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.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (19468)	1/11/2012 5:49:25 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

The earliest writings were by Paul who did see James, Peter and John in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. He also returned to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion but never mentioned learning anything about church history from the Apostles. And James, Peter and John were eyewitness. It would be pretty incredible if they told Paul nothing whatsoever about the central figure of their shared religion, wouldn't it? Paul (probably a Gnostic) did not view Christ as having a physical body. Since the afore-mentioned James was Jesus' brother or half-brother, it would be incredible if Paul thought Jesus didn't possess a physical body. Consider Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[ a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[ b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. Note that Paul is explicitly stating that Christ lived, died, and was raised from the dead. Luke was written 50 - 60 years after the death of Jesus. The books of Luke and Acts, both by the same author, end with Paul and Peter alive in Rome. They were both martyred in the 60's. It would be incredible if Luke hadn't followed their work to the end if he were able to. The likely reason he didn't is because he was unable to. That would date Luke's authorship to sometime in the 60's. And Mark's earlier. It is entirely possible that errors were made in copying the ancient manuscripts. We know errors in copying were made. But we have lots of copies of ancient manuscripts. There is some dispute about th original language of the NT as well. Some scholars think that part of it was originally Aramaic. There are reports that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, but that is lost to history if it existed. It's likely that many of the conversations recorded in the gospels were in Aramaic, but the original gospels seem to have been written in Greek.