...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Religion
»
The Apostle Paul, founder of Christianity
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ayisha: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by unfinished thought.: [QUOTE]The 4 Gospels are written by people that never met him[/QUOTE]Well, John who wrote the Gospel of John was one of Jesus disciples if you read it you will see clearly he was with him and talks of himself as the disciple Jesus loved.[/QUOTE]didnt YOU post this: 95: John writes his Gospel, [b]claims to be an eyewitness.[/b] This is 65 years AFTER the death of Jesus and you telling me this man is the same John that knew Jesus? [QUOTE]Mark, is possibly the young man carrying a pitcher of water leading Jesus and his disciples to the upper room for the last supper. In any case he had the apostle Peter as his major source of material. It is also contended that the man at Gethsemane, when Jesus was arrested who fled naked was Mark. Certainly, if Mark was the man who fled, he knew Jesus. Certainly if Mark knew Peter, he knew a lot about Jesus, as is evident from his Gospel record. Mark leaves historical clues that could easily be discredited if they were not true. He sites actual places: Nazareth, Galele, the Jordan. John was a real person, in that his beheading is recorded in a documented case. There were witnesses of John and his early baptizing. So all of these historical facts contextualizes the baptism in the currents of history. [/QUOTE]YOU posted this: 70: Mark writes his Gospel, [b]traditionally believed to reflect Peter’s eyewitness account.[/b] which shows it was not HIS OWN eye witness account. If he was an eye witness as you're now trying to say then why didnt he write from his OWN accounts instead of Peters? [QUOTE]Don't assume that Mark and Luke never met Jesus ONLY BECAUSE they weren't in the 12 apostles, which would mean in Jesus' lifetime, he met only 12 people.[/QUOTE]again YOU posted this 85: Luke writes his Gospel, [b]claims to have verified with available eyewitnesses.[/b] I never said I assumed they never met him ONLY BECAUSE they werent of the 12 did i? I am going now on what YOU posted. [b]Mark was an accomplice of Paul and Barnabas, and later Peter. He's mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13. Luke was also Paul's accomplice, and is mentioned in Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11 and Philemon 24. Members of the twelve changed over time. When Judas died he was replaced by Mathias. [b]Jesus stopped Paul on the road to Damascus[/b] because he had a purpose for him. [b]Paul later received the office of Apostle as well.[/b] [/quote] Paul CLAIMS to have seen a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and he appointed himself as an apostle. [QUOTE]His mission was to the Gentiles. His letters were to churches in the West that he established. The epistles of the senior Apostles Peter, James and John were general instructions to the entire church. Paul carried out his mission under their leadership. Paul was an Apostle to the Nations. He preached throughout Asia Minor. The original 12 were generally confined to Jerusalem and it's surroundings.[/QUOTE]yes I have gone into that. Paul carried out HIS mission while deceiving James, Peter and John of his true beliefs while he was running here and there claiming to be this and that to stop various people who KNEW what he was doing wanting to stop him. [QUOTE]The Gospel writers intended to convey reliable history. This is forcefully supported by the careful preservation of the oral tradition that existed before the gospels. Formally, the gospels parallel other historical and biographical literature of the day. [/QUOTE]If so then why are the REAL eye witness accounts not there and have been passed over for non eye witness accounts?? Thomas and Barnabas were disciples, matt mark luke and John were not, where are Thomas and Barnabas' eye witness accounts now?? they were thrown out as forgeries or gnostics because they told it as it WAS which didnt wuite match with Pauls idea of saviour by FAITH. [QUOTE]The presence of details which actually go against the purpose of the account also supports that the writers intended to be accurate. For example, a woman's testimony was not considered very trustworthy in that day. Yet, the gospel writers have women as being the first witnesses to the resurrection. [b]There is also much material in the Gospels that is embarrassing to Jesus' disciples. They are portrayed, in each account, as unbelieving, cowardly, and dull. This shows the integrity of the writers to tell it like it was. [/b][/QUOTE]No this shows they were NOT telling it like it was! How can you claim this was true about the disciples of Jesus, the very men closest to him, and then claim Paul, his persecutor, to be right and truthful when we have a clear picture that he was a liar a manipulator and deceived Jesus own brother James along with Peter and John?? [QUOTE]Finally, the gospel writers claim to be writing accurately. This is the strongest testimony of their intentions because it comes from their own mouths. Luke says that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning...so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3,4) John declares "and he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe" (John 19:35). And Peter is very clear when he says "For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). They knew the difference between fact and fiction. [/QUOTE]Obviously they did not OR they did but these are the words of Paul. Just because 'from their won mouths' they says its accurate doesnt make it so does it as we have seen from Paul who from his own mouth deceived James and Peter. [QUOTE]Because the writers intended to convey accurate history, this means that if in any way they willfully manipulated the facts, they were intentional deceivers. And because the apostles were present to ensure that the oral tradition did remain pure, any tampering would have been willful. For example, if Jesus' tomb was not empty, the gospel writers were intentionally lying when they say that it was empty. This means that if the gospels are not accurate records of the sayings and doings of Christ, then they are simply a colossal fraud. Yet, no reputable critical scholar today holds that the early disciples were intentional deceivers.[/QUOTE]again you have lost the argument. The argument is not whether the tomb was empty or not. :rolleyes: [QUOTE]Also, the fact that all of the apostles were willing to die horrible deaths, refusing to renounce their faith in Christ, is tremendous evidence that they had truly witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not so important how the apostles died. What is important is the fact that they were all willing to die for their faith. If Jesus had not been resurrected, the disciples would have known it. People will not die for something they know to be a lie.[/QUOTE]then that in itself doesnt match with your previous claim "There is also much material in the Gospels that is embarrassing to Jesus' disciples. They are portrayed, in each account, as unbelieving, cowardly, and dull. This shows the integrity of the writers to tell it like it was. " if they were unbelieving and cowardly they wouldnt be so willing to die for this faith in Jesus would they? so which are they? [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus[/QUOTE]Using this logic, you shouldn't even begin to trust what Prophet Muhammad taught about Jesus since he never met Jesus and didn't even live close to the same time period.[/QUOTE]Muhammed didnt teach about Jesus as im aware, God did and He WAS there. ;) [QUOTE]Paul was a Jew, not a pagan Statements made by the apostle Paul (see also Paul's Ministry): "Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia" (Acts 21:39 KJV) Paul was religiously a Jew (and a Pharisee at that), of Judah. Why would a Jew want to paganize the teachings of Jesus? [/QUOTE]Why would a Jew want to kill Jesus? why would a Jew want to change the course of the Torah teachings that Jesus was continuing? Why would a Jew want to persecute Jesus? If Paul was 'religiously' a Jew as you claim why did he split from Judaism and form Christianity as we know it today? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3