On Martyrdom and other things........

[DataPoint]

Evangelical thinking is as lock step as

Baloney. Cite an example of where my belief overrides a fact about Jesus?

If there's a fact about Jesus I have a contrary belief about, I'll gladly change it once I see the evidence. I don't see you doing that. Ever.

Baloney. Cite an example of where my belief overrides a fact about Jesus?

If there's a fact about Jesus I have a contrary belief about, I'll gladly change it once I see the evidence. I don't see you doing that. Ever.

 

[DataPoint]

Baloney. Cite an example of where my belief overrides a fact about Jesus?

If there's a fact about Jesus I have a contrary belief about, I'll gladly change it once I see the evidence. I don't see you doing that. Ever.

Your insisting that secondary sources are primary sources for the early gospels.

 

[Logicman]

Your insisting that secondary sources are primary sources for the early gospels.

Name which one(s) you're talking about.

 

[Logicman]

Evangelical thinking is as lock step as

View attachment 67338189

That's moronic.

 

[Logicman]

DataPoint wrote: "Your insisting that secondary sources are primary sources for the early gospels."

Me: "Name which one(s) you're talking about."


Really, DataPoint? Crickets? If you're going to make claims then back them up with some facts.

Where's the beef??

 

[DataPoint]

Logicman and all evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, etc., miss the point that

"Seems like we can learn from this:

When we stopped preaching about Bible inerrancy, historicity, evidences, and finding Jesus in every Old Testament passage, and started preaching about the beautiful complexity, the deeper meanings, and literary structure of the Biblical books and how they were masterfully constructed, our church attendance went from 1,000 people to 10,000 people."
--Rob Bell

 

[Logicman]

Logicman and all evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, etc., miss the point that

"Seems like we can learn from this:

When we stopped preaching about Bible inerrancy, historicity, evidences, and finding Jesus in every Old Testament passage, and started preaching about the beautiful complexity, the deeper meanings, and literary structure of the Biblical books and how they were masterfully constructed, our church attendance went from 1,000 people to 10,000 people."
--Rob Bell

More nonsense. Trying to attribute beliefs to me that I've never had.

Why are you making up lies all the time? You think that's clever? Someone who keeps doing that is dishonest and has nothing else.

And where is your response to this other claim you've made"

DataPoint wrote: "Your insisting that secondary sources are primary sources for the early gospels."

Me: "Name which one(s) you're talking about." Answer that and quit avoiding it.

If you're going to make claims then back them up with some facts.

 

[Logicman]

Evangelical thinking is as lock step as

View attachment 67338189

This another one of your bs lies that you can't document.

Your postings now constantly exhibit one false claim and lie after another. Do you think you have credibility around here with that?

 

[tosca1]

I know the arguments. You have second hand and third hand sources arguing for a secondary provenance. Does not wash?

No - your response does not wash.
You may know the argument - but, surely you don't understand the rationale behind the explanations.
Even after you've been given examples!

You must be an evangelical or fundamental.

I am.
What about it?

How is that a rebuttal?

 

[DataPoint]

This another one of your bs lies that you can't document.

Your postings now constantly exhibit one false claim and lie after another. Do you think you have credibility around here with that?

On this page, you are accusing people of lying about you. You admitted that you are evangelical; thus, all the rest is true about you. You don't your false 'scholarship' to have faith in our Lord and Savior. Bearing false witness against those who accurately peg you is not going to help you one bit.

 

[DataPoint]

tosca1, we have no primary source evidence for the Gospel stories.

Don't argue that fact, but it makes you look ignorant or morally culpable.

 

[Logicman]

On this page, you are accusing people of lying about you. You admitted that you are evangelical; thus, all the rest is true about you. You don't your false 'scholarship' to have faith in our Lord and Savior. Bearing false witness against those who accurately peg you is not going to help you one bit.

Spew that nonsense. Your antichrist theology is no doubt straight from the devil himself. It's like debating with a Tourette's Syndrome patient.

I also recommend you get a formal education in Biblical theology because right now your postings are not even on part with a children's Sunday school class on the historical Jesus.

Bind guide atheist.

 

[Logicman]

tosca1, we have no primary source evidence for the Gospel stories.

Don't argue that fact, but it makes you look ignorant or morally culpable.

Facepalm.... You still don't have a clue how pathetic your Biblical history and theology are.

 

[Questerr]

The apostles WITNESSED the resurrection of Jesus.

In fact, when Jesus died, the Apostles went into hiding. They were fearful that they would be rounded up, and persecuted.

BUT when they saw the Resurrected Jesus - they became FEARLESS!
SEEING THE RESURRECTED JESUS WITH THEIR OWN EYES, was what made the big difference for them!


What they did right after witnessing the risen Christ, was a.........................

................................SUDDEN, FULL 360 degrees turn!

The apostles of the Bab witnessed the miracles he performed before being martyred for their faith. Their holy writings all attest to this.

So you are a Baha’i, yes?

 

[Questerr]

Like I've said many times, if somebody says a resurrection is impossible, then that's their claim, and they have to back it up. I have multiple, historical accounts of the resurrection and up to 500 witnesses who were noted in 1st Corinthians. I also have the knowledge that neither science or history has shown that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

What's more, the resurrection of Jesus noted in the Gospels and Acts is "Occams Razor." It's the scenario that best explains a number of things: Why James - who was an unbeliever - now is head of the church in Jerusalem and a believer. It's why Paul became a believer instead of a persecutor. It explains why the disciples, who were afraid and had previously been down in the dumps, suddenly were encouraged and started boldly preaching the resurrected Jesus. It explains why the tomb was empty and why the guards at the tomb were terrified (Matthew 28:4) and later bribed to eventually change their story. It explains why church services were then held on Sunday - the day of the resurrection, and why the church taught the resurrection. It explains why doubting Thomas suddenly became a believer. So, I have all these things and more. Skeptics have nothing but denial and often an anti-supernatural bias that they can't justify with either science or history.

Jesus is Risen indeed!

How do we “know” James was an unbeliever? Why are there no accounts of the resurrection from any non-Biblical sources if there were so many witnesses? The Gospels claim the dead notables of Jerusalem rose from their graves and went around talking to people all over the city. Why is there zero mention of this outside of the Gospels? How do we know “doubting Thomas” actually doubted anything?

I guarantee you are about to use the Bible to prove the Bible in a stunning display of circular logic.

 

[Questerr]

JOHN did.

John 20:4-8 What John "Saw" in the Empty Tomb​

The apostle John's belief in the resurrection was not a "blind leap of faith" when he saw the empty tomb. Jesus had been teaching the disciples that he must be rejected by the religious leaders, be crucified and buried for three days, and then rise from the dead. John was led into a fuller light of understanding and deeper experience with his Master as he listened and obeyed the teaching of Jesus. However, in spite of the teachings, the resurrection of Jesus caught him and all of the disciples by surprise. Psychologically they were not prepared for it.

John 20:4-8 What John "Saw" in the Empty Tomb

Where is the evidence that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead? Examine the death and resurrection of Jesus. The tomb of Jesus Christ was not empty, but His body was not there.

www.abideinchrist.com

“John” did not write the Book of John and literally no significant biblical scholar believes he did.

 

[Questerr]

Show me where the traditional Gospel accounts of Jesus are incorrect?

The non-existent supposed “tradition” that resulted in the release of Barabus.

 

[Questerr]

Baloney. Cite an example of where my belief overrides a fact about Jesus?

If there's a fact about Jesus I have a contrary belief about, I'll gladly change it once I see the evidence. I don't see you doing that. Ever.

In another debate, you claimed Jews are uninformed of their own religion rather than admit the Gospels lied when the claimed the tradition that freed Barabus existed.

 

[DataPoint]

The earliest writings are not primary accounts. Anyone who does say that is likely an evangelical, a fundamentalist, or a Pentecostal, who are operating on faith not evidence.

 

[DataPoint]

I wish well for Logicman, and that he comes to Jesus very soon.

 

[Logicman]

How do we “know” James was an unbeliever? Why are there no accounts of the resurrection from any non-Biblical sources if there were so many witnesses? The Gospels claim the dead notables of Jerusalem rose from their graves and went around talking to people all over the city. Why is there zero mention of this outside of the Gospels? How do we know “doubting Thomas” actually doubted anything?

I guarantee you are about to use the Bible to prove the Bible in a stunning display of circular logic.

Tsk tsk... We know it from the Gospels, etc.

Your peculiar brand of "logic" needs an industrial size booster shot. Besides engaging in the skeptic's usual "logical fallacy" - the 'Argumentum ex silentio' ("argument from silence"), regarding the "dead notables of Jerusalem rose from their graves," you then offer up another sophomoric claim that the accounts in the Gospels are "circular logic". Your logic fails badly also in that regard. Why?

The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales. As such, those manuscripts constitute MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATIONS for the life of Christ, etc. So, the "circular reasoning" claim is not only sophomoric, but disingenuous as well. It just shows the stunning shallowness of thought and knowledge of the skeptic in question.

Jesus is Risen Indeed!

 

[Logicman]

The non-existent supposed “tradition” that resulted in the release of Barabus.

Show me where that's incorrect, and try not to make your reply another one of your logical fallacies (Argumentum ex silentio' - "argument from silence").

 

[Logicman]

The earliest writings are not primary accounts. Anyone who does say that is likely an evangelical, a fundamentalist, or a Pentecostal, who are operating on faith not evidence.

Balderdash.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION. The authorship of the Gospels was not questioned until Faustus, nearly 400 years after the fact. Proximity matters in historiography. Those closest to the writings all stated that the author attribution was intact.” Here's several of the citations:


Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/

John Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/

And even Luke, though not a primary eyewitness, interviewed eyewitnesses in the course of writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1).

More on Luke's Authorship: Considerable evidence points to Luke as the author of his Gospel. “The Gospel is a companion volume to the Book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (Acts 1:1). Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun “we” (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1 – 28:16), indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place. By process of elimination, Paul’s “dear friend Luke, the doctor” (Col. 4:14) and “fellow worker” (Philemon 24), becomes the most likely candidate. His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Christian writings (e.g., the Muratorian Canon, AD 170, and the works of Irenaeus, c. 180).” – NIV Study Bible, page 1564

 

[DataPoint]

I wish well for Logicman, and that he comes to Jesus very soon.

 

[Logicman]

I wish well for Logicman, and that he comes to Jesus very soon.

I was born-again in Christ decades ago. There is no reason to believe you were.