Dive, FMF, KellyJay thread

@kellyjay said
The letters and gospels were written in the time frame of the believers that knew
the Lord while He walked on earth as a man, making those that lived during that
time able to say, "No, it didn't happen that way," and they were accepted as
Scripture at that time. Many of the texts refer to other writers, as Peter talks about
Paul, Luke is brought up by Paul, it would have ...[text shortened]... ading is true.

The various creeds around the world people used also validate the stories as well.

You are factually misinformed. Nothing in the NT was written within 80 at the earliest of when when Jesus lived, and many historical scholars put the earliest writings even later.

Moreover, the people of Judea at that time were mostly illiterate (in Greek anyway), so even if any writings were produced within 80 years of Jesus’ life, no one there would have been able to read them.

So, you still owe us an explanation how the gap to the Council of Nivea was bridged.

Moreover, even after Nicea, bibles were not in common circulation until relatively recently. Not until a) Gutenberg and b) Luther made a vernacular translation widely available. For most of the Christian era, most people did not have direct access to Scripture. So how do you explain the survival of this religion? I’ll give you a clue: it’s not Scripture.

@moonbus said
You are factually misinformed. Nothing in the NT was written within 80 at the earliest of when when Jesus lived, and many historical scholars put the earliest writings even later.

Moreover, the people of Judea at that time were mostly illiterate (in Greek anyway), so even if any writings were produced within 80 years of Jesus’ life, no one there would have been able to rea ...[text shortened]... ture. So how do you explain the survival of this religion? I’ll give you a clue: it’s not Scripture.

Many, not all, pick your scholars! We are not talking about when they were brought together but when they were written originally and their distribution. Luke’s work or contribution was before Paul’s death and they cover plenty of events that places him close to all involved. His opening lines in both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were researched by him for painstaking clarity of events in proper sequence and historical clarity.

Nothing about what I said is in error!

@kellyjay said
Many, not all, pick your scholars! We are not talking about when they were brought together but when they were written originally and their distribution. Luke’s work or contribution was before Paul’s death and they cover plenty of events that places him close to all involved. His opening lines in both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were researched by him for painstaking clarity of events in proper sequence and historical clarity.

You sound like you've never looked into this topic.

@kellyjay said
Many, not all, pick your scholars! We are not talking about when they were brought together but when they were written originally and their distribution. Luke’s work or contribution was before Paul’s death and they cover plenty of events that places him close to all involved. His opening lines in both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were researched by him for painsta ...[text shortened]... arity of events in proper sequence and historical clarity.

Nothing about what I said is in error!

The earliest Gospel is presumed to be that of Mark, who biblical scholars believe to have been Peter’s secretary. Mark never knew Jesus, so he’s nothing but hearsay, not a direct eye witness. Luke and Mathew came even later, and paraphrase Mark, so they are nothing but hearsay twice removed. Not one of them wrote within the lifetime of Jesus or knew Jesus. Hearsay, nothing but hearsay.

If someone said he had been abducted by aliens, transported to a spaceship, subjected to a medical procedure, and returned to earth with his brain transplanted into another body, would you believe that!? You’d be credulous to believe it.

If someone said he had heard about someone else, but whom he did not know personally, had
been abducted by aliens, transported to a spaceship, subjected to a medical procedure, and returned to earth with his brain transplanted into another body, would you believe that!? You’d be credulous to believe it.

If someone said he had heard someone else 2000 years ago had been abducted by aliens, transported to a spaceship, subjected to a medical procedure, and returned to earth with his brain transplanted into another body, would you believe that!? You’d be credulous to believe it.

And you expect me to believe that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, a story told by people who were not themselves acquainted with said person or present at his his execution? Sorry, not credible. No more so for those in the first three centuries after his death. They were just as skeptical as I am. They wanted proof no less than I do. Not hearsay.

So, how do you think this religion survived its first 300 years in the absence of a literate public in possession of any such Scripture as you know today?

Try again. How did early Christians keep the message alive? I’ll repeat the clue: it wasn’t scripture.

@kellyjay said
If you don’t believe that they are from God and not man, then any man’s word carries the same weight of truth. So any opinion and scripture would be no different from each other in truth. Making you feel perfectly consistent and content correcting the Word with your so called new wine understanding instead of being corrected by it, as is your custom!

For what must be the 30th time of asking you across multiple threads, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the bible is the complete, exclusive, inerrant word of god?

Other than your handed-down personal opinion of course.

@kellyjay said
There is evidence that they were but no doubt you side against those and have refused to look at some I have attempted to show you.

Your complaining about links are to large so you don’t want to watch became meaningless to me when I gave you one less than 4 minutes long, you always have an excuse!

So other than your handed-down personal opinion you have nothing to back up your claim?

@divegeester said
No one has issues with your faith, it’s your dishonesty about it which is frequently in question.

One drop of the Light of Christ on your tongue would probably burn you to smithereens.

@divegeester said
For what must be the 30th time of asking you across multiple threads, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the bible is the complete, exclusive, inerrant word of god?

Other than your handed-down personal opinion of course.

I have this suspicion that you and your ilk might inherit the ground-level version of Heaven, whereas the people who are already living in and demonstrating the ways of Heaven get to check out the welcome buffet on the 7th floor after they croak.

@kevin-eleven said
I have this suspicion that you and your ilk might inherit the ground-level version of Heaven, whereas the people who are already living in and demonstrating the ways of Heaven get to check out the welcome buffet on the 7th floor after they croak.

It would be nice if you made sense, in a discussion that's interesting.

@chaney3 said
It would be nice if you made sense, in a discussion that's interesting.

Sir, please just skip over my posts if they don't make sense. Easy-peasy.

@moonbus said
You are factually misinformed. Nothing in the NT was written within 80 at the earliest of when when Jesus lived, and many historical scholars put the earliest writings even later.

Moreover, the people of Judea at that time were mostly illiterate (in Greek anyway), so even if any writings were produced within 80 years of Jesus’ life, no one there would have been able to rea ...[text shortened]... ture. So how do you explain the survival of this religion? I’ll give you a clue: it’s not Scripture.

Huh. So does this mean it might have involved some kind of personal energetic transmission -- or maybe that's the wrong way to phrase or conceptualize it?

zai zai chalam

@divegeester said
For what must be the 30th time of asking you across multiple threads, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the bible is the complete, exclusive, inerrant word of god?

Other than your handed-down personal opinion of course.

You scrabbling in the verbal weeds like this against your fellow sprout and brother just indicates that you are willfully turning your back against Christ your Creator, because you treasure your cleverness, sense of superiority, and cutting sarcasm more than anything else.

@moonbus said
The earliest Gospel is presumed to be that of Mark, who biblical scholars believe to have been Peter’s secretary. Mark never knew Jesus, so he’s nothing but hearsay, not a direct eye witness. Luke and Mathew came even later, and paraphrase Mark, so they are nothing but hearsay twice removed. Not one of them wrote within the lifetime of Jesus or knew Jesus. Hearsay, nothin ...[text shortened]... y again. How did early Christians keep the message alive? I’ll repeat the clue: it wasn’t scripture.

I take it you don't believe God had a hand it any of it, you and dive have a lot in
common.

@kellyjay said
I take it you don't believe God had a hand it any of it, you and dive have a lot in
common.

You are claiming divegeester has actually said he believes that God "didn't have any hand in it"? That's very deceitful of you. What's happened to you this year?