Jesus in action

[mikexmoran]

...If someone says that his action is not lawful he responds by saying that he is the law.
Amen
View attachment 381383

or Give unto Caesar

 

[sean miguel]

Which is not primary evidence.

No, but eyewitness testimony would be.

 

[sean miguel]

Yes, it it would be. Do you have one?

He was born at least 30 years after Jesus died.

Matthew for one, and the apostle John. They were contemporaries of Jesus and were eyewitnesses to his life recorded in the new testament books of Matthew and John respectively. These were their eyewitness accounts.

 

[ThatRedWing]

 

[assari]

Jesus certainly will not accept that the church staff engaged in the real estate or any other business.

Almost all people listen to music so it is possible that Jesus could record a few songs and the lyrics of these songs will reach the general public.

 

[mikexmoran]

No, but eyewitness testimony would be.

Yes, it it would be. Do you have one?

He was born at least 30 years after Jesus died.

 

[sean miguel]

Yes, it it would be. Do you have one?

He was born at least 30 years after Jesus died.

Weird, my reply to this post was on the last page.

 

[mikexmoran]

Matthew for one, and the apostle John. They were contemporaries of Jesus and were eyewitnesses to his life recorded in the new testament books of Matthew and John respectively. These were their eyewitness accounts.

Many historians do not consider Matthew to be an eye witness. It is actually thought to be someone else writing to a specific audience.

Also, many historians do not believe John wrote the gospel as well. They tend to date it c. 80-90.

Luke can't be confirmed to be an eye witness.

Without digging to much you'll find that scholars tend to believe that most of the gospels were written by second generation Christians. Also, if there is archaeological evidence supporting the existence of a historical Jesus or any of the apostles, I am not aware of it.

My only point of my commentary was that you can't prove the origins of the bible. Wouldn't reason be a better belief system. Heck, I could be wrong, I really don't think God cares if you believe in the bible, what version, or what is holds. However, nobody's believe in the bible has any more legitimate claim that what I just stated. The wars and persecutions that pushed their belief as fact, was in fact fraudulent.

I'm at odds with the Catholic church on this view...perhaps that is obvious.

 

[sean miguel]

Many historians do not consider Matthew to be an eye witness. It is actually thought to be someone else writing to a specific audience.

Also, many historians do not believe John wrote the gospel as well. They tend to date it c. 80-90.

Luke can't be confirmed to be an eye witness.

Without digging to much you'll find that scholars tend to believe that most of the gospels were written by second generation Christians. Also, if there is archaeological evidence supporting the existence of a historical Jesus or any of the apostles, I am not aware of it.

My only point of my commentary was that you can't prove the origins of the bible. Wouldn't reason be a better belief system. Heck, I could be wrong, I really don't think God cares if you believe in the bible, what version, or what is holds. However, nobody's believe in the bible has any more legitimate claim that what I just stated. The wars and persecutions that pushed their belief as fact, was in fact fraudulent.

I'm at odds with the Catholic church on this view...perhaps that is obvious.

The thing about the dates is that none of the writers of the new testament mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. That was a momentous event and for many in that region a cataclysmic event. Yet no mention of it, other than Jesus predicting it in Mark 13:1-4. That would tend to suggest that the gospels and the entire new testament was written prior to 70 A.D.

 

[mikexmoran]

The thing about the dates is that none of the writers of the new testament mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. That was a momentous event and for many in that region a cataclysmic event. Yet no mention of it, other than Jesus predicting it in Mark 13:1-4. That would tend to suggest that the gospels and the entire new testament was written prior to 70 A.D.

Liberal and secular scholars tend to believe that Mark: 131-4 would be lead them to believe it was written after the event. Conservative scholars accept the prophecy of Jesus. My point is that this isn't evidence.

I'm ok if you believe that the gospels were eye witness to Jesus' life. If you can coexist with my belief that they were a fabrication after the fact, then I think we're doing better than a good part of history and current events.


"...And so we argue and we compromise,
and realize that nothing's ever changed,
For all our mutual experience, our separate conclusions are the same...." ---WMJ