Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (26122)	7/9/1999 1:17:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Looking at the historical reliability of the New Testament. Inernal criterion #1. Do the Gospels fare well when they are examined in the light of historiographical criteria? When examined with an honest unbiased mind, they fare extremely well. These are they same techniques that scientific historians use when examining any historical event. (Also, please keep in mind that historical knowledge and accuracy will never bring you to a saving knowledge of Christ. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal Christ to you. Accurate historical knowledge can serve only to eleminate some of the misconceptions and biases a person may possess. Honest historical knowledge can incline the mind to at least listen to the internal voice of the Holy Spirit.) Now to internal criteria number one. INTERNAL CRITERIon #1: 1.) Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay? Luke, who was not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records(Luke 1:1-4. John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, are both written from the perspective of an eyewitnesss, although they don't come out and explicitly claim this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors of the Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.(We are jumping the gun here and discussing external criteria #2) The first internal criteria is satisfied extremely well.

To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (26122)	7/14/1999 5:30:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

There are no contemporaneous documents of any part of the biblical fables. The oldest documents are at best copies of something someone claims to have seen or heard. There are no originals of any document written by Moses or Jesus. It is clear that most of the texts of the bible are forgeries. Most of the "Law" was obviously forged by Ezra or his accomplices. Internal evidence, especially the names of Esther and Mordecai (names of heathen gods no Jew could ever use) was forged from Babylonian originals. The gospels are loaded with inconsistencies and cannot all be true. There is no external evidence to suggest that any part of any of the new testament is true.