Bible Questions?

Mark is believed to be the first gospel, around 65-70 A.D. Matthew and Luke are believed to have been written after the destruction of the temple in 80-85 A.D. They both seem to have used Mark, so Mark would be the main witness for some of their work. John came later, around 90-95 A.D. If these guys were eyewitnesses, they are way old, and there was quite a time lapse between their witnessing and their testimony. I gave you my "at least" as a very conservative estimate.

 

Then it wouldn't be eyewitness now would it?

Maybe you and your "scholars" don't know who wrote them and don't know what they witnessed but God knows and had them write it down for us.

Yes I do say and being a "scholar" does not mean they know what they are talking about.

Yes it is exactly what they did, especially as far as the "Old Testament" is concerned.

Of the "Old Testament"? In Greek? Yeah right.

Do you even try to understand what the Bible is saying or are you so caught up in trying to make the Bible conform to you that you just don't care.

Did I say that they did?

No you could go on, what is interesting is how far you will go to rationalize your lifestyle choices.

I have pointed out the context, but you ignore it because you are more concerned with your agenda than what God wants.

Well be his follower then, because you seem to care less what Jesus says whether it is well-reasoned and compelling or not.

 

No, it sure wouldn't. That's my point.

 

The exact dates they were written is not known and so the dates for them do vary.

Some also believe that Matthew was written first in about 41 CE, then Luke in about 56-8 CE, then Mark in about 60-5 CE and last John in about 98CE.

Next let's look at "way old", Jesus died in 33 CE at about 33 years old and so if the writers were about the same age as Jesus that would mean that Matthew was 41 when he wrote Matthew only about 8 years after Jesus' death. Luke would have been 56-8 years old when he wrote Luke. Mark would have been 60-5 when he wrote Mark and John who was the last of the apostles alive would have been about 98, not an impossible age, when he wrote John.

 

Really?

A 98 year old man who lived a difficult and trying life; living in an age devoid of any real medicine or tools for helping the elderly; lived to be 98 and at that age(well above the expectancy for any people of any time) was still coherent enough to write this all out?

Really?

 

. I said, it sure wouldn't. That's my point. If it;s hearsay, it wouldn't stand up in court, and it wouldn't be eyewitness. Eyewitness stricly speaking can't be based on second hand testimony.

No, it;s always best to view them with a critical eye, as we also should the opinions of sidewalk preachers who haven't studied them.

You lost me there old timer. I was talking about the New Testament, and yes, it was in Greek.

. I could ask you the same question.

Seems to be like the pot calling the kettle black. I've never heard such convoluted arguments to justify your primitivistic orthodoxy, to borrow a phrase from Shcleirmacher.

What exactly is my agenda? Do you have an agenda too? Then there's a pair of us, don't tell, they'll banish us you know.

 

No that is not your point. You said that eyewitnesses would not be accepted in court, I said they would. You then said they wouldn't be accepted if they weren't eyewitnesses and I said then they wouldn't be eyewitnesses would they.

Or sidewalk preachers who have studied them, for that matter.

Actually this is what you said:

It sure seems like you are talking about the "Old Testament" being in Greek.

Since you didn't answer but oh well....
No, I do not try to make the Bible conform to me. I allow the Bible to say what it is going to say with out spending a lot of time trying to prove that not all of the Bible can be trusted or doesn't apply to me, as you seem to do.

 

Really.

 

Judging by this reply; even you realize how ridiculous you look.

I mean seriously, the life expectancy for the rich elite-class people was only in the low 30s at that time.
And by the timeline I think you've established for your beliefs, dinosaurs were still roaming around at that point - which put everyone at great risk.

 

Let me tell you what my point is. You made the statement that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses. I'm saying their testimony wouln't stand up in court, because although they witinessed the events, their testimony isn't directly available. It is available only by non-witnesses quoting them. That's called hearsay. if you want to quibble about it, go ahead.

You are absolutely correct. I meant to write New Testament. I know the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's strictly a case of thinking one thing and writing another.
Since you didn't answer but oh well....
No, I do not try to make the Bible conform to me. I allow the Bible to say what it is going to say with out spending a lot of time trying to prove that not all of the Bible can be trusted or doesn't apply to me, as you seem to do.[/QUOTE]

 

Really? too bad you don't realize how ridiculous you look.

So? You don't even know the difference between Life expectancy and and actual life span. Life expectancy and and actual life span are two different things. Even now life expectancy is about 80 and yet people die at birth and some live to 110 or more, with a life expectancy of only about 80 how is that possible?

Yeah, right.

 

It could be that the lifestyle he was living expanded his life far beyond the life expectancy of his day.

Scientists, as an example, found a link between lifestyle and life expectancy.

Buddhist monks eat one meal a day and spend much of their time in meditation, yet their life expectancy is equal to the United States.

 

Is God only available to scholars and intellectuals? That's one of the things that bugs me when scholars and their viewpoints are often brought up because Jesus' disciples were common everyday men (and some were not). I think God's truth is available to all despite their abilities.

I believe that the Bible was written in such a way for all because God see's everyone as being equal so he would want his truth to be available to everyone equally.

 

We understand according to our understanding. Let those who have ears hear.
Do you also believe that God's truth is accessible even if the bible is not?

 

Could be. There are just lots and lots of "could be's" to explain away problems in people who are supposed to be "eyewitnesses" to events, and not much in the way of substantiating evidence. Why bother with the "witnesses" at all. Why not just say, I'm going to believe this because I am and nobody can stop me?

 

:iagree:

 

This seemed out of left field, but it comes up often it seems amongst Protestants.

Catholic philosophizing about God doesn't exclude those who do not have the time/intellect/whatever from God. What it means is that there are people who do have the time/intellect/whatever to devote to such things. For them, it is a spiritual as well as intellectual matter. I study theology. I think about specifics--(what is the Trinity? Where is Christ's presence in the Eucharist?) I find it deepens my faith.

For others, simply reading the Bible deepens their faith to levels I am not even at. For others.....you get the picture.

The same goes for scholarly work in religion as well. I also study religion in an academic setting. I understand that the Gospels may not have been literally written by the people attributed to them. Some of Paul's letter's may not have been literally written by him. And I am okay with that paradox. It helps me to understand the development of the faith.

Scholars have valid viewpoints when debating the meaning of specific words in a specific context. I mean, I could "translate" the Bible into anything. For me, John 3:16 now says that I am the new Christ. Now, scholars will tell me that is not what it says in the Greek. That is where I see value in Biblical scholarship. It helps to not take one guy for granted, get a range of opinions.

Where there is probably greater value is in the Spirit. We can read the same scripture twice on two different days, but he will teach us different things often. In a class on Christian spirituality, our professor led us through Benedictine Lectio Divina (a process by which St Benedict of Nursia wished all people to have "Scripture written on their hearts". The next class, we were led through a different form of Lectio and for a number of students (and our prof) the Spirit led them to different teachings from the same passages from Scripture.

Also, look at some of the private revelations that have come from God after the writing of Scripture. The Fatima visions were not given to the Pope, they were given to some young girls. (By the by, visions and revelations that are deemed private by the Church are not required for belief, but are deemed "worthy of belief").

 

Then, for the evangelist bias what is the problem with redemption? In the here and now is it ever a matter of coming to terms with an uncertainty of God being the only reconciler of fellow humanity?

 

You have never usurped the power of God.