Quote:
Originally posted by Superman
I am glad to respond.
First, as I say, amateurs commonly sidestep question like this by inferring the writings were inaccurate. Historicians don't do this. They consider the written text to be faithful to the events themselves. While it is true that the apostles did not write the gospels in their own handwriting, it is not true that the events and the writing were separated by many many years. Jewish and Hebrew oral tradition has been shown to be reliably, stunningly accurate. And when a document is dated to have been written perhasp as early as 40 AD, that's seven years after Christ's crucifixion. If it's dated at 70 AD, that's 37 years after His death.
Okay, you're talking about the "son of God" v. "Son of Man" controversy. Again, that controversy does not exist in the scholar community. Historicians know what that phrase meant, and its meaning is quite clear. But let's set that aside. Jesus also said, on more than one occasion, point blank, that all authority over Heaven and Earth has been given to him by God. That's a pretty flat-footed statement. No wishy-washiness in that. If he was an ordinary man with no supernatural powers, then what do you conclude about him making these statements? Yes, you can conclude that the real story has been clouded by the poor memories of the story tellers, or by mistakes in literary interepretations.........but that's not what people say after receiving graduate degrees in this subject area and spending decades reviewing the record.
|
Did you read the articles I linked to earlier? There are plenty of historians that agree with my logic. Heck, they are the ones that came up with the ideas, not me.
I still stand by statements regarding those other illogical aspects of the story.