FK: I see. So throw everything Paul wrote out that he didn't witness personally, even though Christ gave him EVERYTHING personally, by Paul's eyewitness
I guess if Paul says it it must be true. Talk about placing your faith in a man!
And also, we need to immediately throw out two Gospels, I think by your count, because they were not eyewitness accounts either. Hmmmm. I think this topic is getting to "that" certain stage. :)
No, Mark and Luke were using eyewitness accounts , and Mark in particular was getting his information from Peter, so it's not the same as with Paul. Mark and Luke give accounts of witnesses, like Josephus does, but Paul is his own witness.
Kosta: Where was Mark when all this happened? Was he with Pilate? Or maybe with Peter who was neither by the Cross nor next to Pilate? You call this hearsay evidence? LOL!
So once again, throw it out if it isn't eyewitness, but somehow follow anything that claims to be eyewitness
We have to assume it is hearsay. How else can we account for the exact quotes of what Pontius Pilate allegedly said? One way is to say "God told Mark (or Luke, etc.)" or we can go by the objective evidence of historical writing habits of the time and conclude that they are made up by the author, as was the practice. The additional problem with the first possibility is that there is no explanation why the accounts given to the authors by God would differ as much as they differ among them.
Clearly the quotes are not exact quotes of what was said, but made up by whoever wrote them. I know this is shocking to you as it was to me, but there is no denying it.
All you have to do is compare the "exact" quotes among the four and you. This can only mean one thing, no less shocking, and that is that so much of what we take for granted even the "red letter" verses were made up by the authors as to what they believed was said. So, why would I believe Paul?
Yeah, we have reached "that" level, FK. Now let's decide if we stop here and buy our heads in the sand or forge on. Your call. :) Again, you are missing the point: it's the message, the lesson that we read in the Gospels, in particular, and the Bible in general where it is Chirst-like, that is our guide, and not objective truth of the story.
Well, if he says it in scriptures then YES, it must be true. It's God's Holy word.
We have to assume it is hearsay. How else can we account for the exact quotes of what Pontius Pilate allegedly said? One way is to say "God told Mark (or Luke, etc.)" or we can go by the objective evidence of historical writing habits of the time and conclude that they are made up by the author, as was the practice. The additional problem with the first possibility is that there is no explanation why the accounts given to the authors by God would differ as much as they differ among them.
God-breathed means the authors were not making anything up. Some accounts differ in focus, but they never present an impossibility problem. If you and I witness the same car accident and you say the hit and run car was a blue pick-up and I say it was a gray Mercedes, then we have an impossibility problem. If, however, you say it was a blue-pick-up and I say the license plate was "XYZ-123" then there is no conflict in our respective accounts of the same event.
All you have to do is compare the "exact" quotes among the four and you. This can only mean one thing, no less shocking, and that is that so much of what we take for granted even the "red letter" verses were made up by the authors as to what they believed was said. So, why would I believe Paul?
If you believe the former, then you have no reason to believe Paul. Or, anything else in the scriptures for that matter. That is a shame to say the least.
Again, you are missing the point: it's the message, the lesson that we read in the Gospels, in particular, and the Bible in general where it is Chirst-like, that is our guide, and not objective truth of the story.
I think I understand your point alright, and I disagree with it. If you throw out the truth of it, and rely only on what you perceive as "the message", THEN the message is whatever you want it to be. You demonstrate this by reducing all scripture to either being false or complying with your personal concept of what you think God should be like (in this case ONLY the verses in the Gospels that you like). If you accepted the historicity of scriptures you would not have the freedom to do that.