This_person
Well-Known Member
I would agree that people choose what they believe they need, and have the right to spend their money on their perceptions as they wish.
Religion a Figment of Human Imagination...........
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
PsyOps
Pixelated
Maybe it was my interpretation?
Metal over-dose will cause these misinterpretations. Lay off the metal for a while. You might see all sorts of things coming clearer.
wxtornado
The Other White Meat
You see, you just don't understand jazz. I'll try to tone it down for you next time.
By the way sir, I never told you - very impressive on the guitar! Thanks for sharing
tommyjones
New Member
i dont believe that christians aren't enjoying their lives, or that they are some type of zombies. I just KNOW that the bible was written by men and that any understanding of the afterlife we have from it is questionable.
the only way you will know what awaits you is to die. until then you are only pretending to know.
PsyOps
Pixelated
By the way sir, I never told you - very impressive on the guitar! Thanks for sharing
Thanks. I'm no "sir". Just a humble guitar player.
PsyOps
Pixelated
The bible was, indeed, written by men, inspired by God. And I have a lot of questions about the afterlife. Of course, my questions don't come from a standpoint of doubt; just curiosity.
I suppose when it comes to these discussions we are all pretending to know. But the bottom line is......
You're wrong!!!!!!!
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
tommyjones, it's called Faith.
Most, if not all Christians accept that yes, the Bible was in fact written by men, but they were inspired by God to scribe, or write down their thoughts on papyrus, or whatever was available to them at the time. In the Old Testament, this was especially true. Sometimes it came to them in a dream, other times they fell into a trance - or something like it, and the Holy Spirit(another part of the Trinity)enabled them to pen what the Lord God was relating to them. Later, in the New Testament, you had four men - the Four Gospels - who had personal contact with Jesus Christ. They were able to directly quote from memory - His Words.
This is how I understand it was done.
Hi Penn,
The evangelists Mark and Luke did not have direct contact with Jesus Christ.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Saint Mark
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint Luke
Although these sources are from a Catholic cite, you will find corroboration for it anywhere.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
In the first entry concerning Mark, there appears to be a little vagueness. It seems Mark was old enough to have been around in Jerusalem, etc., but they are not sure if he did or did not directly see Jesus:
"In the preface to his <!--k03--><!---->Gospel<!----> in manuscripts of the Vulgate, <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31--> is represented as having been a Jewish priest: "Mark the Evangelist, who exercised the priestly office in Israel, a Levite by race". <!--k30-->Early<!--k31--> <!--k30-->authorities<!--k31-->, however, are <!--k05-->silent upon the point, and it is perhaps only an inference from his relation to <!--k30-->Barnabas<!--k31--> the Levite (Acts 4:36). <!--k03--><!---->Papias<!----> (in Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, <!--k30-->xxxix<!--k31-->) says, on the authority of "the elder", that <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31--> neither heard the <!--k30-->Lord<!--k31--> nor followed Him (oute <!--k30-->gar<!--k31--> <!--k30-->ekouse<!--k31--> <!--k30-->tou<!--k31--> <!--k30-->kurion<!--k31--> <!--k30-->oute<!--k31--> <!--k30-->parekoluthesen<!--k31--> <!--k30-->auto<!--k31-->), and the same statement is made in the <!--k30-->Dialogue<!--k31--> of <!--k30-->Adamantius<!--k31--> (fourth century, <!--k30-->Leipzig<!--k31-->, 1901, p. 8), by Eusebius ("Demonst. Evang.", III, v), by St. Jerome ("In <!--k30-->Matth."<!--k31-->), by <!--k30-->St.<!--k31--> <!--k30-->Augustine<!--k31--> ("De <!--k30-->Consens<!--k31-->. Evang."), and is suggested by the Muratorian Fragment. Later <!--k30-->tradition<!--k31-->, however, makes <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31--> one of the <!--k30-->seventy-two<!--k31--> <!--k05-->disciples, and St. Epiphanius ("Hær", li, 6) says he was one of those who withdrew from <!--k30-->Christ<!--k31--> (John 6:67). The later <!--k30-->tradition<!--k31--> can have no weight against the earlier evidence, but the statement that <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31--> neither heard the <!--k30-->Lord<!--k31--> nor followed Him need not be pressed too strictly, nor force us to <!--k05-->believe that he never saw <!--k30-->Christ<!--k31-->. Many indeed are of opinion that the young man who fled naked from <!--k05-->Gethsemane (Mark 14:51) was <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31--> himself. <!--k30-->Early<!--k31--> in the third century Hippolytus ("Philosophumena", VII, <!--k30-->xxx<!--k31-->) refers to <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31--> as ho <!--k30-->kolobodaktulos<!--k31-->, i.e. "stump-fingered" or "mutilated in the finger(s)", and later <!--k30-->authorities<!--k31--> allude to the same defect. <!--k30-->Various<!--k31--> explanations of the <!--k30-->epithet<!--k31--> have been suggested: that <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31-->, after he embraced Christianity, cut off his thumb to unfit himself for the Jewish priesthood; that his fingers were <!--k30-->naturally<!--k31--> <!--k30-->stumpy<!--k31-->; that some defect in his <!--k30-->toes<!--k31--> is alluded to; that the <!--k30-->epithet<!--k31--> is to be regarded as metaphorical, and means "deserted" (cf. Acts 13:13)."
I've highlighted it in red/blue and green; it seems they are not sure themselves.
As to Luke, I'm still looking.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
I did not see, anywhere in the second URL cited, Gospel of St. Luke, where Luke had or had not met Jesus. However, it does point out - seriously - that
Luke was in fact a physician and a historian. There had been many attempts, both in this document, as well as others trying to discredit, or prove Luke's Gospel and His later book, Acts, as untruthful or incorrect. I read the entire document, and it plainly spells out the truthfulness of Luke's writings. Many critics in the last 900 - 1000 years have tried to cast doubt, but many, many others say the critics cries cannot be proven.
Further on down in the document, I saw this offering:
"The best information as to his sources is given by <!--k30-->St.<!--k31--> <!--k30-->Luke<!--k31-->, in the beginning of his <!--k03--><!---->Gospel<!---->. As many had written accounts as they heard them from "eyewitnesses and <!--k01--><!---->ministers<!----> of the <!--k30-->word<!--k31-->", it seemed <!--k03--><!---->good<!----> to him also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write an ordered narrative. He had two sources of information, then, eyewitnesses (including <!--k05-->Apostles) and written documents taken down from the words of eyewitnesses. The <!--k30-->accuracy<!--k31--> of these documents he was in a position to <!--k30-->test<!--k31--> by his knowledge of the <!--k05-->character of the writers, and by comparing them with the <!--k30-->actual<!--k31--> words of the <!--k05-->Apostles and other eyewitnesses. <!--k94-->That he used written documents seems evident on comparing his <!--k03--><!---->Gospel<!----> with the other two <!--k30-->Synoptic<!--k31--> <!--k05-->Gospels, <!--k30-->Matthew<!--k31--> and <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31-->. All three frequently agree even in minute details, but in other respects there is often a remarkable divergence, and to explain these <!--k30-->phenomena<!--k31--> is the <!--k30-->Synoptic<!--k31--> <!--k30-->Problem<!--k31-->."
It seems you're right that Luke did not directly meet with Jesus. I stand corrected. Forgive my error, please.
Luke was in fact a physician and a historian. There had been many attempts, both in this document, as well as others trying to discredit, or prove Luke's Gospel and His later book, Acts, as untruthful or incorrect. I read the entire document, and it plainly spells out the truthfulness of Luke's writings. Many critics in the last 900 - 1000 years have tried to cast doubt, but many, many others say the critics cries cannot be proven.
Further on down in the document, I saw this offering:
"The best information as to his sources is given by <!--k30-->St.<!--k31--> <!--k30-->Luke<!--k31-->, in the beginning of his <!--k03--><!---->Gospel<!---->. As many had written accounts as they heard them from "eyewitnesses and <!--k01--><!---->ministers<!----> of the <!--k30-->word<!--k31-->", it seemed <!--k03--><!---->good<!----> to him also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write an ordered narrative. He had two sources of information, then, eyewitnesses (including <!--k05-->Apostles) and written documents taken down from the words of eyewitnesses. The <!--k30-->accuracy<!--k31--> of these documents he was in a position to <!--k30-->test<!--k31--> by his knowledge of the <!--k05-->character of the writers, and by comparing them with the <!--k30-->actual<!--k31--> words of the <!--k05-->Apostles and other eyewitnesses. <!--k94-->That he used written documents seems evident on comparing his <!--k03--><!---->Gospel<!----> with the other two <!--k30-->Synoptic<!--k31--> <!--k05-->Gospels, <!--k30-->Matthew<!--k31--> and <!--k30-->Mark<!--k31-->. All three frequently agree even in minute details, but in other respects there is often a remarkable divergence, and to explain these <!--k30-->phenomena<!--k31--> is the <!--k30-->Synoptic<!--k31--> <!--k30-->Problem<!--k31-->."
It seems you're right that Luke did not directly meet with Jesus. I stand corrected. Forgive my error, please.