Re: funny creationsist


thedirkhartog@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> explainer wrote:
> > Many of the New Testament books are historical evidence (ritten by his
> > buddies)
>
> This is apologist fantasy. The gospel writers
> -- do not give their names
> -- never claim to have met Jesus themselves
> -- never claim to have been a witness to the "events" they write
> about.

Dirk, it is apparent that you, yourself, have NEVER studied the Bible.
If you had done at least a cursory reading, then you wouldn't have
replied as you did.

Please don't cut and paste from skeptic websites. Try to do your own
thinking...lest you fall into a cult where others tell you what is
real.

Take a look:

The following verse indicates that the author of John was a disciple
and witnessed these events. And this would also mean that the author
not only met Jesus but worked with Him as the Book of John shows.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these
things: and we know that his testimony is true." - John 21:24

Goodness, Dirk. How could you miss such an obvious verse?

Still not enough evidence for you? Then, try searching the internet
for "Bible author evidence" or something similar.

Anyway, consider this as well:

1) We can find no evidence that there was conflict among early
Christians concerning who were the authors of the Gospels. If someone
was claiming to be the author and others knew differently, then we
would see multiple versions of the Gospels with various authors. We
don't see anything of the sort.

2) Roman authorities and non-Christian Jewish hierarchy would have had
a field day using the existence of multiple Gospel versions with
competing authors. They disliked the early Christians and certainly
would have used such a conflicting situation to their religious
advantage. There is no evidence that they did or even could.

3) Finally, the early Christians were very much willing to die for
their beliefs that Jesus is God come as a man to die on the cross for
humanity. From a psychological standpoint, such believing men and
women would not have then blatantly lied about an author and supported
that lie. Such men and women, if they were being persecuted, would
have had to know exactly truth from fiction. Why die for a lie? They
wouldn't have.

>
> Further, the gospels were unknown, as far as the evidence goes, until
> well into the second century.

False. ALL of the evidence indicates that the Gospels were known well
within the 1st century. In fact, there is evidence that the
information contained in the Gospels was widely agreed upon and taught
by 35 A.D.

Since you didn't see fit to provide any evidence to support your claim
(leading me to think that you cut and pasted from a skeptic website,
itself not doing any research) then allow me to provide some substance.

The dating of the Gospels, even among liberals, is Mark in the 70s,
Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s. All are still within
the lifetimes of various witnesses of the life of Jesus, including any
of those hostile to Christianity. Those hostile to Jesus would have
had ample opportunity to proclaim their alternative eyewitnesses. We
find none.

Also, take a look at the biographies of Alexander the Great which were
written by Arrian and Plutarch. These were written more than 400 years
after Alexander's death in 323 B.C. Yet, historians consider such
biographies to be generally trustworthy.

Now, here we have the Gospels written within 30 - 60 years after Jesus
was on the earth. Yet, skeptics immediately whine about the certain
inaccuracies of such. 30 - 60 years is not enough for legendary
material to take hold. It is certainly not enough to eliminate all
first-hand eyewitness testimony nor long enough to bring into play
faulty memories.

The list of supporting evidence goes on...

>
> Paul met Jesus only through magic thoughts beamed into his head. Magic
> Jesoi beamed into peoples heads are not really historical evidence are
> they?

Prove that the supernatural encounter in Acts is as you say.

You see? It's not enough to make a 30-second soundbite for television.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to buttress your argument
with logic.

>
>
> Dirk Hartog
> ---------------------
> This is the view I have held up to now, though I can modify it if you
> disagree; only please give me your reasons if you do. I know I should
> bow to your authority, but on an important question like this I would
> rather yield to a reasoned argument than to authority alone.
> [Pliny the Younger, Letters, 1.20 ]

.