A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[achilles12604]

I think that it is quite likely that people can retain who wrote what for much longer than that. Alexanders sources were 500 years out of date but they were believed to be accurate dispite massive inconsistencies. But the Gospels authors are suspect because . . .? (remember I am only concerned with who wrote them, not content for this question)

How are they believed to be accurate yet inconsistent?
Why is it you believe something that is not accurate or consistent to be without error and true?
How is comparing them to another writing even reasonable given the extraordinary claims it makes? Why is your interpretation the right one?

You got your quotes backwards so I'm letting everyone know that I switched them but I made no other changes to your post.

Ok Questions:

1) How are they believed to be accurate yet inconsistent? I never said the Gospels were inconsistent. I was making the point that atheist analogies of the Gospels are always biased. They accuse the Gospels of being untrustowrthy because they contain inconsistencies (which outside of a few copy errors isn't true), yet the can turn around and claim that we have accurate information about other people from history dispite thier accounts being riddled with problems. This shows they are not evaluating the evidence evenly but rather are casting their own personal slant to things, even thought many claim they have no slant. This was my point.


2) Why is it you believe something that is not accurate or consistent to be without error and true?

You have a long way to go before showing that Bible to be inaccurate. As for consistent I think I will start a thred on this point so we can have it out.

As for without error and true, these are two VERY different claims. I claim the bible is true however, I never said it was without any error. In fact I acknowledged the errors I had found earlier. So your asumptions are incorrect.


3) How is comparing them to another writing even reasonable given the extraordinary claims it makes?

Because of the point being discussed. We were not discussing Miracles. We were discussing inconsistencies.

4) Why is your interpretation the right one?

Which interpretation? Be more specific.

[Easyrider]

<snip stupidity>

Not my quote. That's your "snip stupidity". An ad hominem?

You say that refutes what I wrote?? Really??

It seems strained at the very best. It makes use of a lot of 'but maybe , then if's', but doesn't substantially answer the questions put forth.

That's your spin. Your argument was busted.

[Cathar1950]

That's your spin. Your argument was busted.

I don't think his argument was busted. I find it reasonable. Should we take a vote?
You might find that there are even Christians that agree with his arguments.
You seem to think you bust a lot of argument where some of us don't see it that way and wonder why you make such claims and draw those conclusions.

ps I fixed my quotes and thanks. I have to eat but I will follow up on the previous post later.
Again thanks.

[Easyrider]

That's your spin. Your argument was busted.

I don't think his argument was busted. I find it reasonable. Should we take a vote?
You might find that there are even Christians that agree with his arguments.
You seem to think you bust a lot of argument where some of us don't see it that way and wonder why you make such claims and draw those conclusions.

You think Christ isn't the Messiah and resurrected Savior either, so why should I be concerned with what you think, unless you can come up with something better than you have been?

[Cathar1950]

achilles12604

1) How are they believed to be accurate yet inconsistent? I never said the Gospels were inconsistent. I was making the point that atheist analogies of the Gospels are always biased. They accuse the Gospels of being untrustowrthy because they contain inconsistencies (which outside of a few copy errors isn't true), yet the can turn around and claim that we have accurate information about other people from history dispite thier accounts being riddled with problems. This shows they are not evaluating the evidence evenly but rather are casting their own personal slant to things, even thought many claim they have no slant. This was my point.

I do say the Gospels are inconsistent even at the places where you would think they should agree. The resurrection and crucifixion is not consistent and strikes you as a development of traditions and hearsay. Mark writes a rather incomplete poorly written and haphazard story put together from various traditions with a point of taking responsibility for Jesus’ death from the Romans at a time where any idea of an earthly kingdom and restoration of Israel is treason. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was for the author a sign of the end-times. The long awaited return was just around the corner. Matthew and Luke for other communities reworked Mark for their needs and cleaned up what they say were errors and misunderstandings. But this was not the end of the gospels it was the beginning they have been reworked. My point it that evangelical apologies are always biased there is no reason to claim the gospels to be trustworthy unless you can specify the content and the context and the purpose for your claim. There is more then inconsistencies, which you deny besides copy errors and you cannot support such a view without presupposing your bias. From genealogy to the names of disciples, the NT is not the truth with facts it is the surviving history of the church in process selected with bias and politics. Much has been lost and we may never recover the story but we get closer to the situation. When we read other ancient documents that claim Augustus was the son of god and savoir of the world we do not doubt someone may have believed that, but do we?

2) Why is it you believe something that is not accurate or consistent to be without error and true?

You have a long way to go before showing that Bible to be inaccurate. As for consistent I think I will start a thred on this point so we can have it out.

As for without error and true, these are two VERY different claims. I claim the bible is true however, I never said it was without any error. In fact I acknowledged the errors I had found earlier. So your asumptions are incorrect.

Again you say our assumptions are incorrect and that remains to be seen. I am not sure what you are saying except the bible is true and that seems to be rather vague and ambiguous as well as questionable.
Pulling bible verses out of the air is not proof but it does show the circular nature of your arguments.

3) How is comparing them to another writing even reasonable given the extraordinary claims it makes?

Because of the point being discussed. We were not discussing Miracles. We were discussing inconsistencies.

4) Why is your interpretation the right one?

Which interpretation? Be more specific.

You are the one claiming your interpretation is the right one I hold no such claim.
The inconsistencies are because they are different developing tradition and interpretations.
Do you believe Augustus was the son of god and savoir? I am not discussing any miracles.
I have no doubt some one wrote that but is it true?

Easyrider:

You think Christ isn't the Messiah and resurrected Savior either, so why should I be concerned with what you think, unless you can come up with something better than you have been?

I see no reason to be concerned with what I think.
You don’t seem to know what I think. I say a messiah was a king, prophet, priest, and even Israel. Even Cyrus the great was the Messiah. I also don’t believe Jesus had to be divine to be the Messiah. I also don’t think the earliest Jewish followers or Jesus thought he was divine and they seem to be for YHWH His kingdom and His laws.
There is more then one interpretation and tradition. Even the NT reflects this. The resurrection could have been a vision shared by the community. This does not make its vision invalid because it wasn’t a body resurrection, as later gospels writers seem to take literally. Read Paul, how does a spiritual body have holes? Much of the stories are inventions passed on as tradition and finally written for specific communities of largely gentile believers for their concerns rather it be heresy or competing Jews.

Your desire for me to come up with better seems like a shallow challenge even with your small concessions, your overwhelming bias still stands unshaken and I would like to know what it is that you think could possible show you to be in error?
.

[Easyrider]

The resurrection could have been a vision shared by the community.

It was real, as the Scriptures attest, where Jesus even ate fish and challenged Thomas to put his finger in the crucifixion wounds.

[Cathar1950]

It was real, as the Scriptures attest, where Jesus even ate fish and challenged Thomas to put his finger in the crucifixion wounds.

And that is a matter of opinion and there are reasons to think otherwise.
Just because the scriptures (writings) attest something does not give it universal approval and make it an undisputed truth or fact. There is more then one opinion in the writings and the further we look back in the layers of tradition and writing, the less sure is your stance.

[Cephus]

You think Christ isn't the Messiah and resurrected Savior either, so why should I be concerned with what you think, unless you can come up with something better than you have been?

We've all come up with a lot better things, it's called REALITY, which compared to your empty claims and silly fantasy, is a far sight better. You can keep your primitive religions fantasies, I think I'll stick to reality, thanks.

[AB]

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

The 'fact' is that there was a story around, and they wrote as if the story was true. They probably believed in the core of the story, but elaborated on it.

OK. So you think they elaborated.. Prove it. Where did they elaborate? Calling you to the floor on this. As you stated before did they "just lie"?

Reading the 4 Gospels, the core of the story is intact.

[Goat]

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

The 'fact' is that there was a story around, and they wrote as if the story was true. They probably believed in the core of the story, but elaborated on it.

OK. So you think they elaborated.. Prove it. Where did they elaborate? Calling you to the floor on this. As you stated before did they "just lie"?

Reading the 4 Gospels, the core of the story is intact.

So what? The stories were written decades after the fact, with Matthew and Luke copying from Mark according to some Christian biblical scholars. That ignores the other gospels that didn't make it into the final cut by the Council of Nicea.

The fact that the 'core' of the story (in your opinion) is intact doesn't make it any truer. If you look at the date of when the gospels are believed to be written vs how elaborate the stories are, the later the writing, the more elaborate the story. That shows the development of a myth, not the relating of a historical event.