Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#1,351
#1,351
droski said:
there was no tv, no radio. they had very little to do. they can't take say 30 minutes a day writing it out? say a page a day. seems like they should be able to crank it out pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Of course, they had planes and cars to travel to different towns on the Great Commission, too.
 
#1,352
#1,352
droski said:
there was no tv, no radio. they had very little to do. they can't take say 30 minutes a day writing it out? say a page a day. seems like they should be able to crank it out pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

How long would you say that it would take someone in those times to write out something in either 3 of those languages, based on things that were happening in the region at the time??

*Note : This is a loaded question, and if you try and give a specific answer, you have no proof as to how long it would take. Therefore, the best course of action is to say, I have no clue, because I don't and I'm not going to sit here and say they could write anything back then in a given amount of time. There is not one single person on the board who could give such an answer.
 
#1,353
#1,353
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Because Jesus asked people to follow him, so he could teach them. This wasn't classroom based instruction. Heck, most of the time they were being taught, they were in places they didn't have access to any of the parchment or other things to write with. You think if Jesus wanted that done, he wouldn't have asked them to do it, while he walked with them?? They were constantly on the move, with no place to store anything they had. Most of the time it took a miracle, just to feed the multitude of people around them. I mean, over 10,000 people were witness to 2 miracles involving food and feeding the multitudes.

Everything about Jesus is about having faith that he will do what he says, and he did, according to the Gospels and the prophets of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

maybe jesus had zero intention of starting a new religion.
 
#1,354
#1,354
g8terh8ter_eric said:
How long would you say that it would take someone in those times to write out something in either 3 of those languages, based on things that were happening in the region at the time??

*Note : This is a loaded question, and if you try and give a specific answer, you have no proof as to how long it would take. Therefore, the best course of action is to say, I have no clue, because I don't and I'm not going to sit here and say they could write anything back then in a given amount of time. There is not one single person on the board who could give such an answer.
Click to expand...

their actually is plenty of documented proof as to the length of writing many manuscripts. the romans of the time kept very specific records.
 
#1,357
#1,357
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Jesus didn't start a new religion, he started a New Covenant and made a new promise. I believe in what the Bible says, and question the things than I learn in church, as any believer should.
Click to expand...

so why would he tell them to write it down or to not write it down?

g8terh8ter_eric said:
Oh, so they had people following them around to find out how long it was taking them to write it??
Click to expand...

not understanding you. no, no one followed jesus followers around and found out how quickly they can write. yes their are written accounts of the writing process and the time it took for people of that era.
 
#1,358
#1,358
droski said:
1. so why would he tell them to write it down or to not write it down?



2. not understanding you. no, no one followed jesus followers around and found out how quickly they can write. yes their are written accounts of the writing process and the time it took for people of that era.
Click to expand...

1. That's just not the way it went down, and it's not the way Jesus chose to do things.

2. Again, your assuming you know how long it takes, or anyone knows how long it takes, for the Gospels to be written. There is NO way of knowing for sure, and people assuming they know, based on anything, is nothing more than an assumption, period. Who cares if it took 4 years, or 14 years, the point for me is that they were written, not the amount of time it took. I think your just trying to split hairs just to split hairs, on this subject. Of course, that's what most non-believers do, in an effort to frustrate Christians.
 
#1,359
#1,359
g8terh8ter_eric said:
1. That's just not the way it went down, and it's not the way Jesus chose to do things.

2. Again, your assuming you know how long it takes, or anyone knows how long it takes, for the Gospels to be written. There is NO way of knowing for sure, and people assuming they know, based on anything, is nothing more than an assumption, period. Who cares if it took 4 years, or 14 years, the point for me is that they were written, not the amount of time it took. I think your just trying to split hairs just to split hairs, on this subject. Of course, that's what most non-believers do, in an effort to frustrate Christians.
Click to expand...

1. And you know this 2,000 years later because. . . ? does jesus talk to you directly?

2. You don't think the answer to the question as to why it was written years later would be enlighting for all involved? who knows maybe it could PROVE taht these things happened. we don't know. not discussing things seems like a great way to insure we never learn anything.
 
#1,360
#1,360
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Who cares if it took 4 years, or 14 years, the point for me is that they were written, not the amount of time it took. I think your just trying to split hairs just to split hairs, on this subject. Of course, that's what most non-believers do, in an effort to frustrate Christians.
Click to expand...

And how about 70 years? The claim that started this was that those who did the writing weren't the ones who did the witnessing.

And about the comment about Jesus not being wealthy; debatable. He was, after all, a craftsman in a time without Wall Street investment bankers. "Simple carpenter" has a different meaning.
 
#1,361
#1,361
droski said:
1. And you know this 2,000 years later because. . . ? does jesus talk to you directly?

2. You don't think the answer to the question as to why it was written years later would be enlighting for all involved? who knows maybe it could PROVE taht these things happened. we don't know. not discussing things seems like a great way to insure we never learn anything.
Click to expand...

1. It's in the Gospels. He asked them to follow him, and he taught them along the way. A lot of the times they were in places where writing wasn't going to happen. Yes, he speaks with me directly and indirectly, just like he does all other believers. It's called a person relationship with Jesus, and it's different with every believer. He doesn't give me revelations or anything, but he let's me know that everything is going to be just fine, and not to sweat the small stuff. At least that's what he personally deals with me.

2. Again, if someone writes a book about anything historic, that's several years later, does that bring every author who has done so into question, especially being that the person who wrote the book was an eyewitness?? What if that person just didn't have the time to do so, when it pleased them or you?? Wouldn't you say as well, that people who have written books much later on certain subjects they were involved with, have given better accounts to what happened, because they had more to draw from in their experiences??
 
#1,364
#1,364
fl0at said:
And how about 70 years? The claim that started this was that those who did the writing weren't the ones who did the witnessing.
Click to expand...

and droski's point about the telephone game is valid. Oral stories change over time, that's how we ended up with characters like Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan and so on.
 
#1,366
#1,366
g8terh8ter_eric said:
So, your saying it's impossible for it to be accurate??
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the writer wasn't the witness, and that stories change over time. Memories change over time as well.

So a story about a memory, even if directly from a witness who never blinked... still changes over time.
 
#1,367
#1,367
g8terh8ter_eric said:
1. It's in the Gospels. He asked them to follow him, and he taught them along the way. A lot of the times they were in places where writing wasn't going to happen. Yes, he speaks with me directly and indirectly, just like he does all other believers. It's called a person relationship with Jesus, and it's different with every believer. He doesn't give me revelations or anything, but he let's me know that everything is going to be just fine, and not to sweat the small stuff. At least that's what he personally deals with me.

2. Again, if someone writes a book about anything historic, that's several years later, does that bring every author who has done so into question, especially being that the person who wrote the book was an eyewitness?? What if that person just didn't have the time to do so, when it pleased them or you?? Wouldn't you say as well, that people who have written books much later on certain subjects they were involved with, have given better accounts to what happened, because they had more to draw from in their experiences??
Click to expand...

1. The gospels say that jesus' followers didn't have time to write things down?

2. Yes i'd say that people who wrote things on 3rd hand information generally have their works questioned more than first hand accounts.
 
#1,369
#1,369
fl0at said:
I'm saying that the writer wasn't the witness, and that stories change over time. Memories change over time as well.

So a story about a memory, even if directly from a witness who never blinked... still changes over time.
Click to expand...

See, it's easy for people to question everything about the New Testament, versus just believing it happened. Do you believe the genealogy account in the first chapter of Matthew??
 
#1,371
#1,371
droski said:
1. The gospels say that jesus' followers didn't have time to write things down?

2. Yes i'd say that people who wrote things on 3rd hand information generally have their works questioned more than first hand accounts.
Click to expand...

1. So, even if they did write some of these things down, does that mean that if they weren't used till several years later in writing the Gospels, that somehow the information isn't true??

2. Yet, in today's age, people whom first write books are sometimes not considered to be as accurate, as people who write books years after something happens. Probably true back then as well, considering what went on. I mean, they didn't have JTV and do a reality show of it.
 
#1,374
#1,374
g8terh8ter_eric said:
1. So, even if they did write some of these things down, does that mean that if they weren't used till several years later in writing the Gospels, that somehow the information isn't true??

2. Yet, in today's age, people whom first write books are sometimes not considered to be as accurate, as people who write books years after something happens. Probably true back then as well, considering what went on. I mean, they didn't have JTV and do a reality show of it.
Click to expand...

1. No it means that that information gets put into question more than if they had written it down immediately. You wont hear me arguing I know for a fact jesus didn't do what it says in the bible. I don't think he did those things, but do i know 100%. of course not.

2. can you give me an example?
 
#1,375
#1,375
droski said:
questioning things is not the same thing as saying that you know anything 100%.
Click to expand...

He questions my belief system, yet can't tell me what Jesus told his disciples to do after he was gone. If he knew what he told them to do, he might have a clue as to why they didn't spend the next few years or more writing everything down.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top