The strange concept of eternal hell suffering.

[BrainGlutton]

@Mickiel

Matthew, Mark , Luke and John had first hand knowledge. Those writers walked with him.

But they almost certainly did not write the Gospels attributed to them.

[tomndebb]

Failed link retried:
The Largest Structure in Universe Discovered --Quasar Group 4 Billion Light-Years Wide Challenges Current Cosmology:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/01/the-largest-structure-universe-discovered-quasar-group-4-billion-light-years-wide-challenges-current.html

or The Largest Structure in Universe Discovered --Quasar Group 4 Billion Light-Years Wide Challenges Current Cosmology

[BrainGlutton]

@Mickiel

And explain to me why you have ignored the discovery of King Solomons Copper mines?

That proves only that there was copper-mining in Palestine in the period to which Solomon is usually ascribed, which is not surprising, and proves nothing else.

@Mickiel

Also please explain to me why you are calling the discovery of Herod the Greats Tomb, no evidence?

Proof of what? That Herod existed? That was never in doubt; there are many extrabiblical sources.

[Mickiel]

@Czarcasm

The link doesn’t work.

I just don’t know how to post a link yet; sorry.

[Mickiel]

@tomndebb

The Talmud developed from written discussions and arguments in what had been the Pharasaic tradition after the destruction of Jerusalem. The original discussions were somewhat haphazard regarding organization, but around 200, a more formalized editing of the arguments according to topical subjects was created. The discussions continued for several hundred years, expanding away from merely discussions of the Tanakh about 300 years after the organization by subject.

There are discussions of someone, usually interpreted as Jesus and his immediate followers, in the Talmud. However, such discussions revolve around the errors of his teachings (in respect to post-Temple Judaism) and cannot be considered historical references to the actual person.

Thats what I was referring to.

[Mickiel]

@tomndebb

Failed link retried:
The Largest Structure in Universe Discovered --Quasar Group 4 Billion Light-Years Wide Challenges Current Cosmology:

The Largest Structure in Universe Discovered --Quasar Group 4 Billion Light-Years Wide Challenges Current Cosmology

or The Largest Structure in Universe Discovered --Quasar Group 4 Billion Light-Years Wide Challenges Current Cosmology

Man, I got to learn how to do that.

[Mickiel]

@BrainGlutton

But they almost certainly did not write the Gospels attributed to them.

Thats a bunch of nonsense, they wrote them, and it fits the pattern of the book being named after its author, because really its a letter. Just a long letter or memo.

[Musicat]

@Mickiel

Look at Voyager I, its traveling 38,000 miles an hour, its been flying in space for over 30 years, and its just now leaving our solar system. 11.7 billion miles from earth, is not due to reach the next star in its path for 40,000 years!

Space is so vast and amazing that some knowledge of physics is needed to comprehend it. Get some, and you will understand.

Come on man, its academic, there must be a God, this kind of mass cannot create itself.

But your god can create himself? What makes him so special?

@Mickiel

I just don’t know how to post a link yet; sorry.

Now that you know how to copy and paste, copy the desired URL from a browser address line and paste it into a post. Leave at least one space before and after the URL. The forum software will make it into a link. Be sure to preview before posting so you can check your work. Like this:

The strange concept of eternal hell suffering.

@Voyager

You should go to your library, go to the astronomy section, and look for a fairly simple book on the Big Bang. That should get you started.

Next, look for a simple book on the Big Crunch. That will cover the other end of time and you’ll be prepared.

@Mickiel

Thats a bunch of nonsense, they [Matthew & Co.] wrote them, and it fits the pattern of the book being named after its author, because really its a letter. Just a long letter or memo.

Wishing it to be true does not make it true, and scholarship says otherwise. It also fits the pattern of the time to ascribe works to known names instead of anonymous authors.

[simster]

@Mickiel

Thats a bunch of nonsense, they wrote them, and it fits the pattern of the book being named after its author, because really its a letter. Just a long letter or memo.

Did you even read the authorship quotes/cites I pasted for you ? You know, the ones from your reference that disagress with you?

[BrainGlutton]

@Czarcasm

A cite for the Talmud referring to Jesus, please.

It’s a murky subject.

The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus.

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud (along with the usage of Hebrew or Aramaic by Jews for any writing) happened in the year 521.[1] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

In the modern era there has been a variance of views among scholars of the references to possible Jesus in the Talmud, depending partly on presuppositions as to the extent to which the ancient rabbis were preoccupied with Jesus and Christianity.[2] This range of views among modern scholars on the subject has been described as a range from “minimalists” who see few passages with reference to Jesus, to “maximalists” who see many passages having reference to Jesus.[3] These terms “minimalist” and “maximalist” are not unique to discussion of the Talmud text, they are also used in discussion of academic debate on other aspects of Jewish vs. Christian and Christian vs. Jewish contact and polemic in the early centuries of Christianity, such as the Adversus Iudaeos genre.[4] “Minimalists” include Jacob Z. Lauterbach (1951) (“who recognize[d] only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind”),[3] while “maximalists” include Herford (1903), (who concluded that most of the references related to Jesus, but were non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews),[5][6] and Schäfer (2007) (who concluded that the passages were parodies of parallel stories about Jesus in the New Testament incorporated into the Talmud in the 3rd and 4th centuries that illustrate the inter-sect rivalry between Judaism and nascent Christianity[7][page needed]).

[Musicat]

@Mickiel

Man, I got to learn how to do that.

It’s good that you’re willing to learn. Click on the Quote button for Tomndebb’s post, and you will see EXACTLY how it is done.

Use your preview function to check your work before posting. Nobody’s perfect, but they can pretend to be if they are careful and preview.

[BrainGlutton]

@Mickiel

Thats a bunch of nonsense, they wrote them, and it fits the pattern of the book being named after its author, because really its a letter. Just a long letter or memo.

Gospel of Mark:

Composition and setting

The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[10] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][11][12][13] However, according to the majority view, the author is an otherwise unknown figure, the author’s use of varied sources telling against the traditional account.[14][15] The gospel was written in Greek, probably around AD 60-70, possibly in Syria.[7][16]

Authorship and sources

According to Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, this gospel was by “Mark, (who) having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.”[17] Other early writers such as Irenaeus agree with this.[18] “No early church tradition and no church father ascribes the Gospel to anyone other than Mark.”[19] Some modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).[7] Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.[7]

Gospel of Matthew:

Composition and setting

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and the superscription “according to Matthew” was not part of the first editions.[6] The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63), who wrote: "Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialektōi—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or “interpreted”) them to the best of their ability.[7] On the surface this implies that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek, but the passage is ambiguous and Matthew’s Greek “reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation.” [8] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[7]

The author drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called “Q”, and shared with Luke); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called “M”, some of which may have originated with Matthew himself).[9] He wrote for a Jewish audience: like “Q” and “M”, he stresses the continuing relevance of the Jewish law; unlike Mark he never bothers to explain Jewish customs; and unlike Luke, who traces Jesus’s ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews.[10] The content of “M” suggests that this community was stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in “righteousness” (adherence to Jewish law); and of the three only “M” refers to a “church” (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order.[11]

Gospel of Luke:

Authorship

Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[35] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[19] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time he composed the Gospel, he must have been a highly practiced and competent author – able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment.[36]

Despite the majority opinion that Luke was a gentile writing to other gentiles, a few authors have challenged this view. Birger Gerhardsson notes his opinion that “Luke is very much dependent upon Jewish rabbinical tradition.”[37] Adolf Schlatter concluded that the text’s character together with other indicators point to the author’s provenance from the Jewish church.[38] Luke presupposes a knowledge of the Old Testament and Jewish history (1:7; 4:38; 9:9–10 & 9:28–36).[39] In fact, “Luke perceives himself to be a Jew.”[40] Finally, Rebecca Denova concludes her book with these words: “Luke-Acts, we may conclude on the basis of a narrative-critical reading, was written by a Jew to persuade other Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah of Scripture and that the words of the prophets concerning ‘restoration’ have been ‘fulfilled.’”[41] Finally it should be noted that Strelan in 2008 not only concluded that Theophilus was Jewish but also that Luke was a priest.[42]

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author.[43] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and the preface of Acts explicitly references “my former book” about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[44] Both books also contain common interests.[45] Linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the books indicate that they are from the same author.[46] Those biblical scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often refer to both together as Luke-Acts.[47]

The “we” passages in Acts, where the first person plural is used, point to the author being a companion of Paul.[48] Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14).

The Church Fathers, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke.[49] The oldest manuscript of the gospel P75 (circa 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”.[50][51] however another manuscript P4 from about the same time period[52][53] has no such (surviving) attribution.

Critical view

According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke’s being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.[54][55][56] The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council.[57][58] Paul placed an emphasis on Jesus’ death while the author of Luke instead emphasizes Jesus’ suffering, and there are other differences regarding eschatology and the Law.[4] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, leading Hobart to claim in 1882 that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training. However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned; instead it is now believed this language reflects merely a common Greek education.[59][60][61][62][63]

Traditional view

The traditional view on Lukan authorship, however, is held by many scholars,[64] and according to some scholars it is “not impossible” that they are right.[8] Since Luke was not prominent there is no obvious reason that this gospel and Acts would have been attributed to him if he didn’t write them.[65] If Luke was only a sometime companion of Paul who admired and acknowledged his work long after his death, that could explain the differences between Acts and Paul’s letter.[66] Even though the evangelist as depicted in the New Testament doesn’t match the patristic description of Luke, the traditional view is still argued today.[36]

Gospel of John:

Authorship

The gospel identifies its author as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus’s innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[9][10] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[11][12][13][14][15][16] and trace it instead to a “Johannine community” which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three “layers”, reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[17][18] According to Victorinus[19] and Irenaeus,[20] the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical.[21] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[22]

Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]
1.An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2.A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3.The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[25]

In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single “author” of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[26] The final composition’s comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus’ life in terms of literal historical truth.[27][28]

[simster]

@BrainGlutton

Gospel of Mark:

Gospel of Matthew:

Gospel of Luke:

Gospel of John:

I did this earlier in the thread - he said he had his own cite that backed his assertions - I found that and posted it as well - and it did not.

[Musicat]

This is strictly an aside, and possibly a hijack, but at least one scholar, Gerald A. LaRue (I think), argued that the writer of the Book of Luke was probably a woman. She was more concerned with birthing and children than the other gospel writers, and mentioned women in the various stories more than other accounts. But since women were second-class citizens at the time, she didn’t come out of the closet, so to speak. Interesting idea.

[Trinopus]

@Mickiel

That depends on what you read, Tertullian did live in 207 AD, but he still was an historical writer who confirmed Jesus existence. Some consider him the Father of Latin Christianity. And the Talmud does make references to Jesus, but its still according to what cite you look at, because some don’t have him being referenced to.

That makes no sense at all. It’s like asking you or me to confirm Abraham Lincoln’s existence. I can say “Yes, he existed” but that’s meaningless. I have no first-hand experience of his existence, and can only make a statement based on other people’s statements. Tertullian, living in 207 A.D., can not possibly “confirm Jesus’ existence,” unless he found the body somewhere.

[Trinopus]

@tomndebb

. . . There are discussions of someone, usually interpreted as Jesus and his immediate followers, in the Talmud. However, such discussions revolve around the errors of his teachings (in respect to post-Temple Judaism) and cannot be considered historical references to the actual person.

Okay, that’s another one that I had wrong. (I’m learning! I’m learning!) I had thought the Talmud was much like the Torah, and that it had frozen in its final form a long time before 1 A.D.

[BrainGlutton]

@Trinopus

. . . unless he found the body somewhere.

And even then, how would he know whose it was?

[Mickiel]

@Musicat

It’s good that you’re willing to learn. Click on the Quote button for Tomndebb’s post, and you will see EXACTLY how it is done.

Use your preview function to check your work before posting. Nobody’s perfect, but they can pretend to be if they are careful and preview.

The Largest Structure in Universe Discovered --Quasar Group 4 Billion...

It worked! I think I got it now, thank you so much!

[Mickiel]

Some interesting theory’s about the flood; I don’t agree with much of it, but its of interest.

Home - Associates for Biblical Research

[Czarcasm]

@Mickiel

Some interesting theory’s about the flood; I don’t agree with much of it, but its of interest.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/category/Flood.aspx

If you don’t agree with it, and if it was nothing to do with the topic of the OP, why bring it up?