tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post6982150897680202413..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Bible Teaches Permanent Justification, Eternal Security, Unconditional Security, and Once Saved, Always SavedKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26506885267169665382016-02-06T08:58:06.206-08:002016-02-06T08:58:06.206-08:00By the way, Gary, you got your dates wrong for the...By the way, Gary, you got your dates wrong for the unbelieving view of Daniel. You are off by a century or two. 4th-3rd century BC would not get rid of huge numbers of predictions. That shows you don't know what you are talking about and that you reject Daniel's prophecies because you want to keep your atheism.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2596523184308427042016-02-05T19:22:20.045-08:002016-02-05T19:22:20.045-08:00Dear Gary,
You are right that some think that, be...Dear Gary,<br /><br />You are right that some think that, because they must in order to try to get out of Daniel's predictive prophecies. However, they have been proven wrong and utterly debunked, as in the resources on Daniel here:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/gods-word/<br /><br />If you care about the truth, you will reject the late date of Daniel. If you just want to keep your atheist faith, then don't read the resources there, keep believing a lie, and receive the eternal consequences.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36838883766336296292016-02-03T16:30:08.989-08:002016-02-03T16:30:08.989-08:00Many scholars now believe that the Book of Daniel ...Many scholars now believe that the Book of Daniel was written by a Jew living in Greek-occupied Palestine in the third or fourth century BCE, not by a Jewish Persian prince living in Babylon centuries earlier as the author of the book purports.<br /><br />The Book of Daniel is most likely a work of fraud.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60253460616081018482016-02-02T18:27:24.419-08:002016-02-02T18:27:24.419-08:00Where I had earlier posted:
You really ought to r...Where I had earlier posted:<br /><br />You really ought to read:<br /><br />The Book of Daniel: Proof that the Bible is the Word of God<br /><br />The Date of the Book of Daniel, Bruce K. Waltke<br /><br />at:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/apologetics-and-false-religions/<br /><br />so you at least know what you are up against in Daniel and how to argue for your atheism properly.<br /> <br /><br />The link has been changed--it is now:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/apologetics/<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26991053130196723492015-02-22T15:51:11.853-08:002015-02-22T15:51:11.853-08:00Gary,
I'm writing this comment, because I had...Gary,<br /><br />I'm writing this comment, because I had already told you that I wouldn't be publishing any more of your comments. You are not interacting with our posts. You are just writing comments to push your atheism. Many consider this unethical behavior for commenters, called "trolls" or "drive-bys." We've been generous in allowing the comments. Now I would understand this not being unethical for you, because there is no way you could believe in absolute truth or moral absolutism. That's what your position leaves you with, total subjectivity, which makes it tough for you to judge anything, which you do anyway. How can you say anything is wrong? Everything you write is subjective, because you have no basis for judging anything.<br /><br />You unload so much, and it isn't that there are not very good answers, but there is so much to do to answer them. I will write some answers in future posts, and I will allow you to interact with those when I do, but only with what I'm talking about.<br /><br />For instance, you make a kind of argument that there isn't anything different between Christianity or evangelicalism and Mormonism or Islam. There is plenty different, but the answers are huge. One of them, that's simple, however, is that if the truth had already been established with the OT and the NT, and something else comes along that contradicts, it can't be the truth. They can't both be true. The former has to be shown to be false. You think you're doing that, and that brings to another point.<br /><br />You complain that we don't defend Christianity with the Bible and instead refer to outside material. The outside material has already answered your questions from the Bible. However, your challenge of the Bible comes from outside material. I say that 1 John 1 says John was an eyewitness. Your answer was extrascriptural. You want someone else testifying that John was an eyewitness.<br /><br />The testimony of the patristics is that it was John. Irenaeus said it was John, who knew Polycarp, who knew John. That's really pretty amazing testimony for something so ancient. If you can't accept that, then we really don't have history. Ancient Babylon comes down to believing in one pillar, and people are glad to believe the one pillar without authentication. Why? It's not an intellectual issue, but a volitional one.<br /><br />I believe the Bible is verified. I understand that it will continue to be challenged and opposed, but it's not something I'm going to keep going back to again and again. You're attacking an ocean with a spoon. The ocean is still there despite what you're doing with your spoon.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-57555221635006102162015-02-22T06:17:03.269-08:002015-02-22T06:17:03.269-08:00By the way, the two quotes allegedly from Papias ...By the way, the two quotes allegedly from Papias that Gary reproduces in the comments above are questionable. Neither of them comes from a copy of something that Papias himself wrote; the first one is reproduced by Eusebius, who was a determined opponent of a literal thousand year reign of Christ and had a strong incentive to make it sound ridiculous, and the second is from a fragment found in a fourth century heretic named Apollinaris. Of course, Gary leaves those facts out, probably because he was unaware of them and has never studied the apostolic patristic writings for themselves. I suspect he probably pulled the quotes from some skeptical book without ever bothering to take the time to look at them in context or analyze their credibility. It is interesting, though, that when I am the only one who provides an actual source in Papias while he provides no source, although I was able to find his quotes because I have those literary documents in both Greek and English, that I am the one who misunderstands Papias. Remember, though, that it is we Christians who are ridiculous; thus saith Gary.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30317396771150033512015-02-22T02:14:02.546-08:002015-02-22T02:14:02.546-08:00I just want to point out a few more places where y...I just want to point out a few more places where your zeal for your blind faith goes far beyond knowledge.<br /><br />1.) When you say Greek is a "foreign language" you demonstrate great ignorance of the linguistic milieu of 1st century Palestine.<br /><br />2.) You asked, "1. Is there any first century evidence or testimony that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses?"<br /><br />we gave you a lot of it, but you didn't like it. Instead, you come up with the incredible idea that the person who wrote John, although he claims to have rested on Christ's bosom during the last supper, have been there at the crucifixion, resurrection, garden of Gethsemane, etc. is not an apostle, nor even claims to be an apostle. This may help you with fellow True Believers in Atheism--they may say, "preach it, brother!" but it won't convince someone who is not already in your Amen corner. Anyone not already a True Believer will see this as ridiculous.<br /><br />You demand 1st century eyewitness evidence, but you don't give us any for your blind faith that the gospels are late. You don't give any evidence for that at all. Where is the first century, eyewitness evidence for your dating system? Why, it isn't there. Blind faith.<br /><br />Where is your first century, eyewitness evidence for the Q document you have blind faith in? For that matter, where is a single manuscript of it, or a single reference to it in the first 95% or so of church history? Why, it isn't there. But that isn't a problem for you. Blind faith.<br /><br />I could point out more of the gaping holes in your argument, but since your blind faith tells you that we are the absurd ones, even though you can't even get your atheist arguments in the right order, or get the right point in history for when you need to date Daniel to support your blind anti-supernaturalist faith, there is not much point.<br /><br />You would be a much better evangelist preaching your new blind faith if you spent a little time seeing what the best stuff was that the other side had to say--stuff such as what I recommended to you--instead of spending time cutting and pasting stuff from your blog on all kinds of other websites on posts that are unrelated to what you are cutting and pasting. Right now, while it is evident you have great zeal for your new blind faith, you are going to be far more effective coming across as ignorant and irritating than an effective evangelist for your atheist religion. You will whip up the religious frenzy of fellow ignorant people already in your Amen corner with the red meat you throw at them, but that's about it.<br /><br />Then again, I think perhaps I have overstated the case. The fact is that the "Gary" who wrote these comments is not really "Gary" at all--I have no convincing, corroborating evidence for it. Could someone who really has a postgraduate degree come up with such baseless foolishness? Evidently not--it is absurd. I am convinced it is absurd, so I'm not going to even investigate the alternative. Obviously, the posts claiming to be by Gary are really by a space alien named Spartacus. After all, a fellow True Believer in atheism, Richard Dawkins, thinks space aliens could have created life on earth--belief in God is unreasonable, but belief in aliens is not. <br /><br />Then again, by the time you got to the argument, in light of the mistakes you make in even stating your atheist case properly, the space aliens probably would have become illegal aliens.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37781826979473042402015-02-22T01:47:06.305-08:002015-02-22T01:47:06.305-08:00Dear Gary,
If you stand by everything you said in...Dear Gary,<br /><br />If you stand by everything you said in your first comment, you aren't being honest. You claim that you want answers, but when you are given them, you write them off without doing any investigation. That is evident by the fact that you can dismiss all the books that I gave you as not even worth reading, and with an evident ignorance of who even wrote them.<br /><br />Your great zeal for your blind atheist faith is very evident, but your knowledge is not there. I will just point out a few ways this is the case.<br /><br />1.) You say, "So if Daniel were written in 200 BC as most scholars now believe, the prophecy that Christians believe predicts the birth of Jesus is off." You don't even get the unbelieving chronology of Daniel correctly. If it were written in 200 B. C., Daniel 11 would still contain incredible predictive prophecies. If you want to be an effective evangelist for your new blind faith, you won't be able to do it if you jumble your facts up so badly and evidence ignorance not only of what Christianity says but even of the way unbelief on your side ought to try to make its case. You really ought to read:<br /><br />The Book of Daniel: Proof that the Bible is the Word of God<br /><br />The Date of the Book of Daniel, Bruce K. Waltke<br /><br />at:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/apologetics-and-false-religions/<br /><br />so you at least know what you are up against in Daniel and how to argue for your atheism properly.<br /><br />You obviously also don't even understand what the prophetic argument is in Daniel 9, because it is based on the date of the decree mentioned in Daniel 9, which would still give exactly the same chronology if the chapter were written when theological liberalism says it was written (not 200 B. C., by the way.)<br /><br />In the same comment, you say:<br /><br />Well, it is odd that if Daniel were written by a prince/ruler in the kingdom of the Babylonians, the Medes, and then the Persians, he seems to know little about these kingdoms. He makes many, many errors in describing these kingdoms. However, once he gets to the Fourth Kingdom---Greece---his details and descriptions are incredibly accurate...so accurate that it is as if these events have just happened and the author is recording them in real time! <br /><br />You would be much better evangelist for your atheist faith if you figured out how to argue for it correctly. First, you would be more effective if you listed some of these many, many errors rather than just saying they are there without stating any of them. Since you cannot prove that there are any, though, that will be a difficult task. Second, you don't even get the kingdoms right. The fourth kingdom is Rome. Third, you don't even get the argument right about how skeptics who have done their homework try to attack Daniel. I won't explain how that is because perhaps it will make you check out the links I just gave you. <br /><br />Your ignorance and lack of specifics on Daniel is similar to your ridiculous affirmations about the non-historicity of the Biblical record of the Exodus, David's kingdom, etc. But are you willing to become informed? No. Why? "ridiculous assertions do not need to be investigated." In other words, "atheism is true, and this I know, for my blind faith tells me so." And, while you are not willing to investigate what the best arguments are by Christians--or even the non-Christians who wrote some of the material I recommended, but you are so ignorant that you can write them all off without even knowing who they are--we actually are willing to investigate the best claims for other faith systems. The Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. don't have any predictive prophecies--the Bible has thousands. It cannot be explained apart from the intervention of God.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23512076749966790072015-02-21T23:19:33.406-08:002015-02-21T23:19:33.406-08:00Gary,
I shouldn't use the time to keep talkin...Gary,<br /><br />I shouldn't use the time to keep talking to you like this, so this is the last I'll accept your material. I've read a lot on the other side, almost as much or more than the truth, because I like the challenge, but what I read of you is not a challenge. It reminds me of Christopher Hitchens, which you would probably take as a compliment. I'm not saying you are as talented as him, but what you are saying is similar. It's not convincing. Sure, to the doubter, the unbeliever, who needs something to grab ahold of, it's enough. To say that Jews in Israel don't believe in the OT isn't news. They killed their own prophets when their prophets were right there before them. It doesn't surprise me that they don't believe now. I still love the Jewish people, but liberal Jews generally hate the Bible, including the OT, the book God gave to them.<br /><br />I'm not going to go through your comments one by one here, because whole books have been written. I get what you are saying. Christians weren't lying. They were just crazy. It really is floating Bart Ehrman and others like him. He is a liar, and that's easy to see. I've watched a few of his debates, and I know enough to know he's lying to people.<br /><br />With you, it's interesting. You ask for a witness that John was an eyewitness. You are given one and then you say he's not a credible witness. But he is a witness. When you talk about what's preserved from 2000 years ago, before the printing press, and in the first century, you don't get to choose. And from a biblical perspective, God didn't choose to preserve Papias. But you believe Eusebius about Papias when it is convenient for you.<br /><br />You have all of Western Civilization and you discount that, but you latch onto some very remote sources to make your point.<br /><br />And the Bible is different than all the other books you're talking about, in quality and character. It's different in prophetic content. It's different in nature. The message is different.<br /><br />You have no proof that John didn't write John. There's a lot of proof that he did. You're saying that someone's opinion that he was uneducated, because Acts doesn't say he was uneducated or illiterate. That is sheer speculation. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have written John. You don't know what he knew or didn't know. I believe he did know and there is enough evidence. What plainly indicates to me your desire, your willfulness not to believe, is that you use a verse like Acts 4:13 as evidence that John didn't write John, when you don't believe the Bible. Why believe Acts if you can't believe John? You temporarily believe Acts as evidence that John was not an eyewitness.<br /><br />Gary, there is a lot to say, but I suggest you go to the materials that Thomas Ross (KJB) gave you and read there. He's done a lot of work to compile and write, and you should read that first if you really do want evidence.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18167601728014157242015-02-21T16:58:35.683-08:002015-02-21T16:58:35.683-08:00Here is evidence from the Bible itself that John, ...Here is evidence from the Bible itself that John, son of Zebedee, did not write the fourth gospel:<br /><br />Acts 4:13<br /><br />Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus. <br /><br />Experts believe that 97% of people in Palestine in the first century were illiterate. The passage from Acts above tells us that John (and Peter) were part of this 97%. <br /><br />Yes, an uneducated adult man *can* learn to read and write, but what are the chances that an illiterate adult man can learn to read and write in a foreign language? And even more improbable, what are the chances that an illiterate adult man can learn to write elegant, sophisticated prose in a foreign language? <br /><br />I am educated. I have a post graduate degree. I studied and learned to speak Spanish in college. I can speak conversational Spanish pretty well. But I could never write an elegant, sophisticated piece of literary prose, in Spanish, to save my life. <br /><br />The odds that an illiterate fisherman like John (or Peter) would have the time as an evangelist/fisherman to study and master writing prose in a foreign language strains credulity.<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80591469020744290842015-02-21T14:05:53.430-08:002015-02-21T14:05:53.430-08:00I was using "anonymous" because I didn&#...I was using "anonymous" because I didn't think my comments were being posted when I used "Gary". I will use "Gary" from now on.<br /><br />I do not believe that Jesus or the authors of the Gospels were liars. I believe that Jesus and the other NT writers truly believed that Daniel was written by Daniel during the Babylonian Captivity.<br /><br />I do not believe that Christians have conspired to perpetuate a lie. I believe that the earliest Christians sincerely believed what they believed. But sincere belief does not mean that the belief is true.<br /><br />Why don't conservative Christians believe the supernatural assertions of other religions? Why don't you believe that the angel Gabriel really did give Mohammand God's true Word, the Koran? Have you read all the scholarly books by highly educated Muslim scholars which (they allege) confirm the Koran is 100% correct?<br /><br />I doubt it. You haven't investigated the supernatural claims of Islam, Hinduism or any other religion because their supernatural assertions are absurd to you. Absurd assertions do not need to be investigated. You don't believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem because in your experience and in the experience of other people whose opinions you trust, horses do not have wings and horses do not fly. You wouldn't waste one minute of your time "investigating" this claim by reading Muslim books. It's absurd. Period. No need to investigate it.<br /><br />Well, the same is true for the Christian supernatural tales. Dead men do not come back from the dead after being truly dead for three days. It has never happened. I have never seen it happen and no one I know and whose opinion I trust has ever seen it happen. Therefore, just as I do not believe the Muslim and Hindu supernatural tales I don't believe the Christian supernatural tales because the likelihood of these occurrences actually having occurred is very, very low. Is it possible they happened? Sure! Anything is possible. Pink unicorns and flying teapots orbiting the moon are possible, and a million other superstitions, but should we believe every one of these millions of superstitions just because there is a billion to one chance that they are true?<br /><br />No. It's not reasonable.<br /><br />There is no good evidence for the Christian supernatural belief in the resurrection of a dead man. It is all based on assumptions and hearsay. Just because the author of the Koran says he flew on a winged horse doesn't mean he really did. And just because (you believe)the author of John says he witnessed a dead man eating broiled fish and levitating into outer space, does not mean it happened. We need better evidence to believe such an unlikely event.<br /><br />Bottom line: I am not asking you for any higher level of evidence for your Faith's supernatural claims than what I would demand of a Mormon, a Muslim, or a Hindu for their religion's supernatural claims. And I would bet that YOU would demand the same evidence from the Mormon, Muslim, and Hindu that I would, yet when we turn to look at your beliefs, you want to lower the standard of evidence.<br /><br />Think about that, my Christian friends.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59223173702598009352015-02-21T13:43:42.827-08:002015-02-21T13:43:42.827-08:00Let's ignore what Eusebius says about Papias. ...Let's ignore what Eusebius says about Papias. Let's just look at the statements by Papias himself:<br /><br />1. Jesus taught about magical grapes.<br />2. Judas Iscariot lived on for years after Jesus' death, his body swelling to such proportions that he had difficulty defecating and urinating.<br />3. John Mark wrote an (unidentified) gospel.<br /><br />I know you don't believe the first two of Papias' statements, so why do you believe the last? <br /><br />Just based on Papias' own statements, he does no appear to be a reliable source for the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Papias never claims to have received information from either Jesus or the apostles but from the associates of elders; elders who were young disciples of the apostles of Jesus. This is fourth hand information and obviously some of this information got jumbled because NO New Testament scholar believes that Jesus taught about magical grapes or that Judas lived on for years after Jesus death.<br /><br />Can we rule out the testimony of Papias regarding the authorship of one Gospel---Mark? No, but we can ascertain that Papias was NOT an eyewitness, was not an associate of an eyewitness, and was NOT a reliable source for other information about the apostles.<br /><br />And finally on the subject of Papias: Papias made his statement about a gospel written by John Mark in the SECOND century. You still have not provided any FIRST century testimony as to the authorship of the gospels. (I have shown you why John, the son of Zebedee, did not write the Gospel of John). The author of the Gospel of John asserts that he is writing down the sayings of the "beloved disciple". He is not in anyway asserting that he, the author, IS the beloved disciple. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67138514634626685532015-02-21T13:37:55.299-08:002015-02-21T13:37:55.299-08:00Gary,
And please use your name every time. I don...Gary,<br /><br />And please use your name every time. I don't want anonymous, because people don't know who we're talking to here.<br /><br />You make a statement, I'm not calling all the prophets liars, but you are calling them that, because they are all saying the same thing. I've preached through every Word of every prophecy in the Bible, some many times. The NT authors refer to them as authority for their teaching again and again. I'm not surprised that you can find unbelievers who attack individual passages, whole books, doctrines, all of that. False religion is very powerful and the OT and NT talks about that.<br /><br />You haven't dealt with everything we've said. You're saying there isn't evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and we say that there is suitable evidence that they have been written by eyewitnesses. We refer to the epistles and you say, no, that doesn't count, because those weren't in the canon of scripture. So we have texts that we have a huge amount of authentication, more than Eusebius, and we've got to believe their inauthentic, one after another. It's a conspiracy over thousands of years involving millions of people without the kind of technological abilities we have today, and today it couldn't be pulled off. And you expect us to believe your conspiracy as if it is really just allowing the evidence to lead you to the truth. It isn't. It's doubt. It's uncertainty. It's what you need to be your own boss, Gary.<br /><br />Daniel reads like it isn't made up. When you read the prophecy of the ptolemies and seleucids, it reads like it isn't made up. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel -- those are not fictional sounding at all. Then you add to that actual captivity, Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, all the places and events, the siege of Jerusalem, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther. The story has so many intricate parts with real names and places, written at different times, that it is far harder to believe a conspiracy. You're wrong, Gary.<br /><br />You're losing out on a blessing to you. You're embracing the curse.<br /><br />I don't think you've read a significant defense of one little thing we're talking about, that is, John's being an eyewitness to the events of his Gospel. I don't believe what you say is evidence. It isn't evidence. Defense lawyers come in to bring doubt to the case of a prosecution. They can do an amazing job. Are you familiar with the OJ Simpson trial? They can leave people believing that OJ didn't commit murder. It's their job to bring doubt. But that doesn't mean you believe them. It's true that a person might have had some of the same DNA markings as OJ, but it isn't reasonable to have thought so. As a jury member, I have to look at all the evidence. All of it. And if you are able to look at all of it, and you say it is fiction, the Bible, the message of Christ, you can do that, but I'm saying you are not believable. You have a motive, like a defense lawyer, to cause doubt. You aren't, can't be, an honest seeker. No honest seeker could believe that there was a conspiracy of such proportions. That is what I'm saying, and it is an easy call.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-48227985097371338522015-02-21T13:17:06.369-08:002015-02-21T13:17:06.369-08:00I never said that all prophets were liars. And I ...I never said that all prophets were liars. And I am not the one making the accusation that the Book of Daniel is a fraud, scholars are making that accusation, based on scholarly examination of the document.<br /><br />I have shown you very clear evidence from the last chapter of the Gospel of John that the author did NOT say that he was the beloved disciple, but you don't want to accept it. You don't want to accept the evidence because the evidence would destroy your belief that eyewitnesses wrote the four gospels. <br /><br />I suggest we look at the evidence without biases and presuppositions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24616203734449562912015-02-21T12:08:51.279-08:002015-02-21T12:08:51.279-08:00Gary,
I don't know how you can believe anythi...Gary,<br /><br />I don't know how you can believe anything. You don't believe Papias, but you believe Eusebius about Papias. Why? What textual attestation is there for Eusebius? You ask for a first century witness to John's eyewitness and you get one, and you believe he's not trustworthy. I think it's going to be hard to provide anything for you to believe. <br /><br />Food can be offered to a hungry person, but he still must open up, bite down, and swallow.<br /><br />I read the Bible and it is amazing. I've talked to many who had not read it, decided to, and it was amazing to them. It's very believable. It's impossible, being honest, not to believe it. Sure, that's my testimony, but it doesn't read as if made up and it reads like no other book. I've never read a book that I could read 50 times and still remain interested. And it works. When I follow what it says, it works in every area of life. What a conspiracy!Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-262420268307020472015-02-21T12:01:31.855-08:002015-02-21T12:01:31.855-08:00Gary,
The conspiracy theory that you must recruit...Gary,<br /><br />The conspiracy theory that you must recruit to debunk a mountain of evidence is unbelievable. And once you're done with that, you have to explain how that believing this lie led the American way of life as seen in the founding documents of the United States. You're believing something, just in this case, it is every possible explanation given not to believe the Bible, which is a lot to piece together for you. It's got a lot of holes in it.<br /><br />For instance, you are saying that Daniel wasn't a prophecy, but a conspiracy, and so every prophet and every prophecy were conspiracies, written after their prophecy, and lies of immense proportion. And a lot of smart people believed those lies for centuries, but you have unlocked the fiction of all of them as part of some grand plot. It is a conspiracy foisted of amazing proportions and put together by whom? Daniel was a part, Zechariah, Isaiah. Amazing stories, all concocted, meant to look like prophecies. And then you have their fulfillment. More people involved, trying to make them look like something happening. Hundreds of thousands in cahoots with one another. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Fiction. The nation of Israel, don't know what to do with that. And then the Isaiah Dead Sea scrolls dating before their fulfillment. <br /><br />You think that just attempting to punch a few holes here and there is enough. Enough for you, scoffing, walking after your own lust, but not able to take out a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand legs to the table. You kick at a few, to which I'm not at all acquiescing, but it's a lot to dismiss, Genesis to Revelation, lex talionis, the entire US legal system, all history. I get your doing it, but it's quite a mountain to crawl over. You can't and won't succeed. <br /><br />A case and point is here. You say no one has ever answered you. I have a hard time believing that, because you're likely to keep saying it, even though we have answered you. We show that the author of John is an eyewitness and you say that John didn't write it because his name isn't in the book. Do you really think that hasn't been dealt with? I've read hundred page dealings with that point and I'm also guessing you haven't read those types of things. We can't give a sufficient answer to you in a blog post, which means "we haven't answered." It's not true, but it's what you will say, and for what reason? Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6447279811050829442015-02-21T11:59:35.379-08:002015-02-21T11:59:35.379-08:00And here is yet another statement by Papias in whi...And here is yet another statement by Papias in which he alleges information that comes straight from the apostles. Do you believe this story? If not, why do you believe Papias when he says that someone told him that John Mark had written a (unidentified) gospel? Isn't that selective believability? <br /><br />"But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon – not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitals became more disgusting and larger than anyone’s; simply by relieving himself, to his wanton shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body.<br /><br />And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding their nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground."<br /><br />Eusebius said that Papias was a dimwit. We have evidence above that Papias wrote down "sayings of Jesus and the apostles" that no Christian scholar believes were really said by Jesus or the apostles. So why believe Papias regarding the authorship of the gospels? Is it possible that the reason Papias is believed to be correct on this one issue...is simply because conservative Christians WANT Papias to be correct on this issue??<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-70841425021271546362015-02-21T11:52:55.406-08:002015-02-21T11:52:55.406-08:00Thomas: Back to Papias.
Papias is the sole sourc...Thomas: Back to Papias.<br /><br />Papias is the sole source of information for the authorship of any of the four gospels prior to Irenaeus' declaration of their traditional authorship in the late second century (circa 180 AD). Without Papias, that would mean that there is a 150 year period of time when no one in Christianity identifies the authors of the four gospels we have today. So, the question must be asked: How reliable was Papias? Was he passing down accurate information or was he passing down legend? Here is another comment of Papias. Do you believe that this is accurate information regarding the teachings of John the Apostle or simply legend:<br /><br />"Thus the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered hearing him say how the Lord used to teach about those times, saying:<br /><br />“The days are coming when vines will come forth, each with ten thousand boughs; and on a single bough will be ten thousand branches. And indeed, on a single branch will be ten thousand shoots and on every shoot ten thousand clusters; and in every cluster will be ten thousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five measures of wine.<br /><br />And when any of the saints grabs hold of a cluster, another will cry out, ‘I am better, take me; bless the Lord through me.’ So too a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads and every head will have ten thousand grains and every grain will yield ten pounds of pure, exceptionally fine flour. So too the remaining fruits and seeds and vegetation will produce in similar proportions. And all the animals who eat this food drawn from the earth will come to be at peace and harmony with one another, yielding in complete submission to humans.”<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90993368771010005462015-02-21T11:06:53.939-08:002015-02-21T11:06:53.939-08:00Dear Thomas:
I read your link by Felix. Felix do...Dear Thomas:<br /><br />I read your link by Felix. Felix does not believe that Luke used Mark as a source for his work. This opinion flies in the face of the majority of New Testament scholars, including evangelical scholars, that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source (70% of Mark can be found in Matthew, often word for word!).<br /><br />Felix starts his discussion with biases. One cannot objectively examine an ancient text with biases. His first bias is that Luke the physician wrote this book. His next bias is that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. His third bias is that since Luke and John Mark knew each other, Luke would not use John Mark as a source for his book. None of these biases have any basis in fact. They are merely opinion based on tradition. And lastly, Felix assumes that the Gospel of Luke was inspired by God, therefore it is without error.<br /><br />This is the greatest assumption in modern day Christianity: the inspiration of the books of the New Testament. How do Christians know that the 27 books of the NT are the inspired, inerrant Word of God? Did God the Father leave us a list of books? Did Jesus leave us a list? Did the Twelve leave us a list? Did Paul leave us a list? In the books of the NT themselves do we find any list of inspired books? Answer to all the above: no.<br /><br />How do Christians know today that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired Word of God? Answer: because the ancient Catholic Church said so. And that is it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-7605853525547101522015-02-21T10:44:38.870-08:002015-02-21T10:44:38.870-08:00Thomas said:
"Please explain how, if miracle...Thomas said:<br /><br />"Please explain how, if miracles are impossible, Daniel predicted the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires, many specific details of the actions of empires for several centuries (Daniel 11), and predicted the exact year and day that Christ presented Himself as the Messiah in A. D. 33 (Daniel 9) as described here:"<br /><br />Many scholars believe that the Book of Daniel is a fraud. How do they know that? Well, it is odd that if Daniel were written by a prince/ruler in the kingdom of the Babylonians, the Medes, and then the Persians, he seems to know little about these kingdoms. He makes many, many errors in describing these kingdoms. However, once he gets to the Fourth Kingdom---Greece---his details and descriptions are incredibly accurate...so accurate that it is as if these events have just happened and the author is recording them in real time! <br /><br />Most (non-evangelical) scholars believe that Daniel was written in Jerusalem during the Seleucid Empire (one of the Greek kingdoms). So there is no prophecy, just fraud.<br /><br />So if Daniel were written in 200 BC as most scholars now believe, the prophecy that Christians believe predicts the birth of Jesus is off.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2672840987947701612015-02-21T10:37:22.248-08:002015-02-21T10:37:22.248-08:00Regarding Paul, I have come to the sad, dishearten...Regarding Paul, I have come to the sad, disheartening conclusion that Paul was either mentally ill or a liar. <br /><br />If you read the three accounts by Paul of what he did in the three years after his conversion there are diametrically opposed details. “I went to Jerusalem”, “I went to Arabia”. “I met with the apostles”, “I did not meet with the apostles”.<br /><br />It is odd that in Paul's many epistles, Paul never once mentions Jesus birth place, his hometown, the names of his parents, any of his miracles, any of his parables, any of his sermons, nor the details of his crucifixion or resurrection. The “Christ” that Paul talks about bares little resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels. Paul even says that everything he preaches comes from internal revelation, not from others. So we must ask ourselves: Did Jesus really appear to this man and make him the thirteenth apostle or did Paul simply imagine this in his "heavenly vision"?<br /><br />And why would an apostle need to repeatedly deny that he is a liar? Do any of the other apostles repeatedly defend themselves from accusations of being a liar from fellow Christians? And why don’t any of the other apostles refer to Paul as an apostle in their epistles? Why would Jesus spend three years training the “Twelve”, preparing twelve thrones for them to rule with him, to then declare a Pharisee the “greatest” of all apostles, several years after his death?? <br /><br />And why do all the churches in Asia Minor end up rejecting Paul as Paul himself states in II Timothy? One of those churches is Ephesus, the church which the author of the Book of Revelation praises for rejecting “false apostles”---not false preachers, false disciples, or false teachers, but “false APOSTLES”. Do we have evidence any the New Testament of the Church of Ephesus rejecting anyone other than Paul?<br /><br />I don’t believe Paul’s story about his “heavenly vision” on the Damascus Road. He was either mentally ill or a liar. Someone who repeatedly must assure you that "Believe me. I'm not lying"...is usually lying.<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54838301629469677412015-02-21T10:30:00.112-08:002015-02-21T10:30:00.112-08:00Thomas said:
“Could it be that late dates are a r...Thomas said:<br /><br />“Could it be that late dates are a result of anti-supernatural FAITH, rather than evidence, because admitting the gospels were written by the people who everyone who lived in the first few centuries said wrote them would mean they were accurate and Jesus Christ was exactly who He claimed to be?”<br /><br />Since my deconversion from Christianity I have run into this “conspiracy theory” phenomenon quite frequently when discussing the evidence for the resurrection with conservative Christians. It seems many conservative Christians believe that the overwhelming majority of skeptics, including me, do not believe simply because we do not WANT to believe. The truth is that most of us do not believe because of a lack of evidence, not due to a lack of willingness to believe. I loved being a Christian. I had no interest in deconverting. I had no secret sin that I wanted to indulge. I was not angry God. I loved him with all my heart. I stopped believing for the simple reason that I came to see that my "God" is dead. Jesus is dead. There is no evidence that he was resurrected.<br /><br />I would still be a Christian if someone had shown me convincing evidence that the Gospels had been written by eyewitnesses. But all I have received are assumptions and hearsay. For instance, even if the author of the Gospel of John claimed to be an eyewitness to the Resurrection, we have no idea who this author is. He could have simply made it up. We need corroborating evidence of the authorship of this book, the purpose this book was written, and the reliability of the person who wrote it. We have none of that.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8965085151572634972015-02-21T10:24:47.454-08:002015-02-21T10:24:47.454-08:00Dear Thomas, you said:
“Is there any evidence tha...Dear Thomas, you said:<br /><br />“Is there any evidence that the gospels were NOT written by whom the early church universally said wrote them?”<br /><br />I have a couple of responses to this comment. First, there is no evidence of ANYONE in the early church attributing the traditional authorship of what we now refer to as the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until the end of the second century, namely Ireneaus. Yes, earlier Fathers starting in the early second century referred to passages from these books but they never attributed authorship to the books until Ireneaus. So we have a period from circa 33 AD to some time between 160-180 AD where we have no references to the authorship of these four books. <br /><br />Secondly, it is odd to ask me to prove a negative. Can you provide evidence that Joseph Smith did NOT receive Golden Tablets from the angel Moroni?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-79894874240081734672015-02-21T10:23:16.345-08:002015-02-21T10:23:16.345-08:00Dear Thomas: Regarding your comments on Papias:
...Dear Thomas: Regarding your comments on Papias:<br /><br />Your view of Papias is incorrect. Here is Papias in his own words:<br /><br />“I also will not hesitate to draw up for you, along with these expositions, an orderly account of all the things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth. For unlike most people, I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth, and not those who recalled commandments from strangers, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself<br /><br />But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice.”<br /><br />Papias does not say in this passage that he received his information directly from John or any of the other apostles. He clearly states that he received his information from associates of the “elders”. The elders were not the apostles. The elders were the young followers of the apostles. So what Papias is saying is: “I got my information straight from the associates of the elders, who got their information from the elders, who got their information from the apostles, who got their information from Jesus. In no way can that be considered “eyewitness testimony”. It is at best, fourth-hand information. It is no different than me saying, “Bob told me that Bill told him that Jimmy told him “exactly” what Randy had said”.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-13412915620090990522015-02-21T10:21:02.474-08:002015-02-21T10:21:02.474-08:00Dear Thomas,
To respond to you comment about John...Dear Thomas,<br /><br />To respond to you comment about John:<br /><br />1. You quote the last chapter of John as evidence that the Gospel of John is eyewitness testimony:<br /><br />“Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” 23 So the rumor spread in the community[a] that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”[b]<br /><br />24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”<br /><br />You seem to believe that this passage infers that the Gospel of John was written by John, the son of Zebedee. Does this passage say that? Is there any passage in the Gospel of John that says that the “beloved disciple” was John, the son of Zebedee? Answer: no.<br /><br />The Gospel of John is an anonymous book. We have no idea who wrote it, where it was written, when exactly it was written, and for what purpose it was written. And the idea that the “beloved disciple” is John the son of Zebedee is based on tradition. For all we know, this book was written as an historical fiction, for the sole purpose of selling books and making a living for the author. Christians ASSUME that it was written by an eyewitness, by an apostle, and that it was written as an historical biography of Jesus. Assumptions, nothing but assumptions.<br /><br />Notice verse 24: If the author of the Gospel of John is trying to say that He is the beloved disciple he has an odd way of saying it. He clearly distinguishes himself from the beloved disciple in the second part of the sentence: “and WE know that HIS testimony is true”. What author would say that “we” (including me) know that “his” (my) testimony is true”?<br /><br />The Gospel of John is an anonymous book. The author never states that he is one of the Twelve nor that he is an eyewitness.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com