What Would Falsify the Flood? (2)

[bhsmte]

You first. Show me a single verse where it states that the writer of any of the Gospels was a first hand witness to anything in the Gospels.





No, the writer of the gospel never states that they met Jesus. Even more, the gospels were written by men, and we all know how you reject the writings of men.

Not only that, we don't even know which men wrote the gospels. Some Greeks decades after Jesus died, when his followers spoke Aramaic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me a single verse where it states that the writer of any of the Gospels was a first hand witness to anything in the Gospels.

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

 

[Loudmouth]

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

So you have a second hand account, a man claiming to be writing stories told to him by people claiming to be eye witnesses. So much for being the words of Jesus.

 

[bhsmte]

So you have a second hand account, a man claiming to be writing stories told to him by people claiming to be eye witnesses. So much for being the words of Jesus.

Courts of law attempt to reveal evidence to reveal the truth. If we were in one, testimony like this would not even be allowed. Why, because they know it is not credible and prone to biased motivations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me a single verse where it states that the writer of any of the Gospels was a first hand witness to anything in the Gospels.

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

So you have a second hand account, a man claiming to be writing stories told to him by people claiming to be eye witnesses. So much for being the words of Jesus.

Thank you for a good example of Matthew 7:6.

This is worth printing and using in Sunday school.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you for a good example of Matthew 7:6.

This is worth printing and using in Sunday school.

The bible in general is used for Sunday school, which focuses on religious teachings. Although, I am sure some portions are not used because they are not appropriate for children. If the bible was a movie, it would either be unrated or rated R.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you for a good example of Matthew 7:6.

This is worth printing and using in Sunday school.

So you admit that the Gospels are not the words of Jesus?

 

[Gracchus]

Thank you for a good example of Matthew 7:6.

This is worth printing and using in Sunday school.

So you admit that the Gospels are not the words of Jesus?

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." --- Matthew 7:6 KJV

His point is, it would appear, that it is of no use to tell him the truth. Truth is meaningless to a religious person if it contradicts their dogma. "Facts can take a hike." It just makes them angry. Luckily, they can no longer stone or burn you, because we live in a secular state.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." --- Matthew 7:6 KJV

His point is, it would appear, that it is of no use to tell him the truth. Truth is meaningless to a religious person if it contradicts their dogma. "Facts can take a hike." It just makes them angry. Luckily, they can no longer stone or burn you, because we live in a secular state.

You would hope, but I have heard of people being driven out of their communities because of religious prejudice.

 

[Sayre]

Not only that, we don't even know which men wrote the gospels. Some Greeks decades after Jesus died, when his followers spoke Aramaic.

Nah... they used scribes. Not a problem that the NT was written in greek. They even talk about their scribes in the opening of the epistles.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible in general is used for Sunday school, which focuses on religious teachings.

Matthew 7:6 is Sunday school material for teens and adults.

Although, I am sure some portions are not used because they are not appropriate for children.

There is nothing inappropriate about someone demonstrating Matthew 7:6, using someone's request to: "Show a single verse where it states that the writer of any of the Gospels was a first hand witness to anything in the Gospels;" then, when a verse is shown, reply: "So you have a second hand account, a man claiming to be writing stories told to him by people claiming to be eye witnesses. So much for being the words of Jesus."

If the bible was a movie, it would either be unrated or rated R.

Matthew 7:6 is not an R-rated portion of Scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

You would hope, but I have heard of people being driven out of their communities because of religious prejudice.

Interesting remark, in light of the fact that it was the Bible's words (pearls) that were trampled.

Just as Jesus said they would be.

 

[dad]

Not only that, we don't even know which men wrote the gospels. Some Greeks decades after Jesus died, when his followers spoke Aramaic.

One cannot go by just the style or language. If I used a Greek scribe, or Aramaic, we would not know that from the text we happen to find. Obviously the apostles were involved directly and indirectly. When John says he ran here, or said this, or heard that, etc etc...it means he was there!

 

[dad]

You first. Show me a single verse where it states that the writer of any of the Gospels was a first hand witness to anything in the Gospels.

That is silly. When it says Jesus spoke to John, or Peter and said something, obviously they were witnesses. When they ran to the tomb, obviously they were witnesses. First hand. When Jesus promised to bring things to their remembrance by His Spirit, that means that if one attacks the results of the New Testament, one's problem is with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.


Obviously if they ate for example the Last Supper together, dipping in the same sauce, and etc etc...they were first hand witnesses! They saw Peter walk on water, they saw the dead raised, they saw the multitudes healed. Not even the rabid enemies of Christ questioned any of that sort of thing. Their tactic was to simply credit the devil with the miracles and words. That is the same tack people use today.

 

[Gracchus]

One cannot go by just the style or language. If I used a Greek scribe, or Aramaic, we would not know that from the text we happen to find. Obviously the apostles were involved directly and indirectly. When John says he ran here, or said this, or heard that, etc etc...it means he was there!

" 40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,..." -- [/FONT]Luke Chapter 22

So if the disciples were sleeping, who was it that heard his prayer, who saw the angel, who saw him sweating blood? Perhaps they went to sleep after witnessing these things? The writer was using the "third person omniscient" viewpoint familiar to all readers of fiction.

And if the book says that Jimmy Olsen saw Superman flying over Metropolis then obviously Jimmy Olsen must have been there. And Perry White was there and Lois Lane, and thousands of citizens of Metropolis saw it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is silly. When it says Jesus spoke to John, or Peter and said something, obviously they were witnesses. When they ran to the tomb, obviously they were witnesses. First hand.

When it says that Jesus was alone at Gethsemane because everyone else fell asleep, obviously there were... hmmm...

When it says Jesus was alone in the desert when Satan tempted him, obviously there were... wait, that's not right...

When it says that Joseph was told that Mary was pregnant with God child in a dream, obviously there were... oh, my...

 

[dad]

" 40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,..." -- [/FONT]Luke Chapter 22

So if the disciples were sleeping, who was it that heard his prayer, who saw the angel, who saw him sweating blood?

You seem to forget Jesus was there too, and spoke at length to His disciples later. He taught them and was here for weeks after He rose. We also had a little time after they came for Jesus. Peter cut off an ear, Jesus put it back on...etc. Possibly He mentioned to them that He was praying while they slept, and filled in details later.

 

[dad]

When it says Jesus was alone in the desert when Satan tempted him, obviously there were... wait, that's not right...

Some may have known He was going out to the desert. Details came later.

When it says that Joseph was told that Mary was pregnant with God child in a dream, obviously there were... oh, my...

Joseph was not a fool or a mute. He must have told Mary and others what happened. The record was not written that night!

 

[14messenger]

The flood is the flood. The only falseness about the flood is those who claim the flood is false, among other things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood is the flood. The only falseness about the flood is those who claim the flood is false, among other things.

Don't be silly. This thread was an opportunity for creationists to show that the belief in the flood has some scientific basis. They have all failed terribly.

Of course it was a loaded question since the idea of a flood was debunked well before Darwin's time. The evidence that we have gotten from evolution only shows even more so that there was never a flood that wiped out humanity.