Question about the argument that there was too little time for legends to develope

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, May 9, 2006.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bet you also know this argument. But isn't 30 or more years a long time? I am not even 30 years old so I cannot say how good you can remember something which happened 30 years ago. How can they be so sure that within 30 or 40 years the memory was still so intact that the people remembered everything? :confused:
    And on the other hand how many eye witnessed were still left after 30-40 years? How old did the people become back then? :confused:
     
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember, that John lived to a ripe old age, somewhere between AD98 and AD117. He was an eye witness to the empty tomb and the early apostles. He also had disciples or students of his own and they would have reliable knowledge, which they passed on to younger disciples.

    I am sure there would be a reliable verbal source of good, reliable information. The bigger question is, What did the students understand of what was taught? Was what they passed on always reliable in detail?

    The Bible was never meant to be an historical text. It is the story of redemption in Christ Jesus, and therefore, lacks what we may deem important historical details.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...