• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The testimony of the NT writers

Eli G

Well-Known Member
I don't assume atheists have more rational thinking skills. One of the scholars I linked for you on the question of when Paul's epistles were written is a Christian. The problem is that you are not familiar with Bible scholarship. I would suggest reading some scholarly sources that are non-fundamentalist. It might help you.
I got it, and that is another big problem: some theology schools are being infected with atheist people ... Religion is a big business, right? I am being realistic, I know some biblists scholars are just business-men. Just saying.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
"Sounds like he was a witness."

Paul claimed to have met Peter, he also claimed that his own, as well as Peter's, apostleship was granted by God. Where is Jesus in that? Paul claimed that a risen Christ appeared to him in a vision and that he appeared to others, including Peter, as well. So what were they witnessing?
You lost me... relevance please
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I got it, and that is another big problem: some theology schools are being infected with atheist people ... Religion is a big business, right? I am being realistic, I know some biblists scholars are just business-men. Just saying.

But the guy I linked you to isn't an atheist, lol. Also, why can't atheists study the Bible? The problem is that you want us to treat the Bible with kid gloves. You want us to assume it's true. I'm sorry, we won't do that anymore. You're gonna have to do better than that.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The ist.

Lists by men.

Satan ist.
Scien t ist.

Sacrificed conscious.
Con science.

You say in mind I don't own anything as science. I have nothing that is science.

No machine.
No reaction.

From not owning any thing science you then conjured manifest a machine out of no thing.

As no operational machine even exists in reality. So it's nothing itself first says the mind.

Then to operate it design already was destroyed phi calculus. To build a non reality machine. Then Phi is re used...it doesn't exist by itself the calculus.

Again the mind says from non reality it came. His science practice.

Human operates self mind destruction by not actually owning science first.

Is your owned self deception told.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
But the guy I linked you to isn't an atheist, lol. Also, why can't atheists study the Bible? The problem is that you want is to treat the Bible with kid gloves. You want us to assume it's true. I'm sorry, we won't do that anymore. You're gonna have to do better than that.
Well, some non-atheist have been influenced by atheist theologians who became professors in theological schools.

Theologian could be anyone ... if he pays the course to the school that is going to grant him the diploma. ;)
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, some non-atheist have been influence by atheist theologians. Theologian could be anyone ... if he pay the course to the school that is going to grant him the diploma. ;)

The bigger problem in theology schools is that so many of them are run by fundamentalist churches that require students and teachers to adhere to a statement of faith, agreeing that they won't say or write any view that contradicts what the church teaches. Which means in many of those schools, the Bible is treated with kid gloves.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The bigger problem in theology schools is that so many of them are run by fundamentalist churches that require students and teachers to adhere to a statement of faith, agreeing that they won't say or write any view that contradicts what the church teaches. Which means in many of those schools, the Bible is treated with kid gloves.
I am a Jehovah's Witness. Most of the info we learn is free to get in our official website. And there is a lot of good information ... You may be surprised of how updated it is about almost every topic you can imagine. Try it ... not need of a theological school. We totally separated from theologians and religious leaders of Christendom in 1919.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am a Jehovah's Witness. Most of the info we learn is free to get in our official website. And there is a lot of good information ... You may be surprised of how updated it is about almost every topic you can imagine. Try it ... not need of a theological school. We totally separated from theologians and religious leaders of Christendom in 1919.
They are far from reliable. Why would anyone believe them?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I am a Jehovah's Witness. Most of the info we learn is free to get in our official website. And there is a lot of good information ... You may be surprised of how updated it is about almost every topic you can imagine. Try it ... not need of a theological school. We totally separated from theologians and religious leaders of Christendom in 1919.

Oh gosh lol. The JWs are not known for their scholarship, Eli, I'm sorry to tell you. ;) I know quite a bit about it actually, since multiple family members of mine have been JWs.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
This is your evidence? What people "think" 2000 years later omitting:

B. External Evidence:1 The early Church regarded the letter as Petrine

1. Clear parallels exist in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians
2. Traces of the epistle may be in Ignatius, Barnabas and Hermas
3. Polycarp (c 70-150/166) has definite citations form the epistle
4. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all quote this epistle as Petrine
5. Theophilus of Antioch cites this letter as Petrine
6. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-339) places it among the books that were accepted by the church without any doubt (homologoumena) and says that Papias (c. 60-130) used witnesses from 1 Peter3
7. The author of the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lugdunum (Lyons) cites this letter as Petrine

No... I think I will stick to those closest to the event.



ROFL - No, you are basing that on suppositions.
You lost me... relevance please


I read the epistle, what was Peter a witness to?
 
Top