The testimony of the NT writers

[rational experiences]

Science is the humans man's topic.

Not science is a human man. Exact.

Reason he thinks contrived it..all human beliefs terms.

Man's mind gone in consciousness was due to scientific reasons.

Sacrificed life.

As phi does not even exist in any law. As a man says a circle O is a number himself.

Calculates then uses the advice to end sacrificed what he said God owned already.

Coldest type of any one separate mass body that mother womb space as coldest had owned ended as separated.

He gave it a new end as the destroyer.

So he ended phi as gods body mass he destroyed he Sacrificed it. Signs on ground phi he destroyed. The evidence.

As he removed cold water above holy and cold gas mass above holy bodies of God only by sun UFO ark mass that crossed. On mount position. Law breaking We were bio sacrificed.

Mass heavens is not phi kept life safe it's why we are still alive. As no man is God.

A teaching only.

So science said my advice is I introduced a new unnatural law I termed sacrificed.

As gods bodies were never alive the law of sacrifice pierced the gods body flesh of mass. Made caves into side of mountain. Side piercing. UFO ark bored holes hit.

Body piercing.

Body cave opened new sin at ground under humans feet too.

Gods body sacrificed wasn't man's body sacrificed.

The law sacrifice science of men introduced was the teaching.

Change gods mass biology was caused sacrificed owned and experienced.

We weren't created sacrificed you know.

 

[Kenny]

Perfectly legitimate demand.

Acts 4:13 King James Version 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 4:13 - King James Version.

LOL... and WHY were they marveling? You are such a literalist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DODGE

Nope. Just follow the rules of using proper sources.

Why are you so butt hurt? It must really bother you that you cannot find any legitimate sources at all for your beliefs.

 

[rational experiences]

Science is the humans man's topic.

Not science is a human man. Exact.

Reason he thinks contrived it..all human beliefs terms.

Man's mind gone in consciousness was due to scientific reasons.

Sacrificed life.

As phi does not even exist in any law. As a man says a circle O is a number himself.

Calculates then uses the advice to end sacrificed what he said God owned already.

Coldest type of any one separate mass body that mother womb space as coldest had owned ended as separated.

He gave it a new end as the destroyer.

So he ended phi as gods body mass he destroyed he Sacrificed it. Signs on ground phi he destroyed. The evidence.

As he removed cold water above holy and cold gas mass above holy bodies of God only by sun UFO ark mass that crossed. On mount position. Law breaking We were bio sacrificed.

Mass heavens is not phi kept life safe it's why we are still alive. As no man is God.

A teaching only.

So science said my advice is I introduced a new unnatural law I termed sacrificed.

As gods bodies were never alive the law of sacrifice pierced the gods body flesh of mass. Made caves into side of mountain. Side piercing. UFO ark bored holes hit.

Body piercing.

Body cave opened new sin at ground under humans feet too.

Gods body sacrificed wasn't man's body sacrificed.

The law sacrifice science of men introduced was the teaching.

Change gods mass biology was caused sacrificed owned and experienced.

We weren't created sacrificed you know.

Spiritual sciences...the human can retrain their brain in meditative surroundings in prayer voice song building resonations.

Healing of self. As life was first not hurt in heavenly law status.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... and WHY were they marveling? You are such a literalist.

Ahh! Reading comprehension issues. Because the unlettered were usually not so assertive with their beliefs would seem reasonable.

This may help:

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.

 

[Kenny]

Ahh! Reading comprehension issues. Because the unlettered were usually not so assertive with their beliefs would seem reasonable.

Ahhh.... no answer. got it.

 

[Kenny]

Ahh! Reading comprehension issues. Because the unlettered were usually not so assertive with their beliefs would seem reasonable.

This may help:

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.

According to the "scholar" John Gill - an insult/not that they couldn't read and write. oh, wait a minute, that's biased.

and perceived that they were unlearned ignorant men;
not by what they now said, but by what they heard and understood of them before: they were informed that they were "unlearned" men, or who did not understand letters; not but that they had learned their mother tongue, and could read the Scriptures; but they had not had a liberal education; they had not been brought up at the feet of any of the doctors, in any of the schools and universities of the Jews; they were not trained up in, and conversant with, the nice distinctions, subtle argumentations, and decisions of the learned doctors, in the interpretation of the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders: and understood that they were also "ignorant" men, (idiwtai) , "idiots", or private men; for men might be unlearned, and yet not be such; it seems the high priests themselves were sometimes unlearned men: hence, on the day of atonement,

``they used to read before him, in the order of the day, and say to him, Lord high priest, read thou with thine own mouth; perhaps thou hast forgot, or it may be, (tdml al) , "thou hast not learned" F3.''The Jews have adopted the word here used into their language; and express by it, sometimes a man that is mean, abject, and contemptible: thus instead of "children of base men", or "without a name", the Targumist on ( Job 30:8 ) reads, (Nyjwydh ynb) , "the children of idiots", or "private men": and in the Targum on ( 1 Samuel 18:23 ) ( 24:14 ) it is used for one lightly esteemed, and comparable to a flea: it sometimes designs persons in a private life, though men of learning and knowledge, in distinction from those that are in office; so we read F4, that``three kings, and four (twjwydh) , "private" persons, have no part in the world to come; the three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh; the four "idiots", or private men, are Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi.''And so a bench of idiots, or private men, is distinguished from a bench of authorized and approved judges F5; and sometimes the word is used of such, as are distinguished from doctors, or wise men; so when it is said F6,``the command of plucking off the shoe, is done before three judges, and though the three are "idiots";''


John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahhh.... no answer. got it.

We know that you have no answer.

I can't help you understand your own holy book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the "scholar" John Gill - an insult/not that they couldn't read and write. oh, wait a minute, that's biased.

and perceived that they were unlearned ignorant men;
not by what they now said, but by what they heard and understood of them before: they were informed that they were "unlearned" men, or who did not understand letters; not but that they had learned their mother tongue, and could read the Scriptures; but they had not had a liberal education; they had not been brought up at the feet of any of the doctors, in any of the schools and universities of the Jews; they were not trained up in, and conversant with, the nice distinctions, subtle argumentations, and decisions of the learned doctors, in the interpretation of the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders: and understood that they were also "ignorant" men, (idiwtai) , "idiots", or private men; for men might be unlearned, and yet not be such; it seems the high priests themselves were sometimes unlearned men: hence, on the day of atonement,

``they used to read before him, in the order of the day, and say to him, Lord high priest, read thou with thine own mouth; perhaps thou hast forgot, or it may be, (tdml al) , "thou hast not learned" F3.''The Jews have adopted the word here used into their language; and express by it, sometimes a man that is mean, abject, and contemptible: thus instead of "children of base men", or "without a name", the Targumist on ( Job 30:8 ) reads, (Nyjwydh ynb) , "the children of idiots", or "private men": and in the Targum on ( 1 Samuel 18:23 ) ( 24:14 ) it is used for one lightly esteemed, and comparable to a flea: it sometimes designs persons in a private life, though men of learning and knowledge, in distinction from those that are in office; so we read F4, that``three kings, and four (twjwydh) , "private" persons, have no part in the world to come; the three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh; the four "idiots", or private men, are Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi.''And so a bench of idiots, or private men, is distinguished from a bench of authorized and approved judges F5; and sometimes the word is used of such, as are distinguished from doctors, or wise men; so when it is said F6,``the command of plucking off the shoe, is done before three judges, and though the three are "idiots";''


John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary

Not really. You have to use someone that is over two hundred years out of date as a " scholar".

Proper Bible scholarship did not exist at that time. There is a very simple test. If a person treats an event that we know did not happen as factual he cannot claim to be a scholar any longer.

The man appears to be an apologist and is reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.

 

[Left Coast]

Not really. You have to use someone that is over two hundred years out of date as a " scholar".

Proper Bible scholarship did not exist at that time. There is a very simple test. If a person treats an event that we know did not happen as factual he cannot claim to be a scholar any longer.

The man appears to be an apologist and is reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.

He was literally just a pastor. A fundamentalist Calvinist pastor from the 18th century, lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was literally just a pastor. A fundamentalist Calvinist pastor from the 18th century, lol.

Yep, he made a name for himself in his writings but he was far from being a scholar.

@Kenny to be a scholar one has to be willing to at least entertain the idea that one could be wrong. Your first source failed since agreeing to a statement of faith was a requirement. That means it may make you feel better, but it made your first site worthless in a debate. Gill also fails since he was a Bible literalist. I doubt if he would entertain the thought the he could possibly be wrong about everything and he supported parts of the Bible that we know never happened. Sorry, not a scholar. Not even close.

Today a scholar has to meet certain requirements. One has to be willing to publish through the process of peer review. If one makes errors one's peers do love to catch them.

 

[Kenny]

Not really. You have to use someone that is over two hundred years out of date as a " scholar".

Proper Bible scholarship did not exist at that time. There is a very simple test. If a person treats an event that we know did not happen as factual he cannot claim to be a scholar any longer.

The man appears to be an apologist and is reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.

BINGO!!

You have now made yourself the determinant of who YOU accept as a scholar no matter what they have studied and learned.

Translated... DODGE & BIAS which made all of your points irrelevant.

Which I have been getting you to prove all along. Took me a while to get you there, but (as everyone can see) - you are now there

But, IMV and according to my scriptures, God still believes and is patiently waiting. (with the caveat of my signature, of course)

I'm sorry that I had to lead you there but someone had to make that happen

As they say, "I my have been born at night but not last night"

 

[Kenny]

He was literally just a pastor. A fundamentalist Calvinist pastor from the 18th century, lol.

There there my dear Left Coast. Now that you both can pat each other on the back, you can both feel better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BINGO!!

You have now made yourself the determinant of who YOU accept as a scholar no matter what they have studied and learned.

Translated... DODGE & BIAS which made all of your points irrelevant.

Which I have been getting you to prove all along. Took me a while to get you there, but (as everyone can see) - you are now there

But, IMV and according to my scriptures, God still believes and is patiently waiting. (with the caveat of my signature, of course)

I'm sorry that I had to lead you there but someone had to make that happen

As they say, "I my have been born at night but not last night"

Wow! How can you not get this? You are the one using terribly compromised sources. You want the Bible to be historical. That means that you have to use those that reason rationally and apply critical thinking. Not one of your sources did that.

There was no dodge, the only bias was shown by you. We are having a historical debate. You can always have a debate about the meaning of various mythical verses in the Bible if you want with your fellow believers, but we are talking about history, not content. Not interpretation; Just as when you have a scientific debate you have to go by scientific rules for a historical debate you need historical rules.

You do not realize this but you have been arguing all along that the Bible is not historical.

Do you understand yet? I am betting that you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There there my dear Left Coast. Now that you both can pat each other on the back, you can both feel better.

It is not a matter of "feeling better"; You failed. And in an epic manner. He is not a scholar. He was just another believer that did not understand what parts of his Bible were mythical and what parts were not.

 

[Left Coast]

There there my dear Left Coast. Now that you both can pat each other on the back, you can both feel better.

I'm sorry you get called out when you cite poor sources, Kenny. Peter and John were fishermen, from what we're told in the NT. They likely would have been illiterate, and certainly not trained in the kind of written composition necessary to produce complex literary works like the Gospel of John or 1 and 2 Peter.

I'm sorry that these facts cut against the grain of the dogmas you believe. But that isn't my fault.

 

[lukethethird]

That is so true...

So Lee Strobel had a bias against Christianity and as an investigative reports sought out to prove Christianity wrong.

He became a Christian and now he has a bias towards Christianity.

Whether an atheist or a Christian makes no difference to anything that matters. What should matter is that Lee Strobel lacks critical thinking skills, that much is apparent, and that should be a red flag to anyone that reads his faith claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

I can only speak for myself.

But for me, the reason is two-fold.
First, it makes a whole bunch of extra-ordinary claims that involves magic. It's also self-contradicting in quite a few places and it makes several mistakes that are hard (or impossible) to explain.

Second, these things can't be corroborated with other contemporary independent evidence. And considering the extra-ordinarity of the claims, I'ld expect otherwise if the claims are actually true.

So in conclusion, the claims are to fantastical and there is zero evidence.
Together, that makes it unjustifiable to believe. Believing it would be irrational.

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

No. Just applying to same standards to it as I do to everything else.
There's nothing special about your religion. I know theists like to think their particular religion is special, but I don't agree. It's just another religion to the point of being cliché. Supermen, magic and creation myths. Same old, same old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love it when anti-religious and atheists people create religion forums with predetermined agendas... They always project themselves as if they are the majority, that believers have no rational thinking and that science belongs to atheists.

Literally nobody here has said anything remotely like that.

 

[Kenny]

Wow! How can you not get this? You are the one using terribly compromised sources. You want the Bible to be historical. That means that you have to use those that reason rationally and apply critical thinking. Not one of your sources did that.

There was no dodge, the only bias was shown by you. We are having a historical debate. You can always have a debate about the meaning of various mythical verses in the Bible if you want with your fellow believers, but we are talking about history, not content. Not interpretation; Just as when you have a scientific debate you have to go by scientific rules for a historical debate you need historical rules.

You do not realize this but you have been arguing all along that the Bible is not historical.

Do you understand yet? I am betting that you do not.

I have achieved my goal -- no need for me to continue exposing your farce