Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Maeght]

We are debating what the fine detail in the Gospels is about.
So those are acts, miracles, preaching, and teaching. and not just miracles.

But you aren't talking about whether they were made up or not. The topic is not what they are about but whether they were made up.

[ippy]

Ippy

Are you by any chance suggesting that Vlad and his posts are a joke?

I meant what I said in that post, no more or any less, I see the crude as something similar to little children running away from somewhere after having written their first rude word put on public display.

As for his struggle with English, trying to impress by using big words, for him, mostly out of context, this lets him down so often and is inclined to do him more of a disservice rather than help him fight his corner.

He would be better using basic and more easily understood English than, as it looks to me, stretching out just that bit too far with his use of language as he does, has done so far and shows signs of continuing to do so.

Regards ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

A Panto dame requires a couple of huge false tits..............and right on cue you and Owlswing turn up.

Better being a false tit than a right proper one, eh?

[Owlswing]

I meant what I said in that post, no more or any less, I see the crude as something similar to little children running away from somewhere after having written their first rude word put on public display.

As for his struggle with English, trying to impress by using big words, for him, mostly out of context, this lets him down so often and is inclined to do him more of a disservice rather than help him fight his corner.

He would be better using basic and more easily understood English than, as it looks to me, stretching out just that bit too far with his use of language as he does, has done so far and shows signs of continuing to do so.

Regards ippy

He has had this explained to him by others far more qualified than I.

However, as with his adherance to Christianity, any hint that he is in error, in anything, is rejected outright.

 

[Owlswing]

Better being a false tit than a right proper one, eh?

Yeah!  Lop-sided too!

[ippy]

He has had this explained to him by others far more qualified than I.

However, as with his adherance to Christianity, any hint that he is in error, in anything, is rejected outright.

Yes he has had this explained to him Owl, but I'm trying my best to explain this problem he has, only in words he would be able to understand without recourse to google for every other word.

Regards ippy

[floo]

I wonder if Paul's, 'conversion', was the result of an epileptic seizure?

[Spud]

Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?

[Shaker]

Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?

"My companions saw the light"?

My money goes on photosensitive temporal lobe epilepsy.

[Owlswing]

Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?

Was this provably written or said by Saul?

[Maeght]

Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?

Aren't there two different accounts?

[Spud]

"My companions saw the light"?

My money goes on photosensitive temporal lobe epilepsy.

So they all had a seizure at once?

[Maeght]

So they all had a seizure at once?

Doesn't one account say they didn't see anything? Also, if someone is telling a story like that you might imagine he would say other people saw it too to make it more believable. Not necessarily lying but people add stuff to stories in the retelling all the time often to convince themselves.

[floo]

Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?

Maybe it was a lightening flash, causing Paul to have a seizure?

[Shaker]

So they all had a seizure at once?

Where's the evidence that all of them had a seizure?

[Spud]

He describes a meeting with Cephas (Peter) and James in Jerusalem. But he never attributes any of the things he preaches to either of them.

Whatever the contradictions (Acts 9:19-30 seems to conflict with Galations 1-2), the revelation Paul speaks of in Galations 1:12 would probably refer to Jesus appearing to him, thus confirming what he must already have known during the time when he persecuted Christians - that Jesus was said to have died for our sins according to the scriptures, been buried and raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). So this is evidence that the resurrection itself was not a legend added decades later to embellish the gospel stories.

[Spud]

Maybe it was a lightening flash, causing Paul to have a seizure?

What about the noise which the other people with him heard but did not understand? (Assuming they saw the light and heard some kind of sound as reported in Acts 22)

[Shaker]

What about the noise which the other people with him heard but did not understand? (Assuming they saw the light and heard some kind of sound as reported in Acts 22)

What's a loud noise, often associated with lightning? Seven letters: T _ _ N D _ R.

[Gordon]

Whatever the contradictions (Acts 9:19-30 seems to conflict with Galations 1-2), the revelation Paul speaks of in Galations 1:12 would probably refer to Jesus appearing to him, thus confirming what he must already have known during the time when he persecuted Christians - that Jesus was said to have died for our sins according to the scriptures, been buried and raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). So this is evidence that the resurrection itself was not a legend added decades later to embellish the gospel stories.

So, if this scripture stuff is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus you'll have taken meaningful steps to assess the risk of mistakes and lies - and these steps were?

[floo]

Funny Spud couldn't work out that a flash of light is often followed by a loud noise!

[Spud]

What's a loud noise, often associated with lightning? Seven letters: T _ _ N D _ R.

Shall we let scripture interpret scripture? Can you find another bible passage in which there is lightening and thunder, which is not described as lightening and thunder? In other words, if it was thunder I think they would have called it that! (There may also have been rain)

[Gordon]

Shall we let scripture interpret scripture? Can you find another bible passage in which there is lightening and thunder, which is not described as lightening and thunder? In other words, if it was thunder I think they would have called it that! (There may also have been rain)

No - let's not 'let scripture interpret scripture'.

Let's take a more sceptical approach that brings other aspects into the interpretation - such as the risks of human artifice. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, if this scripture stuff is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus you'll have taken meaningful steps to assess the risk of mistakes and lies - and these steps were?

Can you please exemplify by doing said risk assessment on any ancient document/s of your choice?

Thank you.

[Gordon]

Can you please exemplify by doing said risk assessment on any ancient document/s of your choice?

Thank you.

Nope: I'm not making any claims about any ancient documents.

It is for those of you who subscribe to the resurrection of Jesus claim based on the content on the NT to demonstrate that the relevant bits of the NT are free of mistakes and lies, and also explain how you've come to this conclusion.

[Owlswing]

Can you please exemplify by doing said risk assessment on any ancient document/s of your choice?

Thank you.

Wriggle!

Wriigle!

Wriggle!

WRIGGLE!