The testimony of the NT writers

[Kenny]

I asked for links for valid sources. You only gave claims. There is no excuse not to. We went through this once before and I ended up digging up your claims myself and refuting them. I am not doing your homework again.

Your clams, your burden of proof. Merely saying "There is a book that says . . . " is not good enough. Demanding that you properly support your claims is not a dodge.

DODGE

Sorry, not my fault you aren't read up. I am not doing your homework. Prove me wrong if you want.

You are claiming I am wrong... prove it. I gave proper Biographical support.

Still waiting for your proof on the conspiracy. You didn't think I was going to let you get off that easy by creating your smokescreens, did you?

 

[Eli G]

Begging the question - Wikipedia

Yeah, our official website is translated in more languages even than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in second place on the list.

 

[lukethethird]

Wow, wow, wow ,,, hehehe.

This is Peter talking:

2 Pet. 1:16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather, we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: “This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.” 18 Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain.

Now I understand better someone who used to talk a lot about fake news. LOL.
Where do these people come from? And how come they sell so much?

2 Tim. 4:3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. 5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do [the] work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

Yeah, talk about fake news. Pet.1-16 and Tim. 4-3 take the cake.

 

[Eli G]

Did you not see that the author of that only claimed to be an eyewitness? How does that help you at all? You cannot even judge by that whether he was a witness or not. It is just a puff of hot air in this debate.

One supposed line. Pretty slim pickings.

Have you read why it is thought that Peter was not the author?

Man, take a break. Some water, maybe your pill ...

 

[Eli G]

Yeah, talk about fake news. Pet.1-16 and Tim. 4-3 take the cake.

And some atheists want to make us learn about rational thinking ... Hehehehe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DODGE

Sorry, not my fault you aren't read up. I am not doing your homework. Prove me wrong if you want.

You are claiming I am wrong... prove it. I gave proper Biographical support.

Still waiting for your proof on the conspiracy. You didn't think I was going to let you get off that easy by creating your smokescreens, did you?

I am read up. You are the one making claims and not supporting them. Forcing you to do your homework is not a dodge no matter how many times that you claim it. Now I could probably find the same nonsense from Liars For Jesus. but I do not tend to trust them. You need to find reliable sources.

I am not claiming that you are wrong. I am claiming that you have not properly supported your claims. And every reply that I have made has an unedited copy of your posts. There are no links.

 

[Kenny]

"1 Peter contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Yes, he did have a twisted liberal viewpoint.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 PETER
That Simon, called Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was the writer of this epistle, is not questioned by any; nor was the genuineness and authenticity of it ever made a doubt of. Eusebius says {a}, that it had been confessed by all, and received without controversy; and that the ancients, without any scruple, had made use of it in their writings

Introduction to 1 Peter 1 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, our official website is translated in more languages even than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in second place on the list.

So what?

 

[Kenny]

I am read up. You are the one making claims and not supporting them. Forcing you to do your homework is not a dodge no matter how many times that you claim it. Now I could probably find the same nonsense from Liars For Jesus. but I do not tend to trust them. You need to find reliable sources.

I am not claiming that you are wrong. I am claiming that you have not properly supported your claims. And every reply that I have made has an unedited copy of your posts. There are no links.

DODGE

I still gave the citing. If you don't want to look them up it is your error, not mine.

You haven't proven me wrong either.

And I am still waiting for your supportive documentation on your modern conspiracy theory.

You are getting in quite a habit in calling other people out on what you don't do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And some atheists want to make us learn about rational thinking ... Hehehehe.

No seriously. You are not acting rationally. There are books of the Bible that are well known to be pseudographs. They actually contradict earlier books in the Bible. For example Acts 4 13:

"13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."

Now were they illiterate or not? And in John's case did he suddenly become very well schooled in Koine Greek?

I can see it now, "Hey guys! I just learned how to read and write in a very very well educated manner".


You can't have it both ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DODGE

I still gave the citing. If you don't want to look them up it is your error, not mine.

You haven't proven me wrong either.

And I am still waiting for your supportive documentation on your modern conspiracy theory.

You are getting in quite a habit in calling other people out on what you don't do.

Nope, I did this once before with you and showed you to be wrong. There is no excuse not to provide links when they are demanded. Until then Hitchen's razor applies.

And yes. I am calling you out for not supporting your claims properly.

 

[Eli G]

So what?

Just saying .

The truth is until this moment, 14 pages on my topic in just a few ours, and still not a valid reason why I should not consider the NT documents as reliable.

And everyone can see how picturesque have been the interventions of the zombies in my topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just saying .

The truth is until this moment, 14 pages on my topic in just a few ours, and still not a valid reason why I should not consider the NT documents as reliable.

And everyone can see how picturesque have been the interventions of the zombies in my topic.

Okay. let's go over a specific failure. Are your ready? You will need reliable sources to refute this, not apologist sites. Not JW sites:

Luke has Jesus birth during the Census of Quirinius. That is a well dated event. The reason for it is well known. The problem? It was in the year 6 CE ten years after Jesus's birth in Matthew.

Do you need links? I can provide them.

 

[Kenny]

Nope, I did this once before with you and showed you to be wrong. There is no excuse not to provide links when they are demanded. Until then Hitchen's razor applies.

And yes. I am calling you out for not supporting your claims properly.

I'm still waiting for your citation. WHEN and IF YOU GIVE YOUR CITATION on your modern conspiracy theory, I will be happy to provide you a link.

But for you to berate people about not providing links when you don't, it is quite hypocritical.

I am calling you out on this one.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, he did have a twisted liberal viewpoint.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 PETER
That Simon, called Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was the writer of this epistle, is not questioned by any; nor was the genuineness and authenticity of it ever made a doubt of. Eusebius says {a}, that it had been confessed by all, and received without controversy; and that the ancients, without any scruple, had made use of it in their writings

Introduction to 1 Peter 1 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

Thanks for the link, nothing in there contradicts what W. G. Kümmel writes.

 

[Eli G]

Okay. let's go over a specific failure. Are your ready? You will need reliable sources to refute this, not apologist sites. Not JW sites:

Luke has Jesus birth during the Census of Quirinius. That is a well dated event. The reason for it is well known. The problem? It was in the year 6 CE ten years after Jesus's birth in Matthew.

Do you need links? I can provide them.

Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6 C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. (See QUIRINIUS.) His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).

So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37. (Insight Vol 2 / Registration).

Satisfied?

Learned from my JWs teachers. You can too. It's free in our website

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for the link, nothing in there contradicts what W. G. Kümmel writes.

my quote says differently

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still waiting for your citation. WHEN and IF YOU GIVE YOUR CITATION on your modern conspiracy theory, I will be happy to provide you a link.

But for you to berate people about not providing links when you don't, it is quite hypocritical.

That is going to be one more of logic than evidence and I have a feeling that you won't accept that. So I will withdraw that claim for now, though the history of the Early Church is known. There are accounts of other "gospels" being destroyed, but most of them may have been merely not copied. In some ways it amounts to the same thing.

But now lets' see you support your claims. I do remember doing this once in the past and I am not going to repeat earlier work for nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6 C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. (See QUIRINIUS.) His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).

So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37. (Insight Vol 2 / Registration).

Satisfied?

Learned from my JWs teachers. You can too. It's free in our website

No, that is a Christian myth. You need a valid source. And a link. The only census that I can find is the one that we know about . We know when Quirinius became governor of Syria. We also know why the claim of Joseph going to Bethlehem was bogus. Do you need links? I will do so for my claims. The JW site is not a valid one for debate.

By the way, Quirinius was not governor of Syria in 6 BCE.

 

[Eli G]

That is going to be one more of logic than evidence and I have a feeling that you won't accept that. So I will withdraw that claim for now, though the history of the Early Church is known. There are accounts of other "gospels" being destroyed, but most of them may have been merely not copied. In some ways it amounts to the same thing.

But now lets' see you support your claims. I do remember doing this once in the past and I am not going to repeat earlier work for nothing.

Don't overthink it @Kenny. You already saw that they are only boasts.