haha
I suppose it doesn't matter.
Lets hope not.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
haha
I suppose it doesn't matter.
Gospels can't be used to reconstruct a history of ancient humans or events. But I think you know that.
Gospels can be shown to exist.
Gospels can't be used to reconstruct a history of ancient humans or events. But I think you know that.
Provide us with an event in the gospels and show us how it has been determined to be an historical event.
With all due recognition of the slimy and disingenuous character of the request: Hezekiah's tunnel ...Provide us with an event in the gospels and show us how it has been determined to be an historical event.
Uh oh.I don't think the gospels are perfect history records of Jesus. Quite the contrary.
Gospels can't be used to reconstruct a history of ancient humans or events. But I think you know that.
If you read the gospels and the rest of the NT, it reads much more like stories of fiction to teach the simple lessons of Christianity, not like a history text full of dates and hard facts. With so many conflicts between the gospels, and no correlating historical data to corrborate anything, one can hardly conclude otherwise.
If you read the gospels and the rest of the NT, it reads much more like stories of fiction to teach the simple lessons of Christianity, not like a history text full of dates and hard facts. With so many conflicts between the gospels, and no correlating historical data to corrborate anything, one can hardly conclude otherwise.
With all due recognition of the slimy and disingenuous character of the request: Hezekiah's tunnel ...
Luke and Josephus
conclusion: Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian).
Luke and Josephus
What a load of crap.
If you say so.
What do Christians believe?
Yes, I do, and for a few good reasons.
First of all, one has to consider WHEN THE WORKS OF JOSEPHUS WERE WIDELY KNOWN.
And, one has to consider when Luke-Acts was read and quoted by early Christians.
The idiot who thinks that the author of Luke-Acts both knew and relied on Josephus is completely pulling the argument out of his ***. Of all the lying, two-bit crappy **** that passes as research, this takes the cake.