- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 23,086
- Reaction score
- 2,375
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Nope, that's an actual historical fact.
Nope, that's hogwash.
Nope, that's an actual historical fact.
Nope, that's hogwash.
Nope, that's hogwash.
That's absolute nonsense. All four Gospels and various epistles, including a number of eyewitnesses, confirm the resurrection. There's nothing different about that. The resurrection happened. You're probably referring to ancillary events of secondary importance.
What's more, you've never been able to refute any of that. If you think you can, hop out here with your best ONE (1 - JUST ONE) example, and cite the appropriate scripture(s) and make your argument. I'm calling you out to back up your claim.
So then, how exactly did the bible come to be written and compiled? Who did it and what was their purpose in doing so?
The "gospels" weren't written by actual witnesses. That's problem number one.
There are many supernatural events described in those books, which don't even match each other. That's number two.
You grabbing at "the tomb was empty in all accounts and that's all that matters" is absurd. Lane Craig is nuts there - no historian would look at a bunch of accounts of supposed supernatural events and claim that, since one of those allusions to an event (tomb was empty, therefore Jesus was resurrected) is nuts. It's nuts because of the supernatural aspect of the claim. Real historians don't dabble in the supernatural. They deal with reality. "Raised saints" need not apply.
Prove any of that happened. Explain why there are 4 different stories, and the last one written was fantastically different.
You can't.
I don't need to use your unproven book to disprove your unproven book. What an absurd demand.
Nuts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark relayed Peter's accounts. And Luke wrote, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you.."
Where's your scriptural support for that?
I have the independent historical accounts from the Gospels / New Testament. You've got nothing. You make all sorts of claims and can't support them from the scriptures or from anything else.
I asked you to refute the Gospel accounts and you can't.
Nuts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark relayed Peter's accounts. And Luke wrote, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you.."
Where's your scriptural support for that?
I have the independent historical accounts from the Gospels / New Testament. You've got nothing. You make all sorts of claims and can't support them from the scriptures or from anything else.
I asked you to refute the Gospel accounts and you can't.
Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
You can start here, although I'm sure you'll say that none of this matters.
Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection - ReligionFacts
Also, from post 357: Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously.
The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
The Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts -
Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts
That claim is demolished. They didn't do their homework.
Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship
The overall consensus of scholars is that Mark was written before 70 AD. A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books
The truth is often lost on those it's intended for. But here's something for the Dawkins disciples:
View attachment 67225094
The truth is often lost on those it's intended for. But here's something for the Dawkins disciples:
View attachment 67225094
The truth is often lost on those it's intended for. But here's something for the Dawkins disciples:
View attachment 67225094
You have posted that book cover many times and many times we have posted a thorough debunking of the tome.
I will also note that despite the many times he has posted that picture, not once has he discussed the contents of the book itself. It's like he looked at the cover, and didn't bother to read the inside.
I will also note that despite the many times he has posted that picture, not once has he discussed the contents of the book itself. It's like he looked at the cover, and didn't bother to read the inside.
You have posted that book cover many times and many times we have posted a thorough debunking of the tome.
There you go again, fulminating about things you know nothing about.
There you go again, fulminating about things you know nothing about.
You actually believe that! What a howler.
Demonstrate that you understand something of the content in your own words.