Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

[firedragon]

The Gospels make it clear that Jesus chose 12 disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of lsrael, to accompany him during his ministry. One broke faith and later committed suicide. A further disciple was added to make up this loss. All twelve disciples were Jews, and their mission was first and foremost to the Jewish nation.

Saul of Tarsus, renamed Paul, became an additional apostle. He was chosen by the risen Lord, and given primary responsibility for taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. For a while, he was accompanied by Barnabas.

The point is, Barnabas was not chosen by Jesus to have primary responsibilty or authority. This was given to Paul, and it was Paul who received revelation regarding his mission and teaching. Why should there be any need of a Gospel of Barnabas in scripture if the teaching of Paul is sufficient?

Irrelevant. Why was the epistle of Barnabas in the earliest Bible and now its not? Did the Holy Spirit not exist in the people who canonised the oldest bible canon? Its only one question.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Egypt is real

No! It's just a fictional place where a bunch of folks live in pyramids and have bad Wi-Fi inside.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, thanks. Because Baha'is do tie in Muhammad with prophecies in Revelation.

Obviously. They tie in everything, and most of the Bahai's in this forum claim to have studied all the books, like the Quran, theBible, the Tipitaka, the Vedas, the Smrithis, the Puranas, etc etc etc, which are all bogus claims. None of them have studied a single book. They claim "in-depth", but they have not even read them.

Sorry but that's the case.

But I must say I know a Bahai gentleman personally and he never makes claims like that. Also, there is one single Bahai in this forum who does not make such facade claims.

Cheers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible makes it quite clear that God responds to faith. The world continues to clamour for evidence on the basis that 'seeing is believing', but God turns this around placing faith first. In God's kingdom, 'believing is seeing'.

If you bother to read about the ministry of Jesus, you will see that, everywhere Jesus went in Galilee, crowds flocked to hear him preach. All who went to him for healing were healed, without exception. But in one town, Nazareth, the place of his upbringing, the people were sceptical and did not go to him. They did not believe, and as a result did not witness healings or miracles.

Again, those are just stories in an old book. Stories meant to teach certain lessons. That doesn't mean they actually happened.
The rest are just bald assertions.

Scripture teaches that if you continue to show scepticism, the only evidence you'll witness is the evidence of judgement. It happened to the world in Noah's day, it happened to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it will happen when the Lord returns.

That's how l see it.

So according to you, God wants blind obedience?
That doesn't sound like a God worth worshiping to me. Why give us brains and intelligence if we're supposed to just blindly believe? That doesn't make much sense.

 

[Audie]

No! It's just a fictional place where a bunch of folks live in pyramids and have bad Wi-Fi inside.

Ah so

 

[lukethethird]

Egypt is real

Sherlock Holmes resides in London, still fiction.

 

[Audie]

Sherlock Holmes resides in London, still fiction.

Oh.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Since the gospels were written later, some embellishing could have taken place. Only two writers tell of the birth of Jesus and they both tell the story slightly differently. Since they weren't eyewitnesses who was their source? Mary? The Holy Spirit? If they had the same source, then why are the stories different?

The stories of casting out demons and turning water into wine and walking on water... with one version including Peter walking on water too. Could those stories be added in embellishments based on legends and oral traditions?

Then people rising from the dead. Could be embellishments? But what about the people coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem? That should have been witnessed by lots of people, even the Jews and Romans. Any reports of this from them? Then Jesus himself. If he came out of the tomb and the body was not there, then that old body transformed into a "glorified" body that could appear and disappear and float off into the sky? Or, since it is so unbelievable, could it be made up stories? Again, since it was written years later.

It's hard to believe that such things could have really happened. But it is also hard to believe, like you say, that the disciples could have pulled off such a hoax. Some of the things, where there were a lot of witnesses, I think those could easily have been added in embellishments. Pulling off the resurrection? Even if all it they did is steal the body and make up the appearances, getting away with taking the body seems like it would have been very difficult to do. And if the body was still in the tomb, then even if the resurrection story isn't written until years later, the body could still be produced to prove the gospels wrong.

So, the resurrection is hard to believe and hard to discount. But the rest of those miracles, including and especially the dead people getting out of their graves, I think would be easy to just write into the story. And, if the gospel writers did, that would be enough to raise doubts about the whole story and for some of us, enough not to trust the gospel stories.

You appear to be a very fair-minded person, and the questions you raise are valid questions.

There are many who call themselves Christians today who struggle with the idea of miracles. Personally, I find this position impossible to maintain, given that the resurrection is central to Christian belief. If the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, then, as Paul says, our faith is vain: 'And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.' [1 Cor.15:17]

It is also worth considering the relationship that the NT has to the OT (Tanakh). Miracles are not something new to the Jews. Miracles have been part and parcel of their covenant with God. It was accepted that where a prophet walked in step with God, there would be miracles. Moses demonstrated the power of God on many occasions. Later, Elijah taunted the false prophets of Baal before bringing down fire on his sacrifice. He also prayed to God for a widow's son in Zarephath, and the boy was raised to life. These examples demonstrate that God has not changed. What has changed is the relationship that a believer can have with God. Instead of intimate knowledge being restricted to a few prophets, Christ has made such intimacy possibe for all who are 'born again' and enter Christ's spiritual body.

I claim no special power, but my prayers have been answered with people getting healed. I, too, was the recipient of healing through prayer in the name of Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Irrelevant. Why was the epistle of Barnabas in the earliest Bible and now its not? Did the Holy Spirit not exist in the people who canonised the oldest bible canon? Its only one question.

Patristic literature, of which the Epistle of Barnabas is an example, is all literature that ends up being disqualified from the canon of the NT.

The Epistle of Barnabas is probably Alexandrian, but it was not the Alexandrian text that was adopted by the Church. The Byzantine text was considered authoritative, and, in time, became the principle source for the Textus Receptus.

We discussed this some time ago, I believe.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So according to you, God wants blind obedience?
That doesn't sound like a God worth worshiping to me. Why give us brains and intelligence if we're supposed to just blindly believe? That doesn't make much sense.

Nowhere have I said that reason is not of value. If you ever read the works of Thomas Aquinas, you will know that he wrote extensively on the topic of 'Faith and Reason'. Aquinas stated that both faith and reason are of value, but that each is best employed in its own realm. Reason is best applied to the things of creation, whilst faith is best applied to the spiritual things of the Kingdom of God (my over-simplification!). There remains an element of vagueness as to the precise line of separation....hence the debate.

If you pick up a concordance of the Bible and look up the word 'faith', you will see that there are very few references to faith in the OT, but hundreds in the NT. Throughout his ministry, Jesus calls the attention of his disciples to matters of faith. The simple reason for this is that the NT is a covenant based on a person, not a set of commandments. The disciples of Christ are called upon to follow the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and this takes faith.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So according to you, God wants blind obedience?
That doesn't sound like a God worth worshiping to me. Why give us brains and intelligence if we're supposed to just blindly believe? That doesn't make much sense.

Problem is that sin has affected our brains and intelligence… I mean you can’t even hear, understand or discern spiritual matters with what you have available.
Once a person is born again and knows God you can hear Him, at that point when He tells me to do something yes I will do it.

 

[ppp]

I mean you can’t even hear, understand or discern spiritual matters with what you have available.

Assuming an condescending air of superior knowledge is a common human tactic. I have heard those words from people of every religion I have encountered; people who are members of religions that are monotheists, polytheists, and atheists alike. And you all say those same words, yet all disagree bitterly on what spiritual discernment actually is and what there is to be discerned. Not a one of you are able to demonstrate that you know or are able to know the thing that you say are true. So, not only do I wonder why you should expect anyone else to take your claims seriously. I genuinely wonder wonder why any of you do.

 

[CG Didymus]

Obviously. They tie in everything, and most of the Bahai's in this forum claim to have studied all the books, like the Quran, theBible, the Tipitaka, the Vedas, the Smrithis, the Puranas, etc etc etc, which are all bogus claims. None of them have studied a single book. They claim "in-depth", but they have not even read them.

Sorry but that's the case.

But I must say I know a Bahai gentleman personally and he never makes claims like that. Also, there is one single Bahai in this forum who does not make such facade claims.

Cheers.

Thanks

 

[ElishaElijah]

Assuming an condescending air of superior knowledge is a common human tactic.

I’m talking from personal experience, I said earlier how I was a drug addict, thief, liar, adulterer and a blind fool so how can I have any condescending air or some superiority? God is the One who is awesome and deserves all the praise.
But brother, apart from God, yes we are all blind.

 

[Audie]

I’m talking from personal experience, I said earlier how I was a drug addict, thief, liar, adulterer and a blind fool so how can I have any condescending air or some superiority? God is the One who is awesome and deserves all the praise.
But brother, apart from God, yes we are all blind.

You are presenting as superior now.
Beware the sin of Vanity.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are presenting as superior now.
Beware the sin of Vanity.

How so? If I’m pointing to myself as achieved something on my own as if I have some kind of great idea or wisdom then yes, but to tell you, I don’t.
Here is the thing, I tell you what God has done for me and it’s you that say it was some kind of idea or strong mind or some willpower I had that delivered me.

 

[rational experiences]

A basic just a human question.

If you didn't read any books are you still a human?

Everyone should say yes.

If a human says I know in a human life. By what means do you know?

I look at another just a human life body. I know.

I know we live equally in an exact environment.

So where is the especial human in reality as just a human? Without book reading arguing.

Instead science wrote words that correlated numbers by thinking first owning a condition chosen by humans that nature never owned.

Machines.

Machines used to change the heavens gases. As point one to know to thesis consciously was by our heavens gases.

Earth only solids or dusts.

So if thesis began by contemplating natural heavens the outcome was I changed natural heavens. The man one self the scientist.

So then one man endured life body change is pretty basic human science advice first. Life survived.

How would you feel after? Would you feel powerful. What type of body mind chemistry changes did you endure before attack of life stopped.

Are the real questions you needed to ask the human scientist. But you don't.

Pretty basic just human moral advice. Moral meaning all considerations human to protect life's sanctity as my own. A or one human. Which each of us are.

Being what each of us is meant to believe in human family. Just as a thinking human idealising status.

Yet we prove we don't as we became possessed by intellectual coercing.

 

[rational experiences]

A basic just a human question.

If you didn't read any books are you still a human?

Everyone should say yes.

If a human says I know in a human life. By what means do you know?

I look at another just a human life body. I know.

I know we live equally in an exact environment.

So where is the especial human in reality as just a human? Without book reading arguing.

Instead science wrote words that correlated numbers by thinking first owning a condition chosen by humans that nature never owned.

Machines.

Machines used to change the heavens gases. As point one to know to thesis consciously was by our heavens gases.

Earth only solids or dusts.

So if thesis began by contemplating natural heavens the outcome was I changed natural heavens. The man one self the scientist.

So then one man endured life body change is pretty basic human science advice first. Life survived.

How would you feel after? Would you feel powerful. What type of body mind chemistry changes did you endure before attack of life stopped.

Are the real questions you needed to ask the human scientist. But you don't.

Pretty basic just human moral advice. Moral meaning all considerations human to protect life's sanctity as my own. A or one human. Which each of us are.

Being what each of us is meant to believe in human family. Just as a thinking human idealising status.

Yet we prove we don't as we became possessed by intellectual coercing.

 

[Audie]

How so? If I’m pointing to myself as achieved something on my own as if I have some kind of great idea or wisdom then yes, but to tell you, I don’t.
Here is the thing, I tell you what God has done for me and it’s you that say it was some kind of idea or strong mind or some willpower I had that delivered me.

I did not say that. Not cool
to make things up.

" you cant even see, hear, or understand"
(Like i can)

You didnt even notice the air of condescending superiority?

Vanity.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I did not say that. Not cool
to make things up.

You said this:
Its proof of the power of an idea,and I am so glad it worked.