Part 16 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

What am I wrong about ? Were the babies killed in Genesis evil according to you ? If yes then my statement is correct. "First you are trying to justify the killing of babies because they were evil as stated in Genesis"

If you think that there were no babies because the people ate all their babies then my statement is not correct.

I am just trying to figure out where you are coming from here ?

Which is it. Were there babies killed in Genesis, and if there were babies killed were they innocent or evil ?

2) "Now you are telling me that some babies are not evil" Is this wrong ? Are some babies not evil = innocent.

 

My confusion has nothing to do with Satan or God. My confusion has to do with you seeming to say two different things.

So please clarify your position.

According to you:

1) Are there any Babies that are not evil.
2) If there are Babies that are not evil then which are evil and which are not.

 

Sorry but that's just a very poor argument. Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day.

The bottom line for Christians is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are: the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). We should also remember that one of the promises Jesus gave His disciples was that He would send them “another helper,” the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things and “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). So, whether it was few years or many after Jesus’ death that the Gospels were written, we can have total confidence and faith in their completeness and accuracy, knowing that they were written by “men moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), who accurately recorded the very words of God.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html#ixzz32HHM653y

 

Another positive claim in that first line by you. I suppose you have the necessary physical evidence to substantiate and show PROOF of that claim?
Leaning on a 'guess' is ineffective as demonstrated by the ineffective posting of mine which left the door open for you to add your two-cents worth of opinion.

 

Well you are partly correct. It is true Luke never saw Jesus, his Gospel is composed from the accounts of several eyewitnesses of Jesus' life. Mark's Gospel is traditionally believed to be compiled from the teachings of the apostle Peter who of course was a disciple of Jesus as were Matthew and John who were also disciples of Jesus, thus they saw Him and their Gospels were direct eyewitness accounts.

 

Question #1: The spoken Word of God.

Question #2: There is no 'Bible' that only I have access to.

 

Yes, I would not as I have already thoroughly explained to you the reason why I have no problem. Are you going to deny that my reason makes a whole lot of sense?...lol

Sorry but I don't see the connection of what this statement has to do with the Gospels. Are you interested in talking about crimes and people on juries now? Pardon me but I would like to continue talking about the Gospels, after all the Gospels are "Good News".

 

It doesn't matter. Like I just said to Woody sorry but that's just a very poor argument. Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day.

The bottom line for Christians is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are: the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). We should also remember that one of the promises Jesus gave His disciples was that He would send them “another helper,” the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things and “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). So, whether it was few years or many after Jesus’ death that the Gospels were written, we can have total confidence and faith in their completeness and accuracy, knowing that they were written by “men moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), who accurately recorded the very words of God.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gos...#ixzz32HHM653y

 

Eye witness testimony is highly suspect even when it is given soon after the event. When it is given years later, it is even more suspect. In a courtroom, forensic evidence trumps eye witnesses.

 

As an agnostic I don't know if there is a god or not. I certainly don't accept the Abramic god or do I fear death. It is a natural process. I don't believe in hell. And, more to the point, my eyes were checked not long ago as routine. They are fine.

 

Exactly! Good post Jeannette!

 

This is true. Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with the Apostle Paul. Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview local eye-witnesses and people who had followed Jesus closely.

Luke was like an investigative journalist compiling a story from several informants, he composed his Gospel from the accounts of several eyewitnesses of Jesus' life.

Luke collated all the interviews into a single account, recording details not mentioned elsewhere, for example regarding the conception and birth of Jesus and Mary's extended family, as you might expect of a doctor.

 

Obviously you have misinterpreted the Book of Genesis. The sun was created on day 1 and not on day 4 as you have wrongly interpreted it to be.

Refer to my post #7 on pg. 1 of Part 3. I have thoroughly explained it very clearly and so if you still can't accept the fact that the sun was created on day one... well all I can say is that...who is really the pretender here?...I'd say the atheist guy is the pretender thinking he fully understands Scripture...lol

 

Even though Genesis clearly states that "the greater light to rule the day" (the Sun) and the "lesser light to rule the night" (the Moon) were created on the FOURTH Day....

because "light" is mentioned in the account of the FIRST Day....that "means the Sun".

If you read Genesis correctly....not as it's actually written...but as MittRyan TELLS you what it means....you'll see it's all so clear and consistant.

 

Sorry but you're wrong. The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John were written respectively by Matthew and John who were disciples of Jesus.

 

Well the book wasn't an autobiography of Matthew's life. The Gospels are written as in the form of historical narrative documenting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

More importantly, the purpose of the Gospels is not for the writers to talk about their lives, but the life of Jesus Christ.

 

The real problem is that atheists such as yourself will always be in denial of the truth.

So now you believe that the Scribes conspired to clean up the mistakes...that is just so ludicrous!

Where is your concrete proof of this? That's all right, you don't have to furnish any proofs...because I know you don't have any...it is just a typical atheist tactic to spew out unsubstantiated claims to discredit the Holy Bible.

I guess that's just your way to comfort yourself into falsely believing that the Bible can't be taken seriously. But the truth is, all you're doing is simply being in denial of the truth.

Just admit you are simply in denial of the truth. As for me and a few billions of others, we are accepting the truth!

 

Neither Paul and Peter are referring to the Christian scriptures. They are talking about the Tanakh. There were no Christian scriptures when they wrote their Epistles. Certainly Timothy is told ' continue in what you have learned and become convinced of, because you know from whom you have learned it, and from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ'. Timothy was taught the Tanakh as a child. There were no other Holy Scriptures when Timothy was a child.
Peter refers to prophecy in the Tanakh and uses the Christian interpretation of those prophesies
You would think that if the Bible were inspired Mark wouldn't have got his geography wrong. Luke wouldn't have got his Nativity story wrong. But there.

 

Exactly! Good post elijah!

 

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about? Where have you read about a ghost who dies then resurrects?

It certainly can't be something you read coming from the Holy Bible.

 

The Bible cannot err, since it is God's Word, and God cannot err. This does not mean there are no difficulties in the Bible. But the difficulties are not due to God's perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it. The history of Bible criticism reveals that the Bible has no errors, but the critics do.

Jesus affirmed that the "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NASB). As an infallible book, the Bible is also irrevocable.

 

I give you material from the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains that the titles of the various Gospels do not go back to the authors.

You cry "Your Wrong, Your Wrong" and restate your claim without giving any support for that claim.

The foundation for your beliefs is built on sand.

 

Sorry but the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew. You have no facts whatsoever but just opinions.

 

Mitt ... it was a terrible post.

1) why are you cherry picking posts from a year ago, and not reading what the outcome was.

Elijah posted a bunch of evangelical seminaries which was a joke. We already know those brainwashed nut jobs believe in inerrancy.

I already showed you examples in Bibles where the meaning was changed by the hand of man. You did not even bother responding and went to hide under a chair.

So much for having answers to tough questions.

 

Then maybe, just perhaps, just a guess, there might be something interfering with your NATURAL abilities of perception.