Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

[Hedley Lamarr]

Glad all these stories only found themselves in a single book. You would think a man walking on water would have spread like wild fire and been written in many scrolls...nah a few hundred years later it shows up in a story book

 

 

You get my vote for ignorant post of the day.

 

You don't think a man walking on water would have been all the talk back in the day? Seems like something absolutely amazing. Never found in any records etc. Just found its way in the bible

 

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but they didn't have phones, computers, and social networking back in Biblical times.

 

You are correct! They wrote everything down!

[Landlord]

Glad all these stories only found themselves in a single book. You would think a man walking on water would have spread like wild fire and been written in many scrolls...nah a few hundred years later it shows up in a story book

 

 

You get my vote for ignorant post of the day.

 

You don't think a man walking on water would have been all the talk back in the day? Seems like something absolutely amazing. Never found in any records etc. Just found its way in the bible

 

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but they didn't have phones, computers, and social networking back in Biblical times.

 

You are correct! They wrote everything down!

 

 

I don't have time for this nonsense, but just for starters, it found its way into four separate Gospel accounts. Written by different people, at different times.

[husker_99]

 

 

You get my vote for ignorant post of the day.

 

You don't think a man walking on water would have been all the talk back in the day? Seems like something absolutely amazing. Never found in any records etc. Just found its way in the bible

 

I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but they didn't have phones, computers, and social networking back in Biblical times.

 

You are correct! They wrote everything down!

 

 

I don't have time for this nonsense, but just for starters, it found its way into four separate Gospel accounts. Written by different people, at different times.

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

[Landlord]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

 

A non-issue. Jewish Culture was very significantly structured around oral tradition - the passing on of stories in extreme detail orally. In a culture where we document and quantify absolutely every little thing, this kind of thing isn't easy to comprehend or legitimize, so it's easy to understand the skepticism based on the later dates of the gospels being penned.

[husker_99]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

 

A non-issue. Jewish Culture was very significantly structured around oral tradition - the passing on of stories in extreme detail orally. In a culture where we document and quantify absolutely every little thing, this kind of thing isn't easy to comprehend or legitimize, so it's easy to understand the skepticism based on the later dates of the gospels being penned.

Except for the fact that is impossible for a person to relay a story exactly how it happened. yes details do matter. How easy would it be for them to write down a story 70 years later and remember the details of the story rather than what they remember. I mean can you remember exactly what happened last week? more often than not you recite a short version but will leave out many things.

[Landlord]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

 

A non-issue. Jewish Culture was very significantly structured around oral tradition - the passing on of stories in extreme detail orally. In a culture where we document and quantify absolutely every little thing, this kind of thing isn't easy to comprehend or legitimize, so it's easy to understand the skepticism based on the later dates of the gospels being penned.

Except for the fact that is impossible for a person to relay a story exactly how it happened. yes details do matter. How easy would it be for them to write down a story 70 years later and remember the details of the story rather than what they remember. I mean can you remember exactly what happened last week? more often than not you recite a short version but will leave out many things.

 

No, I can not, but I don't live in a culture 2,000 years removed that was very much focused and committed to relaying stories exactly as they happened. Who says it is impossible for a person to relay a story exactly how it happened? Our culture might, but hey, they didn't live in our culture. Even regardless, details do matter, but the details we are talking about are generally not dealbreakers. There are inconsistencies in details between the gospel accounts, but they are only incompatible with each other or contradictions if you are perceiving the text in a way it's not meant to be received.

[husker_99]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

 

A non-issue. Jewish Culture was very significantly structured around oral tradition - the passing on of stories in extreme detail orally. In a culture where we document and quantify absolutely every little thing, this kind of thing isn't easy to comprehend or legitimize, so it's easy to understand the skepticism based on the later dates of the gospels being penned.

Except for the fact that is impossible for a person to relay a story exactly how it happened. yes details do matter. How easy would it be for them to write down a story 70 years later and remember the details of the story rather than what they remember. I mean can you remember exactly what happened last week? more often than not you recite a short version but will leave out many things.

 

No, I can not, but I don't live in a culture 2,000 years removed that was very much focused and committed to relaying stories exactly as they happened. Who says it is impossible for a person to relay a story exactly how it happened? Our culture might, but hey, they didn't live in our culture. Even regardless, details do matter, but the details we are talking about are generally not dealbreakers. There are inconsistencies in details between the gospel accounts, but they are only incompatible with each other or contradictions if you are perceiving the text in a way it's not meant to be received.

Have you ever heard a story from a friend exactly like it happened? no it never happens and even if you have an orally focused culture there are still omissions. Each person perceives differently. If a detail isn't important to the teller they leave it out but that doesn't mean someone else won't find that detail important. Plus dealing with translations you are never going to receive the true meaning of the story.

[Landlord]

Have you ever heard a story from a friend exactly like it happened?

 

 

No I haven't. Because I live in America. In 2013. I feel like this should be easily understood..?

 

 

no it never happens and even if you have an orally focused culture there are still omissions.

 

How do you know? Have you ever lived in and experienced an orally focused culture? I don't mean this personally, but you're being very ignorant of the goings on of the world outside of your tiny blip in time and space.

 

 

If a detail isn't important to the teller they leave it out but that doesn't mean someone else won't find that detail important.

 

If we were talking about any other books, I would generally agree with this. However, the caveat here is that Scripture only holds together under the influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit - which I can obviously trust you don't believe in and discredit, totally fine, but that leads me to faith and confidence that the important details were preserved.

 

 

 

Plus dealing with translations you are never going to receive the true meaning of the story.

 

I agree with this. However, it's another non-issue. Even if the entire world spoke one language, and there were no translations, we, as fallen, sinful, imperfect creation, are still never going to receive the true meaning of the story. It's the glory, character, nature and revelation of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity trying to be expressed through language.

[Undone]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

Ah, so you know for a fact that the original autograph wasn't written by someone at the time it happened?

[husker_99]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

Ah, so you know for a fact that the original autograph wasn't written by someone at the time it happened?

you do know they can date the pages right?

[husker_99]

1.ok so that has nothing to do with it.

 

2. you act like an orally focused culture are infalliable. dig sites have been disproving the old testament rather than confirm it. so them being an orally focused culture can be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

3.who said i didn't? nice job of jumping to conclusions. books are written by men and even in the best attempt can't be perfect.

 

 

4.not true. there are some languages where the idea doesn't translate so left with a best guess attempt. There is a reason why if you become jewish it is a requirement to learn hebrew and if you are muslim you must learn arabic to grasp the full meaning. christianity has no requirement that's why we are the most confused about our book.

[Undone]

Yes and written about 70 years after the event.

 

Ah, so you know for a fact that the original autograph wasn't written by someone at the time it happened?

you do know they can date the pages right?

 

Did you intentionally dodge the point I made?

 

Edit: "Date the pages?" Maybe it's just the way that you phrased that, but it sounds pretty elementary. Yes, I'm aware that organic material can be dated, using semi-accurate methods. Generally though, with documents that are roughly 2000 years old & newer, they aren't carbon dated. The method of "dating" that is used is more contextual in nature. In other words, it's more on the side of literary/historical investigation in nature, rather than putting the "paper" (as you phrased it) under a microscope, so to speak. Secondly, the age of the medium is inconclusive; what if that paper was "50 years old" before it was written on...or reused?

 

That was also what I referred to with my comment about the original autograph. That's the term given to the original, first document. And that's the point about oral tradition, as well: It's hard to say who wrote the original autograph and exactly when it was written. But if the accounts are oral, it makes no difference. Also, no biblicist makes the claim that anyone is holding the original autograph in some museum that we can walk up to and carbon date. Nobody is making that claim. Where are the original autographs? Who knows. But just because an archaeologist doesn't have it in his hand, doesn't mean it wasn't written down earlier than the first "copy." That's the thing with copies; they're copies.

[CornHOLIO]

All this time, I thought he walked on top of a puddle.

[Hammerhead]

Glad all these stories only found themselves in a single book. You would think a man walking on water would have spread like wild fire and been written in many scrolls...nah a few hundred years later it shows up in a story book

 

 

You get my vote for ignorant post of the day.

 

Any more ignorant than believing, despite having no solid evidence whatsoever, that there's a magical being in some other universe who created us for no apparent reason and loves us deeply but would condemn us to an eternity of suffering for not worshipping him?

 

Maybe there's a good explanation for it all, but I just haven't heard it yet. To me, it's totally illogical.

[Undone]

Hammerhead, I actually like that post you just made. Even though we're on opposite ends of agreement, I like that you stated that just maybe there's an explanation for it that you haven't yet heard.

 

I'm curious how much time the average "non-believer" spends thinking about the origins of matter, space, and time if they don't believe in God. That's a serious question I've been asking for about the last five years of my life. Because for me, even though I do believe in God, I still ponder the question, literally all the time: What does the "unbeliever" believe to be true about origins? Because science hasn't come even close to being able to answer that (and in my opinion, it never will - partly because it can't, and partly because the correct answer is not the one that secular scientists are looking for).