Survival

[outhouse]

You need to read the whole article.

"Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of about thirty eight exceptions applies to the particular statement being made."

These exceptions are specific such as a police officer stating he heard the victim in a trial call out - "name" please don't shoot me!" before he entered a house and found "name" with a gun.

*

Have you studied the exceptions, and have you used them in court? I have.

38 exceptions is no shortage

There are professors that study their whole lives about how hearsay and how exceptions apply, and still cannot explain it properly. Most judges are in the dark due to the philosophical nature of the law, and really it all comes down to the particular judge you have in front of you.

There is a few good youtube vids you should see if your interested in law.

I use these forums because they keep my arguments sharp and focused, and I get complimented on my writing abilities. This forum has been a very valuable tool.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not going to fly!
We have thousands of documents for Lincoln (and many pictures,) cross documenting his existence.

It is a very simple question...were you there when Lincoln was assasinated? Yes or No? Since the answer is obviously no, it has been just about 150 years since his death, so in order to believe that Lincoln was assasinated the way history books tell us, you have to believe this based on hearsay, the same thing you accuse guys like Tacitus and Josephus of.

It doesn't really matter how many "thousands" of documents you claim they are, or how strongly you feel about it, because guess what, I feel just as strongly about my beliefs in Jesus and your beliefs are no better than mines because neither one of us were there, so we are BOTH relying on hearsay. And not only that, but the study of HISTORY ITSELF is based on hearsay for that matter.

So if there is anything that isn't going to fly, it is your inconsistent logic and perspective regarding the historicity of Jesus when compared to other historical figures.

This is not true for Jesus - and you need to stop trying to throw in regular people existing - against your god-man existing.

First off, the VAST majority of all historians agree that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, and included in this vast majority are even the most secular groups. The only question is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, which was an event that Christians continue to argue in favor of.

You would have to use other Sons of God and mortal women - such as Hephaistos, - and you know very few (including YOU) are going to believe in them either.

Show me historical evidence and I will weigh my options.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Truly, you need to research and study outside of the New Testament. Biblical scholars and historians will prove to you that there were no disciples and that the names were made up

Bogus. Paul wrote Corinthians before even the Gospels were written, much less the New Testament, and he testified that Jesus appeared to him and the other disciples, an event that occured within 5 years after the crucifixion itself. So when Paul wrote Corinthians, he was writing "outside of the New Testament".

.....There were dozens of Jesus cults, all with different beliefs and understandings of what they heard about him... They were Jews trying to incorporate these Jesus stories into their own Jewish belief system.....

I could care less what people heard about Jesus. I am talking about what Peter, Paul, James, and John wrote about him. They were not writing about what they heard about him, they were writing about what they heard FROM him. I would hope you can distinguish the difference from the two.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Bogus. Paul wrote Corinthians before even the Gospels were written, much less the New Testament, and he testified that Jesus appeared to him and the other disciples, an event that occured within 5 years after the crucifixion itself. So when Paul wrote Corinthians, he was writing "outside of the New Testament".



I could care less what people heard about Jesus. I am talking about what Peter, Paul, James, and John wrote about him. They were not writing about what they heard about him, they were writing about what they heard FROM him. I would hope you can distinguish the difference from the two.

Paul never met Jesus, though I guess if you're going with the basis that his experience was legitimate based off his own words then yeah...but idk seems rather circular to me.

Biblical Historians are fairly sure that Peter didn't write anything.

I think the only one that Biblical Scholars confirm having written anything is James.

But I would have to look up if anything new has changed. History is always changing as new evidence comes in.

 

[Tristesse]

Bogus. Paul wrote Corinthians before even the Gospels were written, much less the New Testament, and he testified that Jesus appeared to him and the other disciples, an event that occured within 5 years after the crucifixion itself. So when Paul wrote Corinthians, he was writing "outside of the New Testament".

Being a christian, you do realize that the names attributed to the authors was done somewhere around the 2nd and 3rd century. We have no clue of the actual names of the authors, because the writings were done anonymously. Secondly, it's widely accepted that none of the authors were actual eyewitnesses and none of them claim to be either.

But I don't see how any of this is relevant to the question of whether or not what they reported is accurate. What you have is a bunch of old writings from a very superstitious culture, that's not to say that everything they wrote was inaccurate. But to make the claim that because they wrote about a man named jesus, and it was only a few decades from the event, that therefore the stories must be true, is simply fallacious. And by using that criteria it would also put you in the position of accepting many other religions that conflict with your own. Such as Islam. Not to mention that there are new religions that are claiming new miracles that I'm sure you wouldn't accept either. Mormonism, for example, is fairly new. They have writings as well, first hand reports even. Are you now willing to accept their claims simply because they have first hand reports of them written down? I hope not. But judging from the criteria you use to assess other claims, you should also accept Mormonism. If not, I think you're being rather inconsistent.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

LOL! Did you forget what you yourself wrote? - born 56AD? He wasn't even born until 56 years after the supposed events! Hearsay!

Its funny you mention this, because I have a bit to say. First of all, Jesus was crucified around 33AD, give or take 5 years up or down. To be born in 56AD is to be born approx 20 years after the event. So where you get this "56 years after the supposed event", I don't know. And 20 or so years after the event is still within the lifetime of the disciples and friends of the disciples.

Not only that, but look at MLK. MLK died in 1968, and here we are, 45 years later, still talking about him. We celebrate his birth, we know his speeches, and many of the people that were living around that time are STILL alive today, 45 years later. So it should come to no surprise that followers of Jesus was still talking about him, preaching his word, and dying in his name some 20,30,40+ years later.

So please, spare Christians from the "it happened x many years later" crap. So did the death of MLK, JFK, and many other historical figures that we still talk about x years later.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Being a christian, you do realize that the names attributed to the authors was done somewhere around the 2nd and 3rd century. We have no clue of the actual names of the authors, because the writings were done anonymously.

As I said previously, the early Church Fathers gave the names of the Gospel authors..so apparently the names of the authors were never in dispute (historically). Second, why would they claim Luke and Mark wrote the gospels, when they weren't even disciples? Wouldn't Peter or James carry more weight than Luke and Mark? I mean, if you are going to be spreading a false religion and all.

Secondly, it's widely accepted that none of the authors were actual eyewitnesses and none of them claim to be either.

This is bogus, because if you just said yourself that we have no clue who wrote the gospels, how on earth are you able to determine whether or not whoever did write them were eyewitnesses or not? Makes no sense. Second, as I keep stressing, we still have the letters of Paul, that predate all the Gospels, and within his letters he preaches the same thing, that Jesus was lived, was crucified, and was raised on the third day. He got this teaching from the disciples, who WERE eyewitnesses. And not only that, but Paul claimed that Christ appeared to him also. So you are clearly wrong here as well.

But I don't see how any of this is relevant to the question of whether or not what they reported is accurate. What you have is a bunch of old writings from a very superstitious culture, that's not to say that everything they wrote was inaccurate.

First off, Jesus is a historical figure...that is first.....second, since Jesus did actually live on this earth and had followers, the only question is whether or not his followers believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. It can't be called a superstition if they believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them, and if you believe something, you must have reasons to believe. So they weren't lying, nor where they delusional. The only logical explanation is that they saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

But to make the claim that because they wrote about a man named jesus, and it was only a few decades from the event, that therefore the stories must be true, is simply fallacious.

They claimed that they saw the Resurrected Jesus. Either they were flat out lying, or they were delusional, and to take either position defies logic and reasoning.

And by using that criteria it would also put you in the position of accepting many other religions that conflict with your own. Such as Islam. Not to mention that there are new religions that are claiming new miracles that I'm sure you wouldn't accept either. Mormonism, for example, is fairly new. They have writings as well, first hand reports even. Are you now willing to accept their claims simply because they have first hand reports of them written down? I hope not. But judging from the criteria you use to assess other claims, you should also accept Mormonism. If not, I think you're being rather inconsistent.

I feel as if the evidence for the Resurrection is compelling, so therefore, I don't need Islam or Mormonism. Christianity is a one-stop shop, it is a store where I get all kind of information based on history, the purpose of life, destiny, and the love of God. All the other stores fall short of providing me with what I need. So I will just lock myself inside this store and if anyone try to take me from the store, they will have to kill me first.

 

[Tristesse]

Its funny you mention this, because I have a bit to say. First of all, Jesus was crucified around 33AD, give or take 5 years up or down. To be born in 56AD is to be born approx 20 years after the event. So where you get this "56 years after the supposed event", I don't know. And 20 or so years after the event is still within the lifetime of the disciples and friends of the disciples.

Well, considering that I'm sure the authors didn't write the text the minute after they were born. About fifty or so years after the events is somewhat accurate. Given that perhaps they were born 20 years after, they probably didn't write it down till they were about 25 or 30 years of age. That takes us approximately 50 years or so after the events. Also, considering that the dates are accurate.

Not only that, but look at MLK. MLK died in 1968, and here we are, 45 years later, still talking about him. We celebrate his birth, we know his speeches, and many of the people that were living around that time are STILL alive today, 45 years later. So it should come to no surprise that followers of Jesus was still talking about him, preaching his word, and dying in his name some 20,30,40+ years later.

So please, spare Christians from the "it happened x many years later" crap. So did the death of MLK, JFK, and many other historical figures that we still talk about x years later.

First of all, MLK was not claiming to be a god, nor the son of a god, nor performing miracles. So, right of the bat we have a different type of evidentiary standard with MLK. Secondly, we have writings from MLK himself, we have video footage of him and his speeches. He did not do anything that I'm aware of that defies the laws of nature. So, to compare MLK to the evidence for Jesus, is extremely fallacious.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Paul never met Jesus, though I guess if you're going with the basis that his experience was legitimate based off his own words then yeah...but idk seems rather circular to me.

Well, he said that Jesus appeared to him, and I believe him. Remember, he was originally a persecuter of the early Christians, and for him to make a 360 turnaround from persecuter to follower of Christ, that has to be accounted for. And he didn't become a follower based on what other people told him, he became a follower based on what he believed he saw.

Biblical Historians are fairly sure that Peter didn't write anything.

What historians don't believe that Paul wrote 1Corinthians? At the very least 1Corinthians. I mean cmon now, you guys are trying your best to discredit the bible in any way you can. It is becoming rather sickening.

I think the only one that Biblical Scholars confirm having written anything is James.

And James, along with Paul, were originally unbelievers, and they both made complete 360 turns. Christianity wasn't the most popular team to be on at the time, yet these men joined the team when Christians were being persecuted.

 

[Tristesse]

As I said previously, the early Church Fathers gave the names of the Gospel authors..so apparently the names of the authors were never in dispute (historically). Second, why would they claim Luke and Mark wrote the gospels, when they weren't even disciples? Wouldn't Peter or James carry more weight than Luke and Mark? I mean, if you are going to be spreading a false religion and all.

As I said the writing were done anonymously. And as you just said yourself the early church fathers attributed the names to the writings. That doesn't seem like a very accurate way of determining the actual authors.

This is bogus, because if you just said yourself that we have no clue who wrote the gospels, how on earth are you able to determine whether or not whoever did write them were eyewitnesses or not? Makes no sense. Second, as I keep stressing, we still have the letters of Paul, that predate all the Gospels, and within his letters he preaches the same thing, that Jesus was lived, was crucified, and was raised on the third day. He got this teaching from the disciples, who WERE eyewitnesses. And not only that, but Paul claimed that Christ appeared to him also. So you are clearly wrong here as well.

I'm not determining that they weren't eyewitnesses, the experts in the field are. You know, historians.

I don't care if you have a million letters that predate the gospels, the mere fact that you have a document that claims somebody was resurrected, does not mean that the event occurred. Resurrection, that is. Because as I've stated numerous times, no amount of text is sufficient to claim that a miracle occurred.

First off, Jesus is a historical figure...that is first.....second, since Jesus did actually live on this earth and had followers, the only question is whether or not his followers believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. It can't be called a superstition if they believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them, and if you believe something, you must have reasons to believe. So they weren't lying, nor where they delusional. The only logical explanation is that they saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

I never said Jesus was not an historical figure. I happen to believe that it's entirely possible that a man named Jesus living in the first century existed. However, that does not mean that I also accept that he was a god and performed miracles. You cannot equate the historicity of an individual with the claims of miracles performed by that individual. Just like, because I accept that George Washington existed, therefore I should also accept that he chopped down a cherry tree and never told a lie.

I think you're posing a false dichotomy. I don't think that the only options are the disciples were lying or delusional. I think they could have been mistaken. Happens all of the time, to many people. As humans we are very prone to making mistakes in our thinking. Like when some Hindu's meditate they might see Krishna, or Vishnu. But I'll tell you what we don't do as rational thinkers. We don't hear a story of ghosts and assume that it happened, simply because people claimed to have seen it happen. Someone else's story of zombie Jesus, does not justify someone else's acceptance of that story.

I feel as if the evidence for the Resurrection is compelling, so therefore, I don't need Islam or Mormonism. Christianity is a one-stop shop, it is a store where I get all kind of information based on history, the purpose of life, destiny, and the love of God. All the other stores fall short of providing me with what I need. So I will just lock myself inside this store and if anyone try to take me from the store, they will have to kill me first.

Good for you, you fell for a story about zombies, snakes and miracles. However, some of us like to be consistent in our thought process and not accept stories that defy the laws of nature simply because they were written down by people who believed it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well, he said that Jesus appeared to him, and I believe him. Remember, he was originally a persecuter of the early Christians, and for him to make a 360 turnaround from persecuter to follower of Christ, that has to be accounted for. And he didn't become a follower based on what other people told him, he became a follower based on what he believed he saw.



What historians don't believe that Paul wrote 1Corinthians? At the very least 1Corinthians. I mean cmon now, you guys are trying your best to discredit the bible in any way you can. It is becoming rather sickening.



And James, along with Paul, were originally unbelievers, and they both made complete 360 turns. Christianity wasn't the most popular team to be on at the time, yet these men joined the team when Christians were being persecuted.

Huh? Where did I say that Paul didn't write Corinthians.

We don't know what happened on that Day, only what Paul told us happened. You are more than welcome to believe him and I believe that he experienced it.

James was not originally an "unbeliever" James was a Jew and from what we know of history never stopped being a Jew. Issues between him and Paul apparently weren't very smooth. But Acts seems to indicate that they smooth it out.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, considering that I'm sure the authors didn't write the text the minute after they were born. About fifty or so years after the events is somewhat accurate. Given that perhaps they were born 20 years after, they probably didn't write it down till they were about 25 or 30 years of age. That takes us approximately 50 years or so after the events. Also, considering that the dates are accurate.

First, Paul wrote 1Corith around 50-54AD. That itself is within 20 years after the event and Paul WAS around during the time of the crucifixion. Second, the movie Lincoln was premiered in theatres in the year 2012,almost 150 years after his death. So we can accept the fact that a film can be made about a President 150 years after, but we can't accept the fact that someone can write about a man name Jesus just 50 years after his death?

Please.

First of all, MLK was not claiming to be a god, nor the son of a god, nor performing miracles. So, right of the bat we have a different type of evidentiary standard with MLK.

So what? Jesus had followers, MLK had followers. So what? Why is the standard different. Ohhh I get it, it is the miracles part, right?

Secondly, we have writings from MLK himself, we have video footage of him and his speeches.

We don't have video footage of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, though, do we? And any writings that are said to be from either of them, how do you know that it is actually from them?

He did not do anything that I'm aware of that defies the laws of nature.

Are you assuming that nature is all there is? Prove that there isn't any reality beyond natural reality. You can't.

So, to compare MLK to the evidence for Jesus, is extremely fallacious.

And to hold the position that we shouldn't believe anything that "defies the laws of nature" is equally fallacious, because you don't know whether or not nature is all there is.

 

[Tristesse]

First, Paul wrote 1Corith around 50-54AD. That itself is within 20 years after the event and Paul WAS around during the time of the crucifixion. Second, the movie Lincoln was premiered in theatres in the year 2012,almost 150 years after his death. So we can accept the fact that a film can be made about a President 150 years after, but we can't accept the fact that someone can write about a man name Jesus just 50 years after his death?

Please.

You're not getting it. I really don't care if they were written during Jesus' life. It's not a valid source to determine the miraculous aspect of the text. It might be good for establishing certain events, but not miraculous events. And if you took a few minutes to think about what other historical texts we accept that also have miracles in it, you'd be hard pressed to find any that are not from a biblical text.

To compare lincoln to Jesus is insane. We have actual writings from linoln himself. We have photographs of Lincoln. We have a history of men who served under Lincoln during his presidency. As far as I'm aware, Lincoln never claimed to have performed miracles. None of which we can say about Jesus. This puts Jesus in a different historical perspective. I'm not saying the dude never existed, but you cannot compare the life of Lincoln with that of Jesus.

So what? Jesus had followers, MLK had followers. So what? Why is the standard different. Ohhh I get it, it is the miracles part, right?

The standard is different because of the Natural law defying part. I don't know that the laws of nature can be defied. Therefore, I cannot accept that someone has done this, especially when the only thing to claim this are the writings of men, who claimed to have seen this happen. It's the same reason why, if my mother came to me and old me that she saw my dead grandmother, I would not believe her. This doesn't mean that I think she's lying, but rather, I think she is mistaken. I am consistent with my evidentiary standards.

We don't have video footage of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, though, do we? And any writings that are said to be from either of them, how do you know that it is actually from them?

Well, first, we have pictures of abraham Lincoln. Second, we have a long history of both these men. We have writings in their own hand. Where are the writings from Jesus himself? More importantly, as far as I now none of these men did things that jesus' followers are claiming. Well, in the case of George Washington, we have a cherry tree story and a never telling a lie story, both of which I do not accept. And those claims are far less miraculous than the Jesus stories. However, if I were using your standards, I probably would accept those stories about George Washington. I mean what reason do they have for lying, right?

Are you assuming that nature is all there is? Prove that there isn't any reality beyond natural reality. You can't.

It's not my duty to prove that nature is all there is, because that's not what I'm claiming. However, if you're claiming that there is something beyond the natural, then it's your duty to present that evidence, if you want to convince me.

And to hold the position that we shouldn't believe anything that "defies the laws of nature" is equally fallacious, because you don't know whether or not nature is all there is.

I didn't say that we shouldn't believe any thing that defies the laws of nature. I'm saying that text alone is insufficient to base belief on that claim. Because then we would have to start believing other miraculous claims from other books. I do not believe miracles simply because others have reported them or written them down. That's not rational.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Huh? Where did I say that Paul didn't write Corinthians.

My bad. You said Peter.

We don't know what happened on that Day, only what Paul told us happened. You are more than welcome to believe him and I believe that he experienced it.

Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

James was not originally an "unbeliever" James was a Jew and from what we know of history never stopped being a Jew. Issues between him and Paul apparently weren't very smooth. But Acts seems to indicate that they smooth it out.

He never stopped being a Jew? Hmm. Read James 2:1. Hmmm.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My bad. You said Peter.



Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.



He never stopped being a Jew? Hmm. Read James 2:1. Hmmm.

Mark never met Jesus

Neither Did Luke

Matthew I suppose you mean the tax collector? Unfortunately the book of Matthew does not say who the Author is.

Neither does the book of John, it is only assumed it is John because of the testimony of the disciple that Jesus loved.

But certainly not the writer...and where does it say that James stopped being a Jew?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're not getting it. I really don't care if they were written during Jesus' life. It's not a valid source to determine the miraculous aspect of the text.

If you don't care if they were written during Jesus' life, then you shouldn't have jumped in on the conversation when we were discussing the alleged dates and giving your input. Second, why isn't it a valid source to determine the Resurrection and post mortem appearances.

It might be good for establishing certain events, but not miraculous events. And if you took a few minutes to think about what other historical texts we accept that also have miracles in it, you'd be hard pressed to find any that are not from a biblical text.

And?

To compare lincoln to Jesus is insane. We have actual writings from linoln himself. We have photographs of Lincoln.

First off like I told someone else, you don't know who wrote what. All you know is what you've been told. You were not there, nor was anyone else there that is alive today. You say we have writings of Lincoln, as if you know for a fact that he actually wrote it. If Christians claimed that Jesus or God wrote the bible themselves, you and others would not accept this...your objection will be "How do we know that they actually wrote it. Anyone could have wrote it. Maybe their followers wrote it." But when we claim that their followers wrote it, now that turns out to be not good enough. When does the foolishness stop?

As far as photographs is concerned, so what? What about other historical figures that we DON'T have photographs of? Are you questioning whether Hannibal rode elephants to battle? Do you question whether or not Columbus stepped foot on American soil? Do you question whether Ceasar was stabbed? I seriously doubt you question any of these other things, but you sure as hell not only question, but down right REJECT the events that bible claim to have occurred. This is clearly the taxi cab fallacy.

We have a history of men who served under Lincoln during his presidency.

We have history of men that walked with Jesus. We also have external biblical sources that mentions Jesus by name. Once again, the historicity of Jesus is already accepted by the vast majority of scholars and to deny this would be to deny every thing else that is considered historical.

As far as I'm aware, Lincoln never claimed to have performed miracles. None of which we can say about Jesus. This puts Jesus in a different historical perspective. I'm not saying the dude never existed, but you cannot compare the life of Lincoln with that of Jesus.

And Jesus never claimed to be the 16th President. So what?

The standard is different because of the Natural law defying part. I don't know that the laws of nature can be defied. Therefore, I cannot accept that someone has done this, especially when the only thing to claim this are the writings of men, who claimed to have seen this happen. It's the same reason why, if my mother came to me and old me that she saw my dead grandmother, I would not believe her. This doesn't mean that I think she's lying, but rather, I think she is mistaken. I am consistent with my evidentiary standards.

Well, Jesus was not only seen by one person, but many people. He was not only seen by believers, but by skeptics as well. So that is a lot of mistaken people.

Well, first, we have pictures of abraham Lincoln.

We don't have pictures of his assasination, do we?

Second, we have a long history of both these men. We have writings in their own hand.

You mean as far as YOU'VE been told, we have their writings. And as far as I've been told, Jesus lived, died, and was raised on the third day. Either way we've both been told something.

Where are the writings from Jesus himself?

I didn't know that having writings qualifies a person from being historical or not. Second, look..no matter how many writings you claim a person has, if you weren't there to see the person writing it, you are basing your belief off of what someone TOLD YOU. You...WERE.....NOT.......THERE, ok? All you know is what you've been told.

It's not my duty to prove that nature is all there is, because that's not what I'm claiming.

Well it sounds as if you are rejecting the miraculous nature of the claims...on the basis of it defies nature. And my point is, so what? God transcends nature.

However, if you're claiming that there is something beyond the natural, then it's your duty to present that evidence, if you want to convince me.

The kalam cosmological argument in its entirety.

I didn't say that we shouldn't believe any thing that defies the laws of nature. I'm saying that text alone is insufficient to base belief on that claim.

Well I don't know what more you want. Men claimed that they witnessed miraculous events, and they recorded what they saw. As mentioned before, there is little doubt on whether or not Jesus actually existed, the only question is whether or not he rose from the dead and was seen post-mortem. If people believed they saw him, then it probably did occur, and historians can only go by what probably happened. If the disciples believed what they saw, then they probably did actually see it.

Because then we would have to start believing other miraculous claims from other books. I do not believe miracles simply because others have reported them or written them down. That's not rational.

Well, the foundation of my belief is based on my belief in a supernatural reality, which I base on different arguments. And according to me (my belief), if there is a supernatural reality, then of course there are miracles. And due to the fact that I believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ, that pretty much move me from a theist, to a Christian theist. So on my view, if Jesus rose from the dead, then all of those claims from other books and religions are bogus, because mines is based on historical people, historical places, and historical events, unlike the others.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Mark never met Jesus

Mark was the disciple of Peter, and not only did Peter meet Jesus, but was hand picked by Jesus and was one of his right hand men.

Neither Did Luke

Luke was a historian and physician of Paul, who was also hand picked by Jesus to preach to the Gentiles.

Matthew I suppose you mean the tax collector? Unfortunately the book of Matthew does not say who the Author is.

The early church fathers attributed the book of Matthew to Matthew the tax collector. Of all the disciples, they chose Matthew...a tax collector. Not Peter, not John..but Matthew. Hmmm. Could it be that they attributed the book to him, because he actually wrote the book?

Neither does the book of John, it is only assumed it is John because of the testimony of the disciple that Jesus loved.

Um, Franklin, the testimony of the disciple that Jesus loved..is....JOHN. There was never a question among the early church fathers about who wrote John, the only question was...which John? John the Apostle or John the Elder? But in any case, it is clear from the addition in John 21:24 that it is John the Apostle.

But certainly not the writer...and where does it say that James stopped being a Jew?

James 2:1 "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism"

Whether you think he remained a Jew or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is he was clearly a follower of Christ after previously being a skeptic. And we call followers of Jesus...CHRISTIANS.

 

[Ingledsva]

Its funny you mention this, because I have a bit to say. First of all, Jesus was crucified around 33AD, give or take 5 years up or down. To be born in 56AD is to be born approx 20 years after the event. So where you get this "56 years after the supposed event", I don't know. And 20 or so years after the event is still within the lifetime of the disciples and friends of the disciples.

Not only that, but look at MLK. MLK died in 1968, and here we are, 45 years later, still talking about him. We celebrate his birth, we know his speeches, and many of the people that were living around that time are STILL alive today, 45 years later. So it should come to no surprise that followers of Jesus was still talking about him, preaching his word, and dying in his name some 20,30,40+ years later.

So please, spare Christians from the "it happened x many years later" crap. So did the death of MLK, JFK, and many other historical figures that we still talk about x years later.

First we don't have exact dates for either of them - and - Even 20 years later (making him a infant genius) is after the fact - making it hear say.

*

 

[Shermana]

James 2:1 "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism"

Whether you think he remained a Jew or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is he was clearly a follower of Christ after previously being a skeptic. And we call followers of Jesus...CHRISTIANS.

Perhaps if you read the rest of James 2 you'd realize that the context has absolutely nothing to do with James not emphasizing being a Jew and Judaism.

And if you read Acts 21, you'll see quite plainly that the Jews of the Jerusalem Church apparently had a different standard than the gentiles. (And that's not even getting into the issue of the early 20th century scholarly concern of whether 21:25 was interpolated). Hence why Paul took the vow, to prove that he wasn't telling Jews to abandon Moses. Either that or he was being a very crafty liar. But regardless, it indicates the Jerusalem Church never abandoned Moses. You have to read something into it that's not there to get the context to say otherwise. The early "Christians" were not an entirely different religion. They were merely an Apocalyptic Messianic Sect of Judaism. The association of "Christianity" with something outside of being a sect of Judaism was a much later development, something that goes totally against virtually everything Jesus taught.

 

[Thief]

And this thread is titled.... 'survival'......

Seems to me the angels appear first.....the Carpenter may have said so.

As we stand from the dust, they will be there to see what comes of it.
They will have the advantage.
They will know the language the territory and the scheme of things.

We will be naked.

And eternal life is not a guaranteed event.
They have been displayed with sword in hand for centuries.