The testimony of the NT writers

[Eli G]

In order to demonstrate that they actually thought that.



Because we can read what they wrote. They assume the Bible is true by default.



As i said to you before, most people would not have cared about the ramblings of random itinerant preachers. There were other mystery cults around in the Ancient Near East, Christianity was just the Jewish version. The fact that most people did not convert should tell you that most people did not take what they claimed seriously.



What's a "real refutation?"

Well, you don't seem to know much of the epoch ... but it is Ok, you don't have to know everything, right.

That was an epoch of a lot of interest in new philosophies and religions ... but you can get some info about it from that forumer who said in post#5 of this topic that she was "happy that [her] research into the life and times of the period under roman rule is accurate. There is evidence, there is fact, nothing to solve" ... her words. Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, so I have to do what you tell me to do ... Nice.
Let's do it: why do your atheist scholars say that Paul's writtings were written before the gospels?
Oh, true, I already asked that ... Maybe you, the one who is telling me what I should do, got the answer.
I'll be waiting.

Wait a second. Why did you assume that they were atheists? Are you admitting that Christians cannot be honest?

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, well, the israelite did the same after a few years that they were liberated out of Egypt. Humans, right? They forgive too fast.

I don't know what you mean by this. You think we should just assume that whatever the Bible says is true?

 

[Kenny]

The problem is that there would have been rather few if any contemporaries at the times that the Gospels were written. The earliest was over a generation after the event.

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Sounds pretty current to me

1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Sounds like he was a witness.

There are also clear errors in the Gospels.

You would have to prove that.

 

[Eli G]

The problem is that there would have been rather few if any contemporaries at the times that the Gospels were written. The earliest was over a generation after the event. There are also clear errors in the Gospels.

Empty words.

Why you, atheist people, talk that much and don't present proves of anything you say? That's disappointing!

 

[Left Coast]

Well, you don't seem to know much of the epoch ... but it is Ok, you don't have to know everything, right.

Thus far, I think we've covered that I know more than you.

That was an epoch of a lot of interest in new philosophies and religions ... but you can get some info about it from that forumer who said in post#5 of this topic that she was "happy that [her] research into the life and times of the period under roman rule is accurate. There is evidence, there is fact, nothing to solve" ... her words. Good luck.

@ChristineM is an atheist, Eli. I would bet her view of the Bible is much closer to mine than yours. But okay.

 

[Eli G]

I don't know what you mean by this. You think we should just assume that whatever the Bible says is true?

Did I say that? Hold a second ...................................
No, I didn't. It is kind of frequent that you don't get what I try to say ... My English, again, I guess.

 

[Eli G]

Thus far, I think we've covered that I know more than you.



@ChristineM is an atheist, Eli. I wouls bet her view of the Bible is much closer to mine than yours. But okay.

Whatever, my friend ... That is more of the same. Do I need to copy that post again?

(...) I love it when anti-religious and atheists people create religion forums with predetermined agendas... They always project themselves as if they are the majority, that believers have no rational thinking and that science belongs to atheists. (...)

 

[Left Coast]

Did I say that? Hold a second ...................................
No, I didn't. It is kind of frequent that you don't get what I try to say ... My English, again, I guess.

Okay. So the modern tradition of reading the Bible critically, objectively, without assuming it's true...you agree with me that's a good thing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Sounds pretty current to me

1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Sounds like he was a witness.

Why assume that Peter wrote it? There were many pseudonymous writings from that time. Have you looked into why scholars think that he did not write it?


First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia

You would have to prove that.

Really? You are telling us that you haven't ever studied the Bible seriously, you should realize that. The author of Luke has Jesus born ten years later than in Matthew.

 

[rational experiences]

Correlated old testimonials was verbal.

Evidence. Old cities destroyed. Advanced by toilet cistern use water storage. Streets.

Pyramids still stood.

Life had evolved healed from past sin star nuclear event. Life's poisoned mutations. Science technology caused.

So evolved modern man's mind awareness healed returned. Not only were visions advice like watching mind tv. They could use science again.

Notice how science corrupts man?

Writing the old advice Proved modern man now could idealise rebuilding the technology. Yet man always claiming I learnt new advice says technology is safe.

Lied. Outright lie.

Built henges a safety model failed it blew up burnt humans to death.

So did new temple fail.

Star fall came back in. Man's introduced Satan body.

God owned Satan in clouds mass only the teaching.

Man knew the mountains had been bodily flesh pierced in its side. Caves.

Proving phi science calculus had caused the attack on gods earth entombed body.

Rome made caves open under the feet. Reasoned so had Moses attack opened new sin holes.

So first science owned gods body in law ^ mountain attached by pyramid.

Clause they used a cased pyramid involving unnatural misrepresented pressures. So pyramid time shifted earths mass by technology <> said man.

When Jesus event massive four day carpenter earth mass shift occurred. Opened new caves sin at man's feet.

Reasoned as the UFO only stopped when it landed on top of the mountain was the direct advice. Because it hit landed and it stopped the attack.

They brought in new fall theirselves.

It stopped as holes.

Mass hot verses cold mass earth opens a sin hole only.

Proving it was consuming eating the flesh of the entombed God.

The end cause or last cause. Warned.

So Jesus had inferred to the ancient pre science attack as a summation. Of man's science technology evil history.

It's why they said Jesus wasn't origin life sacrifice as it was a lesser attack.

No different from you operating false cooling control of a new nuclear machine not as any natural law a space zero.

Same lying human men.

 

[Eli G]

Okay. So the modern tradition of reading the Bible critically, objectively, without assuming it's true...you agree with me that's a good thing?

I don't see why they needed in the second century, to doubt about what John, an old man recently deceased, wrote a couple of years before. Do you?

 

[Left Coast]

Whatever, my friend ... That is more of the same. Do I need to copy that post again?

I don't assume atheists have more rational thinking skills. One of the scholars I linked for you on the question of when Paul's epistles were written is a Christian. The problem is that you are not familiar with Bible scholarship. I would suggest reading some scholarly sources that are non-fundamentalist. It might help you.

 

[Kenny]

Why assume that Peter wrote it? There were many pseudonymous writings from that time. Have you looked into why scholars think that he did not write it?


First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia

This is your evidence? What people "think" 2000 years later omitting:

B. External Evidence:1 The early Church regarded the letter as Petrine

1. Clear parallels exist in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians
2. Traces of the epistle may be in Ignatius, Barnabas and Hermas
3. Polycarp (c 70-150/166) has definite citations form the epistle
4. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all quote this epistle as Petrine
5. Theophilus of Antioch cites this letter as Petrine
6. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-339) places it among the books that were accepted by the church without any doubt (homologoumena) and says that Papias (c. 60-130) used witnesses from 1 Peter3
7. The author of the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lugdunum (Lyons) cites this letter as Petrine

No... I think I will stick to those closest to the event.

Really? You are telling us that you haven't ever studied the Bible seriously, you should realize that. The author of Luke has Jesus born ten years later than in Matthew.

ROFL - No, you are basing that on suppositions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Empty words.

Why you, atheist people, talk that much and don't present proves of anything you say? That's disappointing!

I hate to assume that the people that I am talking with have never studied the Bible.

I gave Kenny a clear example. It is well known. It also puts Christians in a very bad place if they deny it.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't see why they needed in the second century, to doubt about what John, an old man recently deceased, wrote a couple of years before. Do you?

If a man recently deceased today told you that he saw a man who cured blindness with spit or walked on water or rose from the dead or magically cured hundreds of people or turned water magically to wine...you wouldn't question that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your evidence? What people "think" 2000 years later omitting:

B. External Evidence:1 The early Church regarded the letter as Petrine

1. Clear parallels exist in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians
2. Traces of the epistle may be in Ignatius, Barnabas and Hermas
3. Polycarp (c 70-150/166) has definite citations form the epistle
4. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all quote this epistle as Petrine
5. Theophilus of Antioch cites this letter as Petrine
6. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-339) places it among the books that were accepted by the church without any doubt (homologoumena) and says that Papias (c. 60-130) used witnesses from 1 Peter3
7. The author of the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lugdunum (Lyons) cites this letter as Petrine

No... I think I will stick to those closest to the event.



ROFL - No, you are basing that on suppositions.

The Church had an agenda. They tended to be very accepting of anything that supported their beliefs. Much like today's creationists. They never seemed to use critical thinking in their approach.

I don't see a source. You know that claims without sources are of no value.

And no, your ignorance of the Bible and dependence only upon nonscholars tell us that you have never studied the Bible.

 

[lukethethird]

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Sounds pretty current to me

1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Sounds like he was a witness.

"Sounds like he was a witness."

Paul claimed to have met Peter, he also claimed that his own, as well as Peter's, apostleship was granted by God. Where is Jesus in that? Paul claimed that a risen Christ appeared to him in a vision and that he appeared to others, including Peter, as well. So what was he a witness to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see why they needed in the second century, to doubt about what John, an old man recently deceased, wrote a couple of years before. Do you?

Do you really think that John was written by the apostle John? Why would you believe that?

 

[Kenny]

The Church had an agenda. They tended to be very accepting of anything that supported their beliefs. Much like today's creationists. They never seemed to use critical thinking in their approach.

Another modern conspiracy theory. really filled with substantive empirical and verifiable evidence.