Search results

i mean in relation to your post

more than you'll ever know :)

so what exactly are you trying to say?

well according to the Bible humans were created perfect in God's image, so that risk would only have been apparent after man's fall.

really? i thought their calander system was 360 days to the year...which wouldn't have made much difference to the current 365.25 days

when you look in the bible and you see ppl like noah and methuselah living till nearly 1000, and what's interesting is that the people get progressively younger as the generations pass. then God says man would live 120 years max. I think that when people sinned and came out of the garden of eden...

1) they're american :P 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.

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

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

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?

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...

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.

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

I never agreed. I simply brought up the dates as a response to the implication that the gospels were introduced long after Jesus' life on Earth, which is clearly not the case.

Well in response to Obviously the orthodox churches had a point of disagreement to have made the decision to split off from the supposed "real christians". I don't know what point he's trying to make.

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.

then what of the Great Schism?

Quoting bible verses is the thing that's been earning me derision and scorn. If you think I'm trying to score brownie points with atheists you're sorely mistaken.

she wasn't encouraging fundamentalism (not that there's anything wrong with that). She was just stating her views, which she's perfectly free to do.

God bless you, brother :)