World Youth Day (1 Viewer)

[inasero]

Catholic classrooms are going to be filled with pilgrims sleeping on the floors and in halls. I know of one instance where a hall (wooden floored, no air conditioning) will be filled with pilgrims. Now that's penance!

Uh I think this time of year most of their concerns would be regarding availability of heating.

 

[JaredR]

Wasn't Jesus crucified in 33AD? 27 years is still a long lapse of period with plenty of room for changes. Much has been "lost in translation". Don't you agree?

 

[Russdog]

at the dalai lama speech, there was some buddhists who went nuts because what they were reading off contained a small error, like one word. for like 5 minutes they argued about it on stage to sort out one word that was wrong, because they have always kept their texts pure. with the bible, it's been translated so many times, kings of england would change parts of it to suit their rule, etc, not to mention people interpret it in so many differing ways.

the bible is the biggest bunch of bullshit.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Wrong. Of the synoptic gospels, Matthew and John were eponymously named after two of Jesus' original disciples. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were written around 60AD, not long after Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

LOL

I don't know an awful lot about this stuff but even the slightest bit of fact checking will tell you the Gospels of Matthew and John used Mark as source material and therefore had to come AFTER it. They were NOT by Jesus' disciples of those names.

In fact John's Gospel was the last written, around 110AD

 

[CharlieB]

at the dalai lama speech, there was some buddhists who went nuts because what they were reading off contained a small error, like one word. for like 5 minutes they argued about it on stage to sort out one word that was wrong, because they have always kept their texts pure. with the bible, it's been translated so many times, kings of england would change parts of it to suit their rule, etc, not to mention people interpret it in so many differing ways.

the bible is the biggest bunch of bullshit.

The most recognised canonised text of Buddhism was written 400-500 years after the life of Gautama Buddha.

 

[emytaylor164]

Wasn't Jesus crucified in 33AD? 27 years is still a long lapse of period with plenty of room for changes. Much has been "lost in translation". Don't you agree?

disagree, they have not been lost in translation at all the oldest copies are the same as the ones we have now just different languages, and it is getting more and more accurate.

Wrong. Of the synoptic gospels, Matthew and John were eponymously named after two of Jesus' original disciples. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were written around 60AD, not long after Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

All the gospels in the bible were either:
1) written by the eyewitnesses
2) Dictated by an eye witness and hand written by a scribe

 

[Captain Gh3y]

No but you're wrong for you are a scientist!

lol what do people think "oh i'll just make random claims, no one will check if i'm right, it's not like this is the greatest network of information mankind has ever seen or anything"

disagree, they have not been lost in translation at all the oldest copies are the same as the ones we have now just different languages, and it is getting more and more accurate.

That seems to be true, but so what? If I write a story and make sure it gets copied really, really accurately for 2000 years does that make it real?

 

[hiphopwhogay123]

I'll be there, lined up for papal enjoyment.

 

[emytaylor164]

lol what do people think "oh i'll just make random claims, no one will check if i'm right, it's not like this is the greatest network of information mankind has ever seen or anything"


That seems to be true, but so what? If I write a story and make sure it gets copied really, really accurately for 2000 years does that make it real?

if it wasnt real why would hundreds of eyewitnesses die because they would not say that it was false, why would you die for a lie if you knew it was a load of crap?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

if it wasnt real why would hundreds of eyewitnesses die because they would not say that it was false, why would you die for a lie if you knew it was a load of crap?

the earlier jihad-ists were pretty willing to die (and kill, usually kill) for Islam, so it must be true by the same reasoning... the only difference is there more of them and there's a better historical record, lol

 

[emytaylor164]

the earlier jihad-ists were pretty willing to die (and kill, usually kill) for Islam, so it must be true by the same reasoning... the only difference is there more of them and there's a better historical record, lol

there is a difference between dying for islam and dying for something you have seen why would you say you saw it if it was false and you could die for saying it

this can also be historically verified

 

[inasero]

:|






Didn't agree on the 2nd/3rd hand nature of the writing, but on the etime period :S

I'm not disagreeing that it was written around 60AD, and I never claimed to- you're arguing a straw man. If you read my reply you'll notice I said I disagreed with what he implied.

 

[inasero]

Not just for changes to be made, but for memories to be altered by other events (inc. just forgetting things). Yes, it is a long time for it to be counted as completely "reliable" (for an analytical historian perspective IRT sources etc), but in the grand scheme of things (2000+ years) maybe not?

I guess it depends on what your views are, and how you wish to intepret the gospels of the new testament.

What are the chances your memories of a monumentous event like the crucifixion of Jesus could be altered in 30 years, let alone forgetting altogether about it? That would be like me saying "Oh yes I think an earthquake shook New York in 2001 and the Trade Centers collapsed? Oh wait did the centers even collapse? I think they might still be standing?". Absurd.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What are the chances your memories of a monumentous event like the crucifixion of Jesus could be altered in 30 years, let alone forgetting altogether about it? That would be like me saying "Oh yes I think an earthquake shook New York in 2001 and the Trade Centers collapsed? Oh wait did the centers even collapse? I think they might still be standing?". Absurd.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qv8yLT6jM04

heh

for such a momentous event it's not mentioned in many sources outside the bible really

 

[inasero]

LOL

I don't know an awful lot about this stuff but even the slightest bit of fact checking will tell you the Gospels of Matthew and John used Mark as source material and therefore had to come AFTER it. They were NOT by Jesus' disciples of those names.

In fact John's Gospel was the last written, around 110AD

It's not certain whether Matthew came before or after Mark. We only know that John probably came after Mark, but that's it. In any case, why would the apostle Matthew have had to rely on another eyewitness testimony when he was there himself to witness the events firsthand?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Well I already covered that by pointing out that secular historians agree that Matthew didn't write the Gospel, it came 2 or 3 generations after Christ and borrows extensively from Mark.

 

[emytaylor164]

i think you will find that that is a load of crap

 

[inasero]

No, it's not. I'm not saying the MAJOR events are likely to be affected, it's more about aspects surrounding the event. Would you argue against the notion that (speaking in examples here) a Vet who fought in WWII has their memory of the events affected by time/media etc.

Or even your own?

I didn't argue that Jesus wasn't crusified, nor that it was altered (ie he was actually hung not crusified) - although proof of it's occurance would be lovely (note: bible isn't proof), I'm just saying it is a potential issue when recounting the story.

Note: I never said it'd be FORGOTTEN either.

well I think it's pretty clear what you're saying here- unless you want to clarify.

Not just for changes to be made, but for memories to be altered by other events (inc. just forgetting things). Yes, it is a long time for it to be counted as completely "reliable" (for an analytical historian perspective IRT sources etc), but in the grand scheme of things (2000+ years) maybe not?

I guess it depends on what your views are, and how you wish to intepret the gospels of the new testament.

edit: Furthermore, supposing there were in fact little differences here and there they don't amount to anything remotely close to an outright contradiction in the Gospel message. So what if Jesus wore a toga instread of a cloak, or he wore brown sandals instead of black? The fact remains that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived during the 1st century, who performed miracles and claimed to be (and was) the Son of God and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Jews. I don't see how these basic facts could be forgotten or misinterpreted.

 

[inasero]

Well I already covered that by pointing out that secular historians agree that Matthew didn't write the Gospel, it came 2 or 3 generations after Christ and borrows extensively from Mark.

Actually it was written around 60-65AD and there are various other sources ascribing authorship to the disciple Matthew (e.g. Origen, Irenaeus)

 

[inasero]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qv8yLT6jM04

heh

for such a momentous event it's not mentioned in many sources outside the bible really

1) they're american
2) i'm pretty sure all of them would have remembered what the attacks were (unless they were living under a rock)

edit: extra biblical sources? try flavius josephus, tacitus, suetonius and phlegan for a start.