've never met, inquiring as to who David's father is. Scribal error. Is the error in 2 Samuel or Chronicles?

---

Scribal error explains it. You have not invalidated that explanation.

Don't know what you're talking about in your second paragraph. Cite the verses you are complaining about and explain from there.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

What they did was illustrate from observation and what is known about quantum mechanics that it is plausible for spontaneous formation - without the need of a creator. You can't say that about any unproven religious claim of creation. Operating within the 'parameters' of what is know about quantum theory is what allows you to communicate over this message board and your cell phone or computer. There is no need for any god or gods to mysteriously deliver the message.

---

This reads suspiciously as if TS is planning to replace God with himself.

That sort of thing does not end well.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Hawking got it right in Brief History of Time. Changed his mind, interestingly enough, for what can only have been personal reasons.

---

Hawking didn't change his mind. He has explained and clarified what he meant metaphorically in his book.

---

He went from believing that some questions are beyond scientific understanding to believing he could explain creation through physical laws. The theory he and Guth propounded may well be correct, but their theological conclusion is based on circular reasoning.

---

Me thinks Hawking had a little 420 action going on to explain going from nothing to something.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

You didn't even come close to answering the question. Read my question and try again.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

This theory will completely revolutionize the study of ancient history as we know it.

---

Research how historians determine what is most probably historically true from what is fiction or lore.

---

Not the way that you have described.

During the hearings on the sinking of the Titanic, a number of witnesses testified that the ship broke in half before sinking. Other witnesses testified that the ship did not break in half, but sank intact. Since these two stories are clearly contradictory, the only possible conclusion is that the Titanic did not sink at all.

---

It is not either or. There more evidence necessary for a historical conclusion.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

---

They weren't written as part of a comprehensive work. When you try to rewrite or re-tell the story as a comprehensive whole, then you have created a whole new story different from the other two. The two stories can't both be right. They don't agree with each other, nor with historical facts.

---

This theory will completely revolutionize the study of ancient history as we know it.

---

Research how historians determine what is most probably historically true from what is fiction or lore.

---

Not the way that you have described.

During the hearings on the sinking of the Titanic, a number of witnesses testified that the ship broke in half before sinking. Other witnesses testified that the ship did not break in half, but sank intact. Since these two stories are clearly contradictory, the only possible conclusion is that the Titanic did not sink at all.

---

It is not either or. There more evidence necessary for a historical conclusion.

---

So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

I am assuming that when you say "your brain is you", you mean that "you" are the consciousness "your brain produces." If that is what you mean, this is not settled science. There is a healthy debate as to whether the brain produces consciousness or the brain acts as a receiver and receives consciousness from outside of itself. Ultimately, it may depend on what is the fundamental building block of the universe: matter or consciousness. This is not coming from a faith perspective. Just my 2 cents and way above my pay grade. However, my day job essentially is to work with people who have "damaged brains" according to the more traditional model and there are times where the materialistic explanation falls short. #spookyconsciousnessatadistance

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

It's quite clear that Luke was essentially saying, "I am writing an account of all the things that actually happened, as it was witnessed first hand, so that you will know that everything you were told that had happened is all true".

If you can't grasp this, then you simply can not read or comprehend correctly. I mean, your response - the part you tried to quote is some sort of confused mash up of two sentences into one, and you followed that with nonsensical reasoning that "minister of the word" somehow means its not history. I don't know what were supposed to do with this, how we're supposed to have a rational discussion with you if this is how you process.

You keep harping on the fact that its "good news", not history. I don't know how anything can be good news if it didn't actually happen.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

A "narrative of things fulfilled" is history. Your argument essentially is "the gospels aren't history because I don't want them to be."

John 21:24 - This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

1 John 1-4: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

It's quite clear that Luke was essentially saying, "I am writing an account of all the things that actually happened, as it was witnessed first hand, so that you will know that everything you were told that had happened is all true".

If you can't grasp this, then you simply can not read or comprehend correctly. I mean, your response - the part you tried to quote is some sort of confused mash up of two sentences into one, and you followed that with nonsensical reasoning that "minister of the word" somehow means its not history. I don't know what were supposed to do with this, how we're supposed to have a rational discussion with you if this is how you process.

You keep harping on the fact that its "good news", not history. I don't know how anything can be good news if it didn't actually happen.

---

I "keep harping" because the good news is not history but a different order of the Word. Either you get bogged down in "what actually happened" or you open ourself to the good news that is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

JXL A "narrative of things fulfilled" is history. No, it is good news of thaat the time is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Your argument essentially is "the gospels aren't history because I don't want them to be." No, this is not essentially my argument. I have said clearly that to the disciples and the writers of the gospels that the events of Jesus' life are real to them but the intent is not to prove to you Jesus existed but the intent to prove to you that He is the Christ, the Son of the living of God.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

A "narrative of things fulfilled" is history. Your argument essentially is "the gospels aren't history because I don't want them to be."

John 21:24 - This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

1 John 1-4: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

---

Part, at least, of what I believe the New Testament means by calling Jesus himself the Word of God is that in the final analysis not even the most authentic and inspired words he ever spoke could exhaust the mystery he came to reveal, and that when he proclaimed not "What I say is the truth" but, instead, "I am the truth," he meant, among other things, that the truth cannot be fully caught in any expression of the truth in words but only in the great eloquence and complexity and simplicity of his own life.

-Originally published in A Room Called Remember Frederick Buechner

It is right there in the Text JXL "the Word of life." Jesus is the word of life not simply some historical figure (which he probably was) but He is the word of Life -- that is not history but good news.

Off-topic, but the original translation of John 1:1 is "In the beginning was (logos)". Not sure if you have researched Logos-Christology at all, but some really awesome parallels between Stoicism and early Christianity.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Hawking got it right in Brief History of Time. Changed his mind, interestingly enough, for what can only have been personal reasons.

---

Hawking didn't change his mind. He has explained and clarified what he meant metaphorically in his book.

---

He went from believing that some questions are beyond scientific understanding to believing he could explain creation through physical laws. The theory he and Guth propounded may well be correct, but their theological conclusion is based on circular reasoning.

---

Inductive reasoning.

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

It's quite clear that Luke was essentially saying, "I am writing an account of all the things that actually happened, as it was witnessed first hand, so that you will know that everything you were told that had happened is all true".

If you can't grasp this, then you simply can not read or comprehend correctly. I mean, your response - the part you tried to quote is some sort of confused mash up of two sentences into one, and you followed that with nonsensical reasoning that "minister of the word" somehow means its not history. I don't know what were supposed to do with this, how we're supposed to have a rational discussion with you if this is how you process.

You keep harping on the fact that its "good news", not history. I don't know how anything can be good news if it didn't actually happen.

---

I "keep harping" because the good news is not history but a different order of the Word. Either you get bogged down in "what actually happened" or you open ourself to the good news that is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

What is a different order of the Word? Do you mean "world?"

ScottS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

The fact that they are true does not make them cliches.

---

His statement with regard to physics is demonstrably untrue. He has claimed that quantum physics explains creation "from nothing," but all his proof really does is postpone the question.

---

Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator. Far closer to the truth than ancient tales of primitive people handed down through the years.

---

Hawking got it right in Brief History of Time. Changed his mind, interestingly enough, for what can only have been personal reasons.

---

Hawking didn't change his mind. He has explained and clarified what he meant metaphorically in his book.

---

He went from believing that some questions are beyond scientific understanding to believing he could explain creation through physical laws. The theory he and Guth propounded may well be correct, but their theological conclusion is based on circular reasoning.

---

Me thinks Hawking had a little 420 action going on to explain going from nothing to something.

---

Difficult does not mean drug induced.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Off-topic, but the original translation of John 1:1 is "In the beginning was (logos)". Not sure if you have researched Logos-Christology at all, but some really awesome parallels between Stoicism and early Christianity.

---

If you're a Rogan fan he has a show about early Christianity being code for shrooms and sex

JXL said:

---

And the way to prove it was to set out the facts of what had happened - in other words, the history of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, they would have had only a little story which would have convinced no one, much less persuaded people to give their lives rather than recant their beliefs.

---

"A little story" is all they had and it was simply their witness to what they had seen and heard but it was a powerful story. It was the story of God's love.

How is your faith dependent on the complete historicity of the texts?

trey3216 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

It's quite clear that Luke was essentially saying, "I am writing an account of all the things that actually happened, as it was witnessed first hand, so that you will know that everything you were told that had happened is all true".

If you can't grasp this, then you simply can not read or comprehend correctly. I mean, your response - the part you tried to quote is some sort of confused mash up of two sentences into one, and you followed that with nonsensical reasoning that "minister of the word" somehow means its not history. I don't know what were supposed to do with this, how we're supposed to have a rational discussion with you if this is how you process.

You keep harping on the fact that its "good news", not history. I don't know how anything can be good news if it didn't actually happen.

---

I "keep harping" because the good news is not history but a different order of the Word. Either you get bogged down in "what actually happened" or you open ourself to the good news that is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

The fact that you supposedly are a minister of The Word and are this unhinged about some things is as big a slap in the face as the SBC's recent findings.

---

I am not "unhinged" but stand in a long of progressive theology dating to the Enlightenment and maybe to Jesus.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"So you agree that the mere fact that historical accounts might contain minor discrepancies does not invalidate those accounts?"

The gospels do not claim to be historical accounts but rather "gospels" that is the good news of Jesus Christ. There is a difference. The gospels continue historical event but that is not their intent.
To diminish the differences of the gospels by calling them "minor discrepancies" flies in the face of these the great theologians who had a particularly understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Surely, the gospels contain historical but it is impossible to claim some kind of historical accuracy. You continue to fail that test of historicity.
The only historical fact we can really claim is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere from AD 1 to AD 35. The only independent record is Josephus but it does not matter to faith's eyes.
But again, the intent of the gospels is good news not history.
It does not subtract one iota from my faith that the gospels may not contain history. Like you, I simply believe the witness of the disciples about Jesus' good news.

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%201:1-4&version=NKJV

The Readers Digest version reads, "Theo, here's what happened."

---

That opening is not an appeal to history but an appeal to a narrative "of things fulfilled beginning with eyewitnesses and minsters of the word (minister of the word Not history." It is an orderly account in things which you were instructed -- the things in which you "instructed" are not history but good news. Do not lift the word out of context. Luke, himself, does not support you. The underlying intent is instruction and the ministry of the word which is good news not history.
Do less trying to trying entrap me and more critical thinking.

---

It's quite clear that Luke was essentially saying, "I am writing an account of all the things that actually happened, as it was witnessed first hand, so that you will know that everything you were told that had happened is all true".

If you can't grasp this, then you simply can not read or comprehend correctly. I mean, your response - the part you tried to quote is some sort of confused mash up of two sentences into one, and you followed that with nonsensical reasoning that "minister of the word" somehow means its not history. I don't know what were supposed to do with this, how we're supposed to have a rational discussion with you if this is how you process.

You keep harping on the fact that its "good news", not history. I don't know how anything can be good news if it didn't actually happen.

---

I "keep harping" because the good news is not history but a different order of the Word. Either you get bogged down in "what actually happened" or you open ourself to the good news that is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

What is a different order of the Word? Do you mean "world?"

---

I mean Word as in the good news, as in Jesus.