Personal testimony eliminates the possibility for atheists to claim that the supernatural is not true.
So do you believe that it is wrong that God created all things and gave life?
There is no "proof" of the authorship of the gospels but there is enough evidence in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church for that traditional authors and that the early church knew who they were.
It seems that for you the views of modern historians are enough to convince...
It's not as if there is nobody who claims to have have supernatural experience. You however want authentication, as if a person should be able to repeat the experience with scientists testing and observing.
But science and nobody knows anything about spirits or how to test for them. If it knew...
How could it be anything but speculation to say that Mark copied from Josephus and that the supernatural is not true so Mark must have been written after 70AD? There is no external evidence, just the claims and the speculation about the supernatural, which is baseless speculation.
As for...
Maybe it is because you are a skeptic thinker that you cannot see that the experiences of people in life and in history can be evidence for the supernatural.
There are always going to be arguments of the late writing and alternative authorship. And the opinions of people opposed to the traditions of the Church will always be picked up on by others opposed to those traditions and used as if they were facts.
Iranaeus of Lyons and the Muratorian Canon...
So the presumption by the German textual critics that there is no such thing as the supernatural is all the evidence you have that Mark was written after 70AD.
And no, Josephus agreeing with Mark about the trial of Jesus does not mean that Mark copied the trial scene from Josephus. Do you think...
Swedenborg may have thought that, but can you show me a Biblical passage where "resurrection" has that meaning? I don't know, maybe you can show me one where you can twist it around to mean that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but if so, it contradicts the many others where "resurrection" means what it means in...
That is the reason that the life of Jesus is said to have been a fiction, to fit prophecy.
Any explanation is more plausible than a supernatural explanation.
True, there were groups that rejected the teachings of the apostles.
Yes I deny scholarship that automatically goes for a writing date of post 70AD because of the destruction of the Temple prophecy.
Religions have jargon which they use and which can make communication difficult with people who aren't initiated a bit into the jargon.
I have noticed some religions, and in this case, Baha'i, changes the normal definition of some words.
In this case the Baha'is want "resurrection" to mean...
They were anonymous to the extent that the authors did not write their names in them. That does not mean that the books turned up in congregations without people knowing something about who wrote them. Traditions have to start somewhere.
Tradition is just part of what we call "history". Maybe...
I tells us that his material comes from witnesses. It does not matter how many witnesses there were, but Luke did consider them to have been witnesses, or to at least have sourced their material from witnesses (as for example, Mark sourced from Peter)
Paul mentions Luke as a companion and as a physician. This means that Luke would have been educated.
It is the historical accuracy of his writings that have led scholars to call Luke a historian.
Luke has been found to be historically correct in things where he has been accused of inaccuracy...
It is not claimed that Mark was an eyewitness, however Luke says at the beginning of his gospel.
Luke 1:1 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...
The other gospels weren't accepted and used by the early church. It has always been just the 4 gospels in quotes from the church fathers. Presumably this was for the reason that at that time it was just those 4 which were acceptable.
There is only one reason to say that the gospels were...
They are a religion that changes the meaning of words. They want the "physical death and soul leaving the body" to be the resurrection. So Jesus died and that means, in their teachings, that Jesus is alive and has been resurrected into a resurrection body and is in heaven in that body.
It is a...
You can twist the meaning if you want, but only the priests could go into the holy place, the sanctuary of the Temple and most importantly there was no Temple after 70AD and still there is no Temple, so there was no sanctuary in 1844 or in the time of Muhammad and there was no daily sacrifice...
Who can a "what" stand in the holy place, especially when the holy place is part of the Temple and there was no Temple in 1844?
What I am writing is not mathematics.
I made a mistake, it is 457BC which is the correct date for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. However there is no reason to begin...