The testimony of the NT writers

[Kenny]

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.

Yes, I guess if your can't attack the substance, you can always attack the person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, you proved that you have no clue on how to debate properly.

Tell me, were you trying to be purposefully dishonest? It does look that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I guess if your can't attack the substance, you can always attack the person.

You still don't get it. When debating history as when debating the sciences one has to be able to reason rationally and use sources that do the same. None of your sources could apply critical thinking when it came to their Christian beliefs. They could not think that they may be wrong. They all made the error of assuming that the Bible was right. That makes it so that when a problem with the Bible arises that they have to find some excuse to make it right no matter how bad that reasoning is. Such as Quirinius being governor of Syria twice, even though where he was is well known. Any poor possible excuse must be the answer rather than what actually happened.

Bible literalism forces believers to tie themselves into impossible knots. Yet there are Christians that do not make your errors. They realize it is the teachings of Jesus that matter. Not the self contradictory myths about him that matter.

 

[Kenny]

You still don't get it. When debating history as when debating the sciences one has to be able to reason rationally and use sources that do the same. None of your sources could apply critical thinking when it came to their Christian beliefs. They could not think that they may be wrong. They all made the error of assuming that the Bible was right. That makes it so that when a problem with the Bible arises that they have to find some excuse to make it right no matter how bad that reasoning is. Such as Quirinius being governor of Syria twice, even though where he was is well known. Any poor possible excuse must be the answer rather than what actually happened.

Bible literalism forces believers to tie themselves into impossible knots. Yet there are Christians that do not make your errors. They realize it is the teachings of Jesus that matter. Not the self contradictory myths about him that matter.

#360

 

[Kenny]

Yes, you proved that you have no clue on how to debate properly.

Tell me, were you trying to be purposefully dishonest? It does look that way.

#360

 

[Eli G]

No no, I mean when did you seek out a historical article or book about the Bible that wasn't pre-approved or selectively quoted by your organization?

Believe me: there is not other community in the whole world better informed by their teachers than Jehovah's witnesses are.

We have so much updated information of all kinds, than we hardly have time to waste reading from any other source. We know information out there is confused, many times manipulated, and its orientation depends on the agenda of the source ... Our leaders are totally neutral about it ... They can even update any information without any delay, if they consider that we were in a mistake before, no matter what. Who do that among you?

The thing is my Governing Body is really dedicated to inform us about the truth, not about what others say, and that requires from them that they go out there for anything that could be really relevant to update our information about no-biblical matters, and informe us without the need for us to go around the world collecting confusing and contradictory information that often does not even have true support. They do that for us, and then they serve our table. Isn't that true love?

Do you think that Jehovah's Witnesses are going to take seriously everything that anti-religious people publish on the internet or what they teach in their institutions? There would be no time to live the truth. It's great that we have such teachers! The Bible describes them as the steward of the house (Matt. 24:45).

 

[Eli G]

Professional historians. Did you think the Gospels were written before Paul's epistles like Galatians? Who told you that? A pastor or apologist?

Can you bring here who are they, and why those "professional historians" have told you that Paul wrote his letters before the gospels?
Or did you just believe what they said to you before knowing the reasons for their conclusions?

It is true that Jehovah's Witnesses fully trust our Governing Body, but they always tell us the origin and the reasons for everything they teach us.

I guess all that stuff about us just accepting what we're told is a personal projection of what's really going on with you...not Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Left Coast]

Believe me: there is not other community in the whole world better informed by their teachers than Jehovah's witnesses are.

We have so much updated information of all kinds, than we hardly have time to waste reading from any other source. We know information out there is confused, many times manipulated, and its orientation depends on the agenda of the source ... Our leaders are totally neutral about it ... They can even update any information without any delay, if they consider that we were in a mistake before, no matter what. Who do that among you?

The thing is my Governing Body is really dedicated to inform us about the truth, not about what others say, and that requires from them that they go out there for anything that could be really relevant to update our information about no-biblical matters, and informe us without the need for us to go around the world collecting confusing and contradictory information that often does not even have true support. They do that for us, and then they serve our table. Isn't that true love?

Do you think that Jehovah's Witnesses are going to take seriously everything that anti-religious people publish on the internet or what they teach in their institutions? There would be no time to live the truth. It's great that we have such teachers! The Bible describes them as the steward of the house (Matt. 24:45).

"No no, I mean when did you seek out a historical article or book about the Bible that wasn't pre-approved or selectively quoted by your organization?"

That was a long litany of excuses when your answer was just, "I haven't."

 

[Left Coast]

Can you bring here who are they, and why those "professional historians" have told you that Paul wrote his letters before the gospels?
Or did you just believe what they said to you before knowing the reasons for their conclusions?

I already gave you a couple of links, did you read them?

Which book of the Bible do you think was written first?

I guess all that stuff about us just accepting what we're told is a personal projection of what's really going on with you...not Jehovah's Witnesses.

uh huh.

 

[Eli G]

Proofs of what? This is the second time I'm asking. What is it you want to talk about?

Proofs that Paul's letters were written before the gospel. You've been telling that for a while ... without any proof at all ... just empty words, disqualifications and personal attacks.

 

[Eli G]

I already gave you a couple of links, did you read them?

Which book of the Bible do you think was written first?



uh huh.

As I told you, I won't read links ... If you are so qualified to discuss about these topics, why are you not prepared to explain them with your own words here? Then do not pretend, my friend.

 

[Left Coast]

Proofs that Paul's letters were written before the gospel. You've been telling that for a while ... without any proof at all ... just empty words, disqualifications and personal attacks.

See above. I already provided you with evidence. Did you read it?

 

[Left Coast]

As I told you, I won't read links ... If you are so qualified to discuss about these topics, why are you not prepared to explain them with your own words here? Then do not pretend, my friend.

You won't read links...so you'll ask for evidence, but then you won't read it. Okay.

 

[Eli G]

"No no, I mean when did you seek out a historical article or book about the Bible that wasn't pre-approved or selectively quoted by your organization?"

That was a long litany of excuses when your answer was just, "I haven't."

I don't mind your opinion about how I take my decisions or who I trust more. I don't have to explain myself to you and it's not the subject to be discussed in religious forums. That is a personal matter, and whoever involves them in the debates does so only as an excuse for not dedicating themselves to the issues in question.

If you have nothing else about the topic to say, then I guess I don't have to continue this discussion with you.

Have a good one.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't mind your opinion about how I take my decisions or who I trust more. I don't have to explain myself to you and it's not the subject to be discussed in religious forums. That is a personal matter, and whoever involves them in the debates does so only as an excuse for not dedicating themselves to the issues in question.

Nonsense. How you arrive at your religious beliefs is very relevant to the subject.

 

[Left Coast]

If you have nothing else about the topic to say, then I guess I don't have to continue this discussion with you.

Have a good one.

When you're ready to read what I posted for you and reply, let me know.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, I guess if your can't attack the substance, you can always attack the person.

How a person presents a case reveals their critical thinking skills, or lack thereof. Both, an author and a reader need to apply them at every step of the way.

 

[Eli G]

How a person presents a case reveals their critical thinking skills, or lack thereof.

Sure thing ... That is how I know that someone who post links to prove what he's trying to say, is just pretending to know what he not even has a clue of it.

 

[lukethethird]

Sure thing ... That is how I know that someone who post links to prove what he's trying to say, is just pretending to know what he not even has a clue of it.

Faith beliefs are the antithesis of critical thinking.

 

[Eli G]

This topic is not about "faith beliefs", so ... Obviously you have not a clue about what you have to say on the topic here.