My Same State Past Challenge

[HitchSlap]

And if God accepts it, I'll accept it too.

BTW, are you saying the books of the NT were ghost written? if so, I agree.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

BTW, why did you reneg. on your finito with challenge thread?

 

[crossnote]

As I said, the gospels are anonymous. They were all written in third person, decades after Jesus' death, in a language no one in Palestine spoke, none of them are signed by an author, and written in countries Jesus' or his disciples never traveled too. Mark was written first, doesn't include a nativity, and Jesus appearing after his "resurrection" was added much later (Mk. 16:9-20). Matthew and Luke copied much of Mark several decades later, and the Jesus in John is so wildly different, he seems like another person altogether.

Why do you believe the liberal critics of Scripture who lived 1900 years after the writings, rather than the early Church who would be in a better position to judge those things having lived near the time of the events as to whether the authors were eyewitnessess or not?

 

[crossnote]

No, he likely puts more credibility into the NT scholars and historians, that dont play fast and loose with the historical method.

Yeah, the ones far removed from the actual events. There are many NT conservative scholars that wholeheartedly embrace the Scriptures as we have them handed down as God's Word.

 

[crossnote]

I think Peter the disciple was an illiterate fisherman?

Illiterate? Who told you that?

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Act 4:13)

Peter may not have had the training of a Rabbi or Pharisee but God used many Prophets in the "Old Testament" who were farmers, shepherds and such, but still, they could write the words given to them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do you believe the liberal critics of Scripture who lived 1900 years after the writings, rather than the early Church who would be in a better position to judge those things having lived near the time of the events as to whether the authors were eyewitnessess or not?

There are zero extant writings from the "early church," and current modern methods of historical critical textual scholarship is a sound field. Their methods are there for all to see, and unlike devotional scholars, there is no conflict of interest.

 

[Nat Page]

And if God accepts it, I'll accept it too.

How would you know what God accepts or doesn't accept?

 

[Nat Page]

Illiterate? Who told you that?

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Act 4:13)

Peter may not have had the training of a Rabbi or Pharisee but God used many Prophets in the "Old Testament" who were farmers, shepherds and such, but still, they could write the words given to them.

If they were anything like the thousands of fishermen who lived where and when they did they would not read or write and spoke only the kind of words they required to survive, they were not worldly and knew only about their village and the people around them, magic of course would change all of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you know what God accepts or doesn't accept?

I read His diary.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, the ones far removed from the actual events. There are many NT conservative scholars that wholeheartedly embrace the Scriptures as we have them handed down as God's Word.

LOL. Those anonymous authors who penned the gospels, were far removed from the events themselves. In fact, the oldest copies of the gospels we have, are 200 years removed from the events.

 

[lesliedellow]

LOL. Those anonymous authors who penned the gospels, were far removed from the events themselves.

So the gospels weren't known as Matthew, Mark Luke and John. Well, that raises the interesting question as to what titles they were known by. Gospel 1, Gospel 2, Gospel 3 and Gospel 4, presumably.

Papias had certainly heard of Mark at the beginning of the second century, and Iraeneus had certainly heard of all four by 180.

In fact, the oldest copies of the gospels we have, are 200 years removed from the events.

So we are asked to believe that texts held in great reverence because, rightly or wrongly, they were believed to have come from the hands of Jesus's own disciples, they would have been copied in a completely careless and slipshod manner.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, the oldest copies of the gospels we have, are 200 years removed from the events.

Do you know why you have those "oldest copies"?

The koine wouldn't touch them.

That's why our Constitution and Declaration of Independence still exist today, after over 200 years.

They haven't been touched.

 

[crossnote]

There are zero extant writings from the "early church," and current modern methods of historical critical textual scholarship is a sound field. Their methods are there for all to see, and unlike devotional scholars, there is no conflict of interest.

So what draws you to waste so much time in refuting a 'supposed lie'?

 

[crossnote]

If they were anything like the thousands of fishermen who lived where and when they did they would not read or write and spoke only the kind of words they required to survive, they were not worldly and knew only about their village and the people around them, magic of course would change all of that.

Explain how these ignorant farmers and fishermen and such from different lands and centuries all accurately foretold the birth life and resurrection of Jesus hundreds of years earlier

 

[crossnote]

LOL. Those anonymous authors who penned the gospels, were far removed from the events themselves. In fact, the oldest copies of the gospels we have, are 200 years removed from the events.

We have existing manuscript fragments of John that are less than 80 years removed, besides the Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls almost word for word with the existing manuscripts of Isaiah today.

 

[HitchSlap]

Explain how these ignorant farmers and fishermen and such from different lands and centuries all accurately foretold the birth life and resurrection of Jesus hundreds of years earlier

They didn't.

 

[HitchSlap]

So what draws you to waste so much time in refuting a 'supposed lie'?

The truth is important. Otherwise people may read your cavalier statements of the Bible being historically accurate, and accept it at face value, like you have.

 

[Speedwell]

We have existing manuscript fragments of John that are less than 80 years removed...

Source? As far as I am aware, the oldest is the Rylands fragment, which dates at about 150 AD.

besides the Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls almost word for word with the existing manuscripts of Isaiah today.

Accurate transmission is not the same thing as literal inerrancy.

 

[crossnote]

They didn't.

They did. Here is just a sample relating to the specifics surrounding Christ's birth.

Bible prophecies fulfilled by birth of Jesus Christ

 

[crossnote]

The truth is important. Otherwise people may read your cavalier statements of the Bible being historically accurate, and accept it at face value, like you have.

Why waste your time on an untruth and not go sing to the choir on an atheist board?
You say truth is important, what does the atheist have to offer in that regard except to deny claims of others?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why waste your time on an untruth and not go sing to the choir on an atheist board?
You say truth is important, what does the atheist have to offer in that regard except to deny claims of others?

Ultimately, I would hope you begin to critically evaluate claims in general, and specifically in regard to the bible. You've been lead to believe that what you're told from the pulpit is "gospel" truth, when in reality, it's everything but. There's a reason they say no one graduates seminary with their faith intact.