There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[Ford]

You asked for evidence. This is it.

No, that's copy and pasting bible verses.


Go away.

 

[revivin]

Still can't attribute your quotes

Historians don't take your approach of throwing everything out. Otherwise they would be out of a job. The look at the 27 books of the NT and glean what they can from it. For example.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1.18,19). Suffice it to say, they talked about more than just the weather. Years later Paul met up with John. Peter and James present then also.

- - - Updated - - -

So, 'evidence'
Got it.

"Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2,1-2,9,11). This was regarding circumcision. James and Barnabas were also at fault with Peter.

 

[revivin]

bible verses.

"I said to Cephas before them all, If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal. 2.14) They continued long in discourse.

Paul and Peter had clear communications with each other. Peter is the Apostle that denied Jesus 3 times and saw Jesus resurrected.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Historians don't take your approach of throwing everything out. Otherwise they would be out of a job. The look at the 27 books of the NT and glean what they can from it. For example.

That's not an example, that's a quote. You're not showing how historians actually do their job.
And you're not showing any evidence of anything except that you've found a way to cut and paste from a bible.
Boring.

 

[revivin]

evidence

You really can't ask for better more corroborated evidence than this in the 27 books of the NT as well as the 39 books of the OT prophesying the Messiah who would atone for sins as the once for all perfect sacrifice as only God can.

Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16). Paul's experience was more like a vision, yet a vision that affected those with him on the road to Damascus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Peter is the Apostle that denied Jesus 3 times and saw Jesus resurrected.

Show that this is a historical statement, please, not just an event in a fictionalized account?
Can you?

even slightly?
I mean, seriously, if actual professional historians have determined this to be a historical event, please show a reference where an actual historian professes this to be an established fact.

Or shut the fuck up. The preaching is getting old.

 

[revivin]

Show that this is a historical statement.

What historians like is multiple corroboration and that's exactly what you have in the 27 books of the NT.

Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19).

He never changed his mind even to martyrdom.

 

[revivin]

historical event

Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected is it really so hard to believe the saved will be resurrected at the consummation of the age of the dispensation of grace, the end of the mystery age of the Church? As Christians died with Christ we shall be resurrected in a resurrection like His. Even the unsaved will be resurrected though a thousand years later to the Great White Throne to be sentenced to burn for eternity in the Lake of Fire. They would rather burn and be tortured than to be saved by accepting Christ as their Savior.

 

[Keith&Co.]

evidence

You really can't ask for better more corroborated evidence than this in the 27 books of the NT as well as the 39 books of the OT prophesying the Messiah who would atone for sins as the once for all perfect sacrifice as only God can. .

The OT said many things about the Messiah.
Jesus did not fulfill any major prophecy for the Messiah. Jesus was never the King of Israel, and the world was no made perfect before he left.
As fanfiction of the OT, the NT fails miserably.

So, yes, i'd like corroborated evidence that any book of The Books was written by an eyewitness to Jesus.

 

[revivin]

Jesus did not fulfill any major prophecy for the Messiah.

Jesus fulfilled every major prophecy for His first coming. It's amazing. In fact Daniel's prophecy even predicted the very He would be cut off exactly 173,880 days later. Please study Thomas Ice's proof.

Some of the New Testament authors explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. For example, it’s claimed in 2 Peter 1:16 that 'We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.' Similarly, 1 John 1:1,3 states that 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched ... we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard.'

This does not prove that they actually were eyewitnesses, only that they claimed it. The authors also claim they are telling the truth and not lying, eg. Rom. 9.1. We should be willing to investigate whether they were or not. In Luke's prologue (Luke 1:1-4) he makes note of the importance of speaking with eyewitnesses. Also, Peter's insistence on replacing Judas Iscariot with someone who had personally observed what had occurred (Acts 1:21-22) demonstrates the firsthand eyewitnesses. Ancient historians did not value recording the exact words spoken by an individual as highly as we value it today. Instead, ancient historians attempted to communicate a speaker’s intended meaning. Therefore, while different authors may record a speaker's words differently, their testimonies can still be reliable if they are in agreement. Additionally, if the stories in the Gospel were all related in exactly the same way, we might suspect the authors were merely copying (colluding with) each other. 'If the Gospels were too consistent,' notes Craig Blomberg, 'that itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Show that this is a historical statement.

What historians like is multiple corroboration and that's exactly what you have in the 27 books of the NT.

No.
Sadly, not even close.
What historians look for in a document is to know who wrote it, when and for what reason.
All three of these are lacking in most of the books of the NT. If you don't know who wrote a book, or when, you can't possibly try to convince anyone that it's an eyewitness account.
Again, and again, and again, you're asked for some actual evidence that 'professional historians' say what you're saying they're saying, and over and over, you come up with nothing. Biiiiiiig surprise.

 

[Ford]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ2uSnQNO08&feature=player_detailpage#t=29[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Keith&Co.]

historical event

Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected .

That's an 'if' you haven't yet shown to be true.

 

[revivin]

shown to be true.

The evidence strongly suggests that a large part of the New Testament is based upon eyewitness testimony. Mark's Gospel, for example, includes many indicators that it is based on the testimony of the eyewitness Peter, and also of Mark himself and others. Mark's Gospel places more emphasis on Peter than any other, such as when Mark mentions that Jesus speaks to Peter twice in Gethsemane, whereas the other Gospels are less specific. Mark also mentions Peter more times per page than any other Gospel writer. John Warwick Montgomery notes that there are scenes in Mark's Gospel where the third person plural perspective switches to third person singular involving Peter, which is the indirect equivalent of a first person discourse of Peter himself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus did not fulfill any major prophecy for the Messiah.

Jesus fulfilled every major prophecy for His first coming.

Oooh,that's a lie.
Nowhere in the OT does it say the messiah will have a first and a second coming. None of the prophecies in the OT were for the first coming.
Man, you're getting desperate, aren't you?

And you still won't properly attribute your quotes.

 

[revivin]

What historians look for in a document is to know who wrote it, when and for what reason.

Richard Bauckham suggests that the unnamed persons in Mark's gospel are not named due to 'protective anonymity' because they had run afoul of the authorities who were persecuting the early church, and, being still alive at the time of the writing, would thus need to be protected. If this is the case, not only does this mean the writing is based on eyewitness accounts, it also confirms that Mark's gospel (or at least his sources) were written early in the church's history. Although Mark's Gospel is 'unnamed' in the sense that it does not include the title The Gospel According to Mark as we find in modern translations, there is in fact no ancient competition for its authorship, which we might expect to find if the authorship was attributed later. As more and more copies were made of the document, and as it spread far and wide geographically, it would quickly become impossible to universally attribute an author to it at a later date. We would also expect that if its authorship was fabricated by the early church that a more prominent figure would have been chosen, not the relatively unknown John Mark.

 

[Keith&Co.]

shown to be true.

The evidence strongly suggests that a large part of the New Testament is based upon eyewitness testimony.

No, it doesn't.

 

[untermensche]

shown to be true.

The evidence strongly suggests that a large part of the New Testament is based upon eyewitness testimony. Mark's Gospel, for example, includes many indicators that it is based on the testimony of the eyewitness Peter, and also of Mark himself and others. Mark's Gospel places more emphasis on Peter than any other, such as when Mark mentions that Jesus speaks to Peter twice in Gethsemane, whereas the other Gospels are less specific. Mark also mentions Peter more times per page than any other Gospel writer. John Warwick Montgomery notes that there are scenes in Mark's Gospel where the third person plural perspective switches to third person singular involving Peter, which is the indirect equivalent of a first person discourse of Peter himself.

The people who wrote these fables weren't stupid. They knew which names to drop to make their claims seem plausible.

But we are not primitive bronze age pre-scientific superstitious beings anymore.

Stories about mangods and all the witnesses we are assured were there don't cut it anymore.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What historians look for in a document is to know who wrote it, when and for what reason.

Richard Bauckham suggests

How does this change the way historians evaluate a document?
If you don't know who wrote it, or when, then the reasons for protecting their identity STILL don't allow you to judge it as an eyewitness account.
If it's written to prevent the Romans from knowing who wrote it, then it prevents modern historians from knowing it, too.
Pretty much by definition.

 

[revivin]

properly attribute your quotes.

External testimony from Papias in the late first or early second century (as quoted by Eusebius) also confirms Mark as author of the Gospel and Mark's use of Peter as a source, which, although a later affirmation, is still considered valuable by modern scholars. Also, the Muratorian Canon (dated to between 140-170 AD) lists Luke and John explicitly as Gospel authors, and likely included Mark and Matthew as well, although unfortunately that portion has been lost in the fragmentary surviving copy.

- - - Updated - - -

modern historians

They consider Mark the earliest.

An interesting yet somewhat puzzling detail in Mark's Gospel is recorded in Mark 14:51-52, during the author's account of Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane: 'A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.' This seemingly inconsequential detail does not appear in any of the other Gospels. Why did Mark choose to include it? Possibly the author himself was the 'young man ... following Jesus' (the young man was not one of the apostles) and therefore chose to include an incident in his Gospel that involved himself. This is an example of one of many 'anonymous witnesses' in the Gospels. Many scholars believe the young man ... was none other than Mark himself. The suggestion that the young man lived nearby, was roused from sleep, and came near after hearing the commotion caused by Jesus arrest ignores the fact that the young man was 'following Jesus', (and that the guards would not likely have tried to arrest him had he not been a follower of Jesus) so it seems to me to be an unlikely hypothesis.