This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
And a rebuttal . . . http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.htmlcir
The link is to something on Louis Agassiz.
Beversluis's revised edition also has some criticisms of the essay.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.htmlThis should be the right link.
Oh, Mattill again. Then please read Tim McGrew's rebuttal to Mattill on the "archaeological support" thread.
I am not really buying into the gospels as eyewitness accounts. The post-resurrection discrepancies are too great in my opinion.We have one gospel supposedly written by Levi the tax collector, who claims that the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee. Then we have Luke--who is not an eyewitness--claiming that the post-resurrection appearances happened in Jerusalem. Most people here seem to want to defend Lukan accuracy. Did these "eyewitnesses" forget which part of the country they were in when the newly exalted Jesus came a'knocking? Either Luke was very much mistaken in his research or Matthew and Mark were mistaken in their recollection (Mark is supposed to be telling Peter's story). Best explanation imho is that the gospels were penned by anonymous authors writing at some distance to the actual events based off of oral traditions that diverged from one another.I believe in the mainstream dating of the gospels as being between 700-100 CE, as well as the mainstream view that they were most likely NOT authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
Post a Comment