Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Hearsay?

In response to Rules of Evidence posted by Migisi:

The Gospels constitute hearsay evidence ONLY IF you accept the liberal position that they are all falsely attributed and written in the late 1st century. I do NOT accept that position, and it is a far from proven position, Migisi.

It is rather audacious of you to say that Christian apologists hold to the practice of repeating something long enough that it becomes true, when liberals have done that very thing - when it comes to higher criticism of the Bible.

I firmly believe (and it's a belief NOT outside the boundaries of reason) that the Gospels were all written by the men whose names adorn them - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Therefore, we have TWO eyewitness accounts (Matthew and John). As for the Gospel of Mark (probably the earliest Gospel), the early church regarded Peter as the eyewitness authority standing behind Mark. That leaves Luke, who COULD be dismissed as "hearsay," except for the fact that Luke is fairly respected by conservative and moderate scholars for his attention to detail in his historical research.

Nevertheless, I'll grant that Luke and Mark are not direct eyewitnesses. I will NOT grant, however, the same for Matthew and John.

» Brian Tubbs - In anticipation...

...of the tired charge by critics that the Gospel of Matthew HAS to be written by someone other than Matthew because it utilizes Mark, allow me to say...

1. Biblical scholars are virtually unanimous that the real source of ALL the Gospels is a now missing document known as 'Q,' and it is very possible that Matthew is the one responsible for 'Q'

2. If Peter is the authority behind Mark, then it's no surprise that Matthew utilized Mark.

3. If Matthew read Mark and found it to be accurate, then why reinvent the wheel? There's no reason why he wouldn't just take and utilize broad sections of Mark's Gospel.

Whether you buy these arguments or not is irrelevant, Migisi. They are plausible. They all bear the possibility of being true, and any of them makes it possible that Matthew (the tax collector and disciple of Jesus) wrote the Gospel bearing his name.

And that's just with Matthew. I've already written some articles on this subject. If you or someone else wants to refresh your memory on them....

http://protestantism.suite101.com/articl...

http://protestantism.suite101.com/articl...

Anyway, bottom line, I've done my research on this. I see no compelling reason to reject the early church's attribution of the first four Gospels.

» _Boanerges_ - Dr Luke

In response to Hearsay? posted by BrianTubbs:

Notes and Outlines - The Gospel of Luke J Vernon McGee

GOSPEL OF LUKE

WRITER:
Luke was the "beloved physician" of Colossians 4:14. He used more medical terms than Hippocrates, the father of medicine. The choice of Luke by the Holy Spirit to write the third Gospel reveals that there are no accidental writers of Scripture. There was a supernatural selection of Luke. There were "not many wise" called, but Luke belongs to that category. He and Paul were evidently on a very high intellectual level as well as a spiritual level. This partially explains why they traveled together and obviously became fast friends in the Lord.

Dr. Luke would rank as a scientist of his day. He wrote the best
Greek of any of the New Testament writers, including Paul. He was also an accurate historian. According to Sir William Ramsay, Dr. Luke was a careful historian of remarkable ability.

A great deal of tradition surrounds the life of Dr. Luke, which is needless for us to examine in a brief analysis. He writes his Gospel from Mary's viewpoint, which confirms the tradition that he got his information for his Gospel from her. Surely he conferred with her. Also there is every reason to believe that he was a Gentile. Most scholars concur in this position. Paul, in Colossians, distinguishes between those "who are of the circumcision" (Colossians 4:11) and the others who are obviously Gentiles. Luke is in the list of Gentiles (Colossians 4:14). Sir William Ramsay and J. M. Stifler affirm without reservation that Luke was a Gentile.

References to Luke: Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon
24; also the "we" section of Acts - Acts 16:10-17; 20:6; 21:18; 27:1; 28:16.

THEME: "Behold the Man"

Jesus is the second man but the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47). God is making men like Jesus (1 John 3:2), therefore Jesus is the second man - for there will be the third and even the millionth. He is the last Adam, as there will not be another head of the human family. Jesus was "made like his brethren" (Hebrews 2:17) that His brethren might be made like Him.

THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH:
Each Gospel presents Jesus from a different viewpoint. Matthew
emphasizes that Jesus was born the Messiah. Mark emphasizes that
Jesus was the Servant of Jehovah. Luke stresses the fact that Jesus was the perfect Man. John presents the fact that God became a man, but not from the scientific approach.

Dr. Luke states that he examined Jesus of Nazareth, and his findings are that Jesus is God. He came to the same conclusion as John, but his procedure and technique were different.

SPECIAL FEATURES:
Although the Gospel of Luke is one of the synoptic Gospels, it contains many features omitted by Matthew and Mark.
• Dr. Luke gives us the songs of Christmas.
• Dr. Luke has the longest account of the virgin birth of Jesus of any of the Gospels. In the first two chapters he gives us an unabashed record of obstetrics, and a clear and candid statement of the virgin birth is given. All the way from Dr. Luke to Dr. Howard Kelly, gynecologist of Johns Hopkins, there is a mighty affirmation of the virgin birth, which makes the statements of pseudo-theologians seem rather puerile when they unblushingly state that the virgin birth is a biological impossibility.
• Dr. Luke gives us 20 miracles, and 6 of them are recorded in no other Gospel.
• He likewise gives us 23 parables, and 18 of them are found
nowhere else. The parables of the prodigal son and the good
Samaritan are peculiar to the third Gospel.
• He also gives us the very human account of the walk to Emmaus of our resurrected Lord. This proves that Jesus was still human after His resurrection. Dr. Luke demonstrates that the resurrection was not of the spirit but of the body. Jesus was "sown a natural body...raised a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). A definite human sympathy pervades this Gospel, which reveals the truly human nature of Jesus as well as the big-hearted sympathy of this physician of the first century
who knew firsthand a great deal about the suffering of humanity.

Notes and Outlines - The Gospel of Luke J Vernon McGee

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Migisi - In anticipation...

In response to In anticipation... posted by BrianTubbs:

.
There are a lot of 'ifs' and 'possibles' in your post, Bri. No solid evidence/proof for any of it. Sigh.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Hearsay?

.
.
I firmly believe (and it's a belief NOT outside the boundaries of reason) that the Gospels were all written by the men whose names adorn them - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
.
I noted your 'firmly believe', which is not the same as 'know with certainty and have proof', is it.
.
That leaves Luke, who COULD be dismissed as "hearsay," except for the fact that Luke is fairly respected by conservative and moderate scholars for his attention to detail in his historical research.
.
Luke did his homework, adding more details which he'd taken from more documents and sources written/spoken by other people. Whether Luke is respected or not doesn't matter. What he wrote was hearsay.
.
I'll grant that Luke and Mark are not direct eyewitnesses. I will NOT grant, however, the same for Matthew and John.
.
Mark's 'hearsay' is the earliest gospel - from which Matthew borrowed ~heavily~. That would make Matthew hearsay too. If Matthew was an eyewitness, he wouldn't have needed to get his information from Mark.
.
And John? John who? The Apostle John (son of Zebedee) didn't identify himself as the author of the 4th Gospel. By contrast, Apostle John used his own name five times in the Book of Revelations. Why didn't John identify himself as the author in the 4th Gospel? Isn't it quite possible that Apostle John didn't write it? The "disciple whom Jesus loved" did. It's probable that this anonymous disciple and Apostle John were two different people. Here's a fascinating work which, through the examination of scripture, attributes the 4th Gospel to Lazarus. The author provides very compelling evidence. It's really worth reading, IMO.
.
Who wrote the Gospel of John? The disciple whom Jesus loved.
http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com...
.
And here's a short addendum:
The Gospel of John and the top ten reasons to
trust the Bible instead of the traditions of men:
http://www.thegospelofjohn.com/GospelOfJ...

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - Rules of Evidence

In response to Rules of Evidence posted by Migisi:

My 2 earlier posts here musta really been confusing. ABC

Tis pretty tough playing the evidence game on spirituality. Some (invariably selective) evidence presented, whatever its make-up, may be self-serving eg maybe there is helpful evidence in the Vatican's dungeons that won't see the light of day because it may help the "opposition". And its "not my job" escape clause. Sometimes, there is the 'reasonable person test' to decide the evidence. This test may result in one reasonable person believing and another not...so tis why I reckoned it doesn't apply here IMO.

Then there are the self-executing provisions of law. If one event happens, another (consequence) must follow. Now, just coz I don't know them all, doesn't mean it won't happen. The Bible is the enabler here. We...and God...are bound by them. And ignorance of the law...and one's relative inability to collect and evaluate evidence, is no excuse.

You can draw on your police background. I draw on my "special magistrate" background to work out how I weigh evidence. We may both have some idea of irrelevant and inadmissable evidence. But are you sure it has any real weight in this Godly Court? And is Brian a Clerk of the Court or a Judge's Associate?

-- posted by redback

» Migisi - Rules of Evidence

In response to Rules of Evidence posted by redback:

.
We may both have some idea of irrelevant and inadmissable evidence. But are you sure it has any real weight in this Godly Court?
.
"Faith" is defined as 'belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. Therefore, evidence/proof has little to no weight in spiritual concepts. It's irrelevant to belief. Yet, apologists insist on presenting so-called evidence to bolster their bold claim that their beliefs alone are the absolute truth.
.
And is Brian a Clerk of the Court or a Judge's Associate?
.
Which depends on his mood. (wink)

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - sorry, Mig - Rules of Evidence

In response to Rules of Evidence posted by Migisi:

only true according to your rules - given by men. Christianity teaches the opposite - which is given by God...

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I'm sure you have a smoke detector in your house.. If not, then that would be nothing less than foolish procrastination.

Smoke inhalation kills six family members in St. Joseph fire
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/2306...

(note to the above link: as you are aware, I sell home security systems for ADT. I contacted this person 6 months ago and they turned down our offer...)

You ~may not~ see a fire in your house now - but you nonetheless have a smoke alarm.. ---- W H Y ------

I will tell you why.....

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for (safety from fire), the evidence of things not seen (no fire in your home at this precise moment).

I could give you hundreds of examples in YOUR everyday life, where YOU place faith in evidence of the unseen. To deny this self-revealing fact is not only ignorance, it is even more, irresponsible.

To stand on your continual position that "blind faith" (without evidence) is what Christians accept as truth is not only irrational - but even more - placing ones head in the sand. The only reason I could imagine people cling to such stupidity is not because of what Christianity teaches (reveals) but the rejection of such - because of their self-righteousness.

To firmly place my position into something EVEN MORE tangible, again, I ask - are you certain you will be missing your home owners insurance payment this month?.. medical?.. or whatever else people "insure" against - which is nothing less than - the "unseen". These occurrences happen every day, millions of times over and again - verifying the [reality] of an [objective truth]. I believe even a child can grasp this simple fundamental truth...

but then..

in a world gone mad - with endless relativism, self righteousness and denial - one can only imagine the lack of knowledge the next generation has been taught and what it will bring.. It will certainly not be "liberation" but can only lead to self-destruction....

Certainly this paradoxical dilemma can be attributed directly on the parents....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - irrational argument

In response to Rules of Evidence posted by Migisi:

why?

Yet, apologists insist on presenting so-called evidence to bolster their bold claim that their beliefs alone are the absolute truth.

In fact, is this precisely what you are doing? I shall re-word your statement: "Yet, apologists insist on presenting so-called evidence to bolster their bold claim that [others] beliefs alone are [not] the absolute truth".

As you can plainly see.. this is not only a fallacious argument, but failure to recognize it as such is irrational....

sorry.... but.. I believe most people are rational and seek that which is not - irrational (a million unseen evidences could be offered here)...

Logic (philosophical argument) - is only a stepping stone to truth - it is not - THE truth.. If it were, it would cease to be a philosophical argument - which is what you are presenting - without any evidence... Your evidence is only a negative.. and it is impossible to prove a negative - which is the basis for irrational ism

ir·ra·tion·al·ism
Belief in feeling, instinct, or other nonrational forces rather than reason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - capricious comes to mind

...In your example and in Phil's, this is only an objective truth - based on both your stated comings and goings of your spiritual journey. However, this is not true in my case... I once was nothing - and could care less about God, afterlife, the spiritual, etc, etc... BUT - once I realized truth - I cannot be shaken - as you both have been in your past and/or recent past...

This is not a kick in the shins, Mig, as I am your friend. It is simply an empirical fact that must be stated. And that is an objective truth..

Proverb:27:6: Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

No ill will intended.. but based on the recent discussions of late - I can only assume that 'love thy enemy' is lost in the translation.....

Matthew 5:43-48
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

-- posted by _Boanerges_