How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[zoonation]

If He hadn't, everyone would have known He was a fraud and Christianity woukd have died out right then.

Just like Buddhism died out after Buddha died or Islam after Mohammed died. Oh wait……..

Neither one of them said that they were going to die and rise again and then Rose from the dead. Jesus said he was going to die and rise from the dead and then he did it. Had he not risen from the dead He would have been exposed as a fraud.

Mohamed flew to heaven on a winged horse.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Thanks. Can you elaborate more there?

I understand people may not believe it's true or accurate, but there are lots of people who understand things like John's writing in the bible to be an eye witness account. https://theologyinmotion.com/2018/04/04/gospel-john-eyewitness-account/

 

[-fish-]

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Thanks. Can you elaborate more there?

I understand people may not believe it's true or accurate, but there are lots of people who understand things like John's writing in the bible to be an eye witness account. https://theologyinmotion.com/2018/04/04/gospel-john-eyewitness-account/

Consensus is that John was written around 90 AD. Yes, it says it describes an eyewitness account. In any other context, would you consider a summary of events written nearly a century later to be an eyewitness account?

 

[Joe Bryant]

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Thanks. Can you elaborate more there?

I understand people may not believe it's true or accurate, but there are lots of people who understand things like John's writing in the bible to be an eye witness account. https://theologyinmotion.com/2018/04/04/gospel-john-eyewitness-account/

Consensus is that John was written around 90 AD. Yes, it says it describes an eyewitness account. In any other context, would you consider a summary of events written nearly a century later to be an eyewitness account?

I'm certainly no expert. And I know there is discussion of who wrote what books and when. But yes, when the author says it's an eyewitness account, if one believes the writing, I'd believe it to be an eyewitness account.

And I fully understand one might not believe any of it to be true. But that's a different discussion.

A little more on it. And obviously from a Christian perspective. https://evidenceforchristianity.org...ew-not-i-how-can-we-believe-therefore-that-t/

 

[Captain Cranks]

A little more on it. And obviously from a Christian perspective. https://evidenceforchristianity.org...ew-not-i-how-can-we-believe-therefore-that-t/

Interesting conversation about John here between two UNC scholars (one Catholic, one atheist).

 

[zoonation]

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Thanks. Can you elaborate more there?

I understand people may not believe it's true or accurate, but there are lots of people who understand things like John's writing in the bible to be an eye witness account. https://theologyinmotion.com/2018/04/04/gospel-john-eyewitness-account/

A little more on it. And obviously from a Christian perspective. https://evidenceforchristianity.org...ew-not-i-how-can-we-believe-therefore-that-t/

Interesting conversation about John here between two UNC scholars (one Catholic, one atheist).

Bart was so patient with that guy. That was some serious mental gymnastics.

No serious scholar that I am aware of (that is not an overt apologist) thinks any of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. My own view is that John is the least reliable gospel in terms of the historical narrative of Jesus' life. IMO it was clearly primarily motivated by establishing Jesus' divinity when the movement really got going. So much of what he says about Jesus and all of what Jesus says about himself are not in the synoptic gospels. It is almost inconceivable that given the magnitude of the claims in John, especially with respect to Jesus' claims about himself, those references would not be included in the synoptics. Especially given that the synoptic authors wanted to convince their various societies, for various different reasons, of Jesus' divinity. If he said it himself you would think that would be something you would want to include in your book.

The earliest dating of John is 90AD. That is ~60ish years after Jesus' death. Average life expectancy was ~40. And, lastly John Chapter 21, which is clearly an interpolation, gives up the ghost IMO.

 

[Paddington]

I’d question whether a 4-year old can make a sincere decision without coercion

All I knew is that I wanted to be saved. My Uncle told me that I was too little and to "Get Out Of Here", but I listened in and prayed with them from a distance. It must have been the Holy Spirit drawing me. Yes God can do that if He wants.

I kind of feel sorry for kids that get brainwashed at such an early age. They prey on the young and impressionable, as well as the broken.

I understand this position and there are surely cults around the world that brainwash. And yes, I understand some people see mainstream Christianity as a cult. I do not.

I'd offer, as I think. maybe @BobbyLayne has also, that there's an element of trying to raise your children with a worldview you think is correct.

With that said, one of the things I consistently see in the Christian and church community I'm around is the idea that it's imperative that one's faith be their own. Not their parents or someone else's. I was that way myself. I grew up around church and I know my parents very much wanted me to be a Christian because they 1) thought it was an optimal way to live and 2) for salvation. But it was abundantly clear it had to be my own faith. Not theirs. And that's how it played out for me.

Now does a parent influence what a child and then young adult believes? Of course. I think that's true for everything a parent tries to instill in their children.

But, at least for me, "brainwashing" is not what I experienced myself or what I see around me.

I am sure the Scientologists feel the same way

But the evidence is on the side of Christianity. Jesus was a real person. He really fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. He really performed miracles according to the eye witnesses. He really was cruicified and He really rose from the dead. If He hadn't, everyone would have known He was a fraud and Christianity woukd have died out right then. But that's not what happened, hundreds to thousands saw Him after He rose again and Christianity exploded and changed the world. The world system revolves around Him. New Year, Easter, Christmas are all in His honor for what He did.

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that. In fact, that was one of the determining criteria for a book being included in the Bible, it had to be written by an eyewitness.

 

[-fish-]

I’d question whether a 4-year old can make a sincere decision without coercion

All I knew is that I wanted to be saved. My Uncle told me that I was too little and to "Get Out Of Here", but I listened in and prayed with them from a distance. It must have been the Holy Spirit drawing me. Yes God can do that if He wants.

I kind of feel sorry for kids that get brainwashed at such an early age. They prey on the young and impressionable, as well as the broken.

I understand this position and there are surely cults around the world that brainwash. And yes, I understand some people see mainstream Christianity as a cult. I do not.

I'd offer, as I think. maybe @BobbyLayne has also, that there's an element of trying to raise your children with a worldview you think is correct.

With that said, one of the things I consistently see in the Christian and church community I'm around is the idea that it's imperative that one's faith be their own. Not their parents or someone else's. I was that way myself. I grew up around church and I know my parents very much wanted me to be a Christian because they 1) thought it was an optimal way to live and 2) for salvation. But it was abundantly clear it had to be my own faith. Not theirs. And that's how it played out for me.

Now does a parent influence what a child and then young adult believes? Of course. I think that's true for everything a parent tries to instill in their children.

But, at least for me, "brainwashing" is not what I experienced myself or what I see around me.

I am sure the Scientologists feel the same way

But the evidence is on the side of Christianity. Jesus was a real person. He really fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. He really performed miracles according to the eye witnesses. He really was cruicified and He really rose from the dead. If He hadn't, everyone would have known He was a fraud and Christianity woukd have died out right then. But that's not what happened, hundreds to thousands saw Him after He rose again and Christianity exploded and changed the world. The world system revolves around Him. New Year, Easter, Christmas are all in His honor for what He did.

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that. In fact, that was one of the determining criteria for a book being included in the Bible, it had to be written by an eyewitness.

no. in fact, most bible scholars would disagree with you.

 

[-fish-]

I'm now thinking that by presenting himself as condescending, anti-science, literalist and continuing to contradict himself, Paddington is actually a genius fisherman making an argument against Christianity. Kudos.

 

[-fish-]

I’d question whether a 4-year old can make a sincere decision without coercion

All I knew is that I wanted to be saved. My Uncle told me that I was too little and to "Get Out Of Here", but I listened in and prayed with them from a distance. It must have been the Holy Spirit drawing me. Yes God can do that if He wants.

I kind of feel sorry for kids that get brainwashed at such an early age. They prey on the young and impressionable, as well as the broken.

I understand this position and there are surely cults around the world that brainwash. And yes, I understand some people see mainstream Christianity as a cult. I do not.

I'd offer, as I think. maybe @BobbyLayne has also, that there's an element of trying to raise your children with a worldview you think is correct.

With that said, one of the things I consistently see in the Christian and church community I'm around is the idea that it's imperative that one's faith be their own. Not their parents or someone else's. I was that way myself. I grew up around church and I know my parents very much wanted me to be a Christian because they 1) thought it was an optimal way to live and 2) for salvation. But it was abundantly clear it had to be my own faith. Not theirs. And that's how it played out for me.

Now does a parent influence what a child and then young adult believes? Of course. I think that's true for everything a parent tries to instill in their children.

But, at least for me, "brainwashing" is not what I experienced myself or what I see around me.

I am sure the Scientologists feel the same way

But the evidence is on the side of Christianity. Jesus was a real person. He really fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. He really performed miracles according to the eye witnesses. He really was cruicified and He really rose from the dead. If He hadn't, everyone would have known He was a fraud and Christianity woukd have died out right then. But that's not what happened, hundreds to thousands saw Him after He rose again and Christianity exploded and changed the world. The world system revolves around Him. New Year, Easter, Christmas are all in His honor for what He did.

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that. In fact, that was one of the determining criteria for a book being included in the Bible, it had to be written by an eyewitness.

Neat that Luke was there for Jesus' birth and with the shepherds in the fields.

 

[-fish-]

I've never encountered an evangelist who knows less about the bible or his own religion. I've been fished :jesusfish:.

:spits hook:

 

[Zow]

I've never encountered an evangelist who knows less about the bible or his own religion. I've been fished :jesusfish:.

:spits hook:

Sadly, I don't think this is a fishing attempt.

 

[dkp993]

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that.

Ah, “no one disputes that”? Come on man. You can not be serious with this statement.

 

[zoonation]

I’d question whether a 4-year old can make a sincere decision without coercion

All I knew is that I wanted to be saved. My Uncle told me that I was too little and to "Get Out Of Here", but I listened in and prayed with them from a distance. It must have been the Holy Spirit drawing me. Yes God can do that if He wants.

I kind of feel sorry for kids that get brainwashed at such an early age. They prey on the young and impressionable, as well as the broken.

I understand this position and there are surely cults around the world that brainwash. And yes, I understand some people see mainstream Christianity as a cult. I do not.

I'd offer, as I think. maybe @BobbyLayne has also, that there's an element of trying to raise your children with a worldview you think is correct.

With that said, one of the things I consistently see in the Christian and church community I'm around is the idea that it's imperative that one's faith be their own. Not their parents or someone else's. I was that way myself. I grew up around church and I know my parents very much wanted me to be a Christian because they 1) thought it was an optimal way to live and 2) for salvation. But it was abundantly clear it had to be my own faith. Not theirs. And that's how it played out for me.

Now does a parent influence what a child and then young adult believes? Of course. I think that's true for everything a parent tries to instill in their children.

But, at least for me, "brainwashing" is not what I experienced myself or what I see around me.

I am sure the Scientologists feel the same way

But the evidence is on the side of Christianity. Jesus was a real person. He really fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. He really performed miracles according to the eye witnesses. He really was cruicified and He really rose from the dead. If He hadn't, everyone would have known He was a fraud and Christianity woukd have died out right then. But that's not what happened, hundreds to thousands saw Him after He rose again and Christianity exploded and changed the world. The world system revolves around Him. New Year, Easter, Christmas are all in His honor for what He did.

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that. In fact, that was one of the determining criteria for a book being included in the Bible, it had to be written by an eyewitness.

Yikes

 

[zoonation]

I’d question whether a 4-year old can make a sincere decision without coercion

All I knew is that I wanted to be saved. My Uncle told me that I was too little and to "Get Out Of Here", but I listened in and prayed with them from a distance. It must have been the Holy Spirit drawing me. Yes God can do that if He wants.

I kind of feel sorry for kids that get brainwashed at such an early age. They prey on the young and impressionable, as well as the broken.

I understand this position and there are surely cults around the world that brainwash. And yes, I understand some people see mainstream Christianity as a cult. I do not.

I'd offer, as I think. maybe @BobbyLayne has also, that there's an element of trying to raise your children with a worldview you think is correct.

With that said, one of the things I consistently see in the Christian and church community I'm around is the idea that it's imperative that one's faith be their own. Not their parents or someone else's. I was that way myself. I grew up around church and I know my parents very much wanted me to be a Christian because they 1) thought it was an optimal way to live and 2) for salvation. But it was abundantly clear it had to be my own faith. Not theirs. And that's how it played out for me.

Now does a parent influence what a child and then young adult believes? Of course. I think that's true for everything a parent tries to instill in their children.

But, at least for me, "brainwashing" is not what I experienced myself or what I see around me.

I am sure the Scientologists feel the same way

But the evidence is on the side of Christianity. Jesus was a real person. He really fulfilled hundreds of prophecies. He really performed miracles according to the eye witnesses. He really was cruicified and He really rose from the dead. If He hadn't, everyone would have known He was a fraud and Christianity woukd have died out right then. But that's not what happened, hundreds to thousands saw Him after He rose again and Christianity exploded and changed the world. The world system revolves around Him. New Year, Easter, Christmas are all in His honor for what He did.

You need to stop with the “eye witnesses” stuff. There were no eye witness accounts.

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that. In fact, that was one of the determining criteria for a book being included in the Bible, it had to be written by an eyewitness.

no. in fact, most bible scholars would disagree with you.

Not a conversation worth having, unfortunately.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi Folks. This can be a good thread. Please don’t accuse others of being insincere or trolling or fishing. If one doesn’t want to engage, that’s of course their choice. But please, let’s discuss and assume the others are in good faith here.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Here comes the code red

 

[BlackCrowes]

I've never encountered an evangelist who knows less about the bible or his own religion. I've been fished :jesusfish:.

:spits hook:

Unfortunately, I don’t think so

 

[-fish-]

Hi Folks. This can be a good thread. Please don’t accuse others of being insincere or trolling or fishing. If one doesn’t want to engage, that’s of course their choice. But please, let’s discuss and assume the others are in good faith here.

Joe, I seriously believe that the point of this thread is to make Christian evangelicals look bad. The OP is condescending, combative, and ignorant of the contents of the bible. While others have interesting discussions and much of this thread has been actual meaningful discussion, I think you need to consider the fact that both believers and skeptics have been critical of the same things.

 

[-fish-]

As a sign of good faith, I will bow out of this thread, despite the fact that I have found discussion with believers such as Bobby Layne to be valuable and interesting.

 

[-fish-]

Happy belated New Year's, which is now apparently a biblical holiday.

 

[BrutalPenguin]

Eyewitness? I think at the very best you could call the gospels "hearsay". Especially since there's strong evidence that the authors of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark open on their desk as they were writing.

 

[-fish-]

googling language from his posts reveals that these exact same posts (to the word) have been made on other forums for years. that's why he doesn't respond to specific questions.

 

[-fish-]

this entire thread is just spam and a fishing expedition.

 

[-fish-]

the exact same posts can be found on a fly fishing site in 2019. it's just cut and paste spam.

 

[dkp993]

the exact same posts can be found on a fly fishing site in 2019. it's just cut and paste spam.

While I understand your frustration (and at times share it, though for different reasons) I disagree with you. There’s no question he cuts and pastes those posts all over the place, that’s undeniable. But I believe that’s how he thinks he’s “spreading the word”. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he just doesn’t seem to care about being effective at it.

 

[-fish-]

the exact same posts can be found on a fly fishing site in 2019. it's just cut and paste spam.

While I understand your frustration (and at times share it, though for different reasons) I disagree with you. There’s no question he cuts and pastes those posts all over the place, that’s undeniable. But I believe that’s how he thinks he’s “spreading the word”. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he just doesn’t seem to care about being effective at it.

Could be. But if you're really trying to spread the word, are you going to do it in a way that's combative and condescending? Are you going to be ignorant of the actual contents of the bible? If your goal is to engage, would you just cut and paste canned responses to people that are interested in talking to you?

The responses provided don't even match up to questions asked. This is cut and paste spam. There are a lot of sites where he's done this. It isn't a conversation or engagement. It's just the same posts being pasted. Even Christians criticize the style and content.

 

[-fish-]

BTW. I disagree with you in a ton of threads. but I've appreciated your posts in here. Your posts have been thoughtful and responsive. The opposite of the canned posts I'm referring to.

 

[dkp993]

BTW. I disagree with you in a ton of threads. but I've appreciated your posts in here. Your posts have been thoughtful and responsive. The opposite of the canned posts I'm referring to.

Thanks, appreciate that. Though I never knew you felt that way. Bummer. From my end I’ve always enjoyed your posts and perspectives.

*to be incredibly clear. I’m not in any way taking what you said as an insult, was more just surprised to hear it.

 

[Paddington]

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that.

Ah, “no one disputes that”? Come on man. You can not be serious with this statement.

All through the last 2000 years, no one disputed this fact until a couple of decades ago by Liberal 'Scholars' who are set out to somehow disprove the Bible, but can't. So, technically, there are people NOW who dispute it.

The OT Books were accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. The NT books were recognized early on because they were written by the Apostles or an associate of an Apostle. The 2 exceptions were James and Jude whi were half Brothers of Jesus Christ Himself.

Where Did the New Testament Come From?

A history of how the books came to be recognized.

www.godtube.com

 

[-fish-]

BTW. I disagree with you in a ton of threads. but I've appreciated your posts in here. Your posts have been thoughtful and responsive. The opposite of the canned posts I'm referring to.

Thanks, appreciate that. Though I never knew you felt that way. Bummer. From my end I’ve always enjoyed your posts and perspectives.

*to be incredibly clear. I’m not in any way taking what you said as an insult, was more just surprised to hear it.

disagree doesn't mean I don't appreciate your posts.

 

[dkp993]

the exact same posts can be found on a fly fishing site in 2019. it's just cut and paste spam.

While I understand your frustration (and at times share it, though for different reasons) I disagree with you. There’s no question he cuts and pastes those posts all over the place, that’s undeniable. But I believe that’s how he thinks he’s “spreading the word”. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he just doesn’t seem to care about being effective at it.

Could be. But if you're really trying to spread the word, are you going to do it in a way that's combative and condescending? Are you going to be ignorant of the actual contents of the bible? If your goal is to engage, would you just cut and paste canned responses to people that are interested in talking to you?

The responses provided don't even match up to questions asked. This is cut and paste spam. There are a lot of sites where he's done this. It isn't a conversation or engagement. It's just the same posts being pasted. Even Christians criticize the style and content.

You might be right. Hard to tell these days. But I’ve just read him as convicted of his viewpoint and just very rigid in his approach. More of a telling style vs a conversation for sure.

 

[dkp993]

BTW. I disagree with you in a ton of threads. but I've appreciated your posts in here. Your posts have been thoughtful and responsive. The opposite of the canned posts I'm referring to.

Thanks, appreciate that. Though I never knew you felt that way. Bummer. From my end I’ve always enjoyed your posts and perspectives.

*to be incredibly clear. I’m not in any way taking what you said as an insult, was more just surprised to hear it.

disagree doesn't mean I don't appreciate your posts.

Totally fair. All good brother.

 

[-fish-]

Good luck, all. I leave you with

Matthew 7:15

 

[dkp993]

The OT Books were accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. The NT books were recognized early on because they were written by the Apostles or an associate of an Apostle. The 2 exceptions were James and Jude whi were half Brothers of Jesus Christ H

All books or stories are accepted by their followers in their time, this is what it means to follow. Just like every other religion and their corresponding texts, or the stories of the countless Gods that have been worshiped by humans throughout history. That does not make the “accepted books” or stories true or factual.

People have been questioning christianity since its inception.

 

[-fish-]

The OT Books were accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. The NT books were recognized early on because they were written by the Apostles or an associate of an Apostle. The 2 exceptions were James and Jude whi were half Brothers of Jesus Christ H

All books or stories are accepted by their followers in their time, this is what it means to follow. Just like every other religion and their corresponding texts, or the stories of the countless Gods that have been worshiped by humans throughout history. That does not make the “accepted books” or stories true or factual.

People have been questioning christianity since its inception. To believe otherwise is, frankly, a bit delusional.

Until 367 AD, these were part of the New Testament: the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement.

I wonder if the first 300 years of Christians went to hell for reading the wrong books.

But proof, right? Enjoy.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Paddington believes in some really wacky stuff. You'll likely consider it completely nonsensical. Regardless of your arguments to the contrary, he is going to keep repeating those beliefs. We can either keep reacting in disbelief and parse everything he says ad nauseam or accept that he believes in really wacky stuff and ignore it in the future. I think the latter option keeps the thread moving on a better path.

 

[zoonation]

Totally incorrect . The Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, therefore, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. No one disputes that.

Ah, “no one disputes that”? Come on man. You can not be serious with this statement.

All through the last 2000 years, no one disputed this fact until a couple of decades ago by Liberal 'Scholars' who are set out to somehow disprove the Bible, but can't. So, technically, there are people NOW who dispute it.

The OT Books were accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. The NT books were recognized early on because they were written by the Apostles or an associate of an Apostle. The 2 exceptions were James and Jude whi were half Brothers of Jesus Christ Himself.

Where Did the New Testament Come From?

A history of how the books came to be recognized.

www.godtube.com

this is patently false.

 

[dkp993]

Paddington believes in some really wacky stuff. You'll likely consider it completely nonsensical. Regardless of your arguments to the contrary, he is going to keep repeating those beliefs. We can either keep reacting in disbelief and parse everything he says ad nauseam or accept that he believes in really wacky stuff and ignore it in the future. I think the latter option keeps the thread moving on a better path.

While it might be “wacky” it’s certainly not uncommon. So I’m trying to understand how someone gets to this point and believes what they do despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Captain Cranks]

While it might be “wacky” it’s certainly not uncommon. So I’m trying to understand how someone gets to this point and believes what they do despite the evidence to the contrary.

Indoctrination and confirmation bias.

 

[zoonation]

While it might be “wacky” it’s certainly not uncommon. So I’m trying to understand how someone gets to this point and believes what they do despite the evidence to the contrary.

Indoctrination and confirmation bias.

Awareness of mortality and fear of death and nothingness has made people throughout human history believe incredible things.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Awareness of mortality and fear of death and nothingness has made people throughout human history believe incredible things.

I think questions like "How did we get here, what is our purpose, and what happens when we die?" have led humanity to come up with some improbable answers. That's fine as long as the answer you choose to believe doesn't become an answer for the community. Faith is personal and should be respected on either side. Perhaps that's what's causing the friction in this thread. Christians want their Faith respected while the atheist wants their lack of faith respected. 'You can't really believe that' is landing the same way as 'these are facts and this is the Truth' with both suggesting the other side is wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

through the last 2000 years, no one disputed this fact until a couple of decades ago by Liberal 'Scholars'

This flat out isn't true. If we give a late first century date for the completion of the four gospels, it takes another hundred years before Irenaeus attributes names to the four text. It is at that point that becomes known as the Gospel according to... . Before then the early church fathers used more generic names. Does this mean that they weren't written by eye witnesses? No. It just means that the question of authorship is not new and goes back to the beginning.

But for argument sake, lets not debate the authorship. Mark wrote Mark. Luke wrote Luke and Acts. Who was Mark? Who was Luke? Mark was a disciple of Peter, not Jesus and, per
Papias :

“Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, one of Peter’s. Peter adapted his teaching to the occasion, without making an organized arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39)

So lets cross off Mark as an eyewitness. Or, more importantly acknowledge that a early Church Father said he was not. Who was Luke? Paul's doctor if we take tradition as the answer. Was Paul, or should I say Saul a follower of Jesus? Maybe he witnessed an event or two, but Luke and Acts are not eyewitness accounts but a commissioned narrative. It says so at the start. So there goes more than half of the "witness" accounts.

What about Matthew? Well Papias did credit Matthew with a Gospel. It is just that the Gospel he describes,starting with being written in Hebrew doesn't match up very well with the Gospel we have. Especially since Matthew is using Greek "old Testament" variants rather than Hebrew when quoting scripture. But, again lets ignore that and explain it away. We still need to ask whether or not Matthew was an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus? Was he there when John the Baptist met with Herod? Was Matthew a fly on the wall when the Sadduces and Phairisees meet with Pilate in private? Matthew doesn't change his writing style between events that the disciple Matthew was likely present to those where he was certainly not - why not? Because he is not writing an eyewitness accounts but a sale pitch for the Christ movement that is losing to the Phairisees in the post temple era.

As for "John". That is an entire another can of worms. But again the point isn't that the author was not John, was not an eyewitness to at least the bulk of what is writen, but that honestly questioning this is new and not ancient. Calling it new (among the educated), is what is new. Not the other way around.

 

[Paddington]

through the last 2000 years, no one disputed this fact until a couple of decades ago by Liberal 'Scholars'

This flat out isn't true. If we give a late first century date for the completion of the four gospels, it takes another hundred years before Irenaeus attributes names to the four text. It is at that point that becomes known as the Gospel according to... . Before then the early church fathers used more generic names. Does this mean that they weren't written by eye witnesses? No. It just means that the question of authorship is not new and goes back to the beginning.

But for argument sake, lets not debate the authorship. Mark wrote Mark. Luke wrote Luke and Acts. Who was Mark? Who was Luke? Mark was a disciple of Peter, not Jesus and, per
Papias :

“Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, one of Peter’s. Peter adapted his teaching to the occasion, without making an organized arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39)

So lets cross off Mark as an eyewitness. Or, more importantly acknowledge that a early Church Father said he was not. Who was Luke? Paul's doctor if we take tradition as the answer. Was Paul, or should I say Saul a follower of Jesus? Maybe he witnessed an event or two, but Luke and Acts are not eyewitness accounts but a commissioned narrative. It says so at the start. So there goes more than half of the "witness" accounts.

What about Matthew? Well Papias did credit Matthew with a Gospel. It is just that the Gospel he describes,starting with being written in Hebrew doesn't match up very well with the Gospel we have. Especially since Matthew is using Greek "old Testament" variants rather than Hebrew when quoting scripture. But, again lets ignore that and explain it away. We still need to ask whether or not Matthew was an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus? Was he there when John the Baptist met with Herod? Was Matthew a fly on the wall when the Sadduces and Phairisees meet with Pilate in private? Matthew doesn't change his writing style between events that the disciple Matthew was likely present to those where he was certainly not - why not? Because he is not writing an eyewitness accounts but a sale pitch for the Christ movement that is losing to the Phairisees in the post temple era.

As for "John". That is an entire another can of worms. But again the point isn't that the author was not John, was not an eyewitness to at least the bulk of what is writen, but that honestly questioning this is new and not ancient. Calling it new (among the educated), is what is new. Not the other way around.

Did you watch the video? It's accurate. And if you even look at the Secular, Liberal Wikipedia, it shows the Gospels with later dates than the Traditional Conservatives overnthe Centuries, but it's still in the first Century AD. You are wrkng about it. Mark was written by an Associate of Peter, probably dictated by Peter himself. He was probably with the Disciples during the events of the book of Mark. There were more than 12 who were traveming with the Disciples. Did you know that? The 12 were chosen to be in Christ's inner circle. Luke was alive during the events that took, place, was also an associate of an Apostle was was the criteria for the book being accepted. Paul was an eyewitness, as he saw the risen Christ and was also the kne who ordered the killing of Stephen. Yes he was an eyewitness.

Watch the video I posted and learn the truth.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Paul was an eyewitness, as he saw the risen Christ

I didn't really expect that you would call out Paul as liar. Or maybe Galatians isn't authentic.

“For I did not receive it [his gospel message] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)

But it was a small region so maybe paths crossed at some point.

There were more than 12 who were traveming with the Disciples. Did you know that?

Of course, there was the true believers that did not go hide, The women.

But this is all beside the point. We can, for sake of argument concede that all of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses and your statement has still been demonstrated to be false.

Mark was written by an Associate of Peter, probably dictated by Peter himself. He was probably with the Disciples during the events of the book of Mark

Early church fathers could very well have been wrong, but at least one in the early second century said this take would be wrong. That Mark witnesses nothing. And that Peter didn't dictate anything. Mark did, according to the posted quote compile his memories of what Peter told him, after the death of Peter. You and your video being correct about Mark being an actual witness, and the church father being wrong would not be evidence to support your statement that this was not disputed. You and your video being correct about Paul being an eyewitness [to the evens of Gospel], and Paul being incorrect when he says he was not would not be evidence either and creates all kinds of theological issues,

 

[Paddington]

Paul was an eyewitness, as he saw the risen Christ

I didn't really expect that you would call out Paul as liar. Or maybe Galatians isn't authentic.

“For I did not receive it [his gospel message] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)

But it was a small region so maybe paths crossed at some point.

There were more than 12 who were traveming with the Disciples. Did you know that?

Of course, there was the true believers that did not go hide, The women.

But this is all beside the point. We can, for sake of argument concede that all of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses and your statement has still been demonstrated to be false.

Mark was written by an Associate of Peter, probably dictated by Peter himself. He was probably with the Disciples during the events of the book of Mark

Early church fathers could very well have been wrong, but at least one in the early second century said this take would be wrong. That Mark witnesses nothing. And that Peter didn't dictate anything. Mark did, according to the posted quote compile his memories of what Peter told him, after the death of Peter. You and your video being correct about Mark being an actual witness, and the church father being wrong would not be evidence to support your statement that this was not disputed. You and your video being correct about Paul being an eyewitness [to the evens of Gospel], and Paul being incorrect when he says he was not would not be evidence either and creates all kinds of theological issues,

Everything I said is true. Never called Paul a liar either and he isnt. Paul did see the risen Christ and Paul was the one who killed Stephen. Do you refute these facts?
Acts 22:6-11 NIV
[6] “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. [7] I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ [8] “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. [9] My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. [10] “ ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ [11] My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me."

So Yes Paul saw the risen Lord Jesus as I said. The verse you gave also shows that Paul recieved his Doctrine directly by Jesus Christ, not by man. Exactly! Because Paul's Doctine was different from that of the 12 and God didn't want Paul confused.

Yes their paths did cross at some point...on the road to Demascus.
My statement has been demonstrated to be true. Again Paul ordered the death of Stephen. Do you know who Stephen was?

According to you and your Liberal sources, Mark wasn't an eyewitness. According to the Scholars through history and the Conservatives in this day, he WAS an eyewitness and at a very minimum was given his info by Peter, but most would say that he was Peter’s Scribe and wrote down what Peter wanted him to write.

The Bible was written by the eyewitness to the events. They weren't necessarily present at every event, but they at least had direct knowledge of what happened. It was also written by direct revelation from God Himself. Moses obviously recieved direct Revelation from God about the Creation of all things for example.

 

[Captain Cranks]

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.

Proverbs 11:2

 

[Navin Johnson]

While it might be “wacky” it’s certainly not uncommon. So I’m trying to understand how someone gets to this point and believes what they do despite the evidence to the contrary.

Indoctrination and confirmation bias.

Awareness of mortality and fear of death and nothingness has made people throughout human history believe incredible things.

Extinction without distinction

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Paul was an eyewitness, as he saw the risen Christ

I didn't really expect that you would call out Paul as liar. Or maybe Galatians isn't authentic.

“For I did not receive it [his gospel message] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)

But it was a small region so maybe paths crossed at some point.

There were more than 12 who were traveming with the Disciples. Did you know that?

Of course, there was the true believers that did not go hide, The women.

But this is all beside the point. We can, for sake of argument concede that all of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses and your statement has still been demonstrated to be false.

Mark was written by an Associate of Peter, probably dictated by Peter himself. He was probably with the Disciples during the events of the book of Mark

Early church fathers could very well have been wrong, but at least one in the early second century said this take would be wrong. That Mark witnesses nothing. And that Peter didn't dictate anything. Mark did, according to the posted quote compile his memories of what Peter told him, after the death of Peter. You and your video being correct about Mark being an actual witness, and the church father being wrong would not be evidence to support your statement that this was not disputed. You and your video being correct about Paul being an eyewitness [to the evens of Gospel], and Paul being incorrect when he says he was not would not be evidence either and creates all kinds of theological issues,

Everything I said is true. Never called Paul a liar either and he isnt. Paul did see the risen Christ and Paul was the one who killed Stephen. Do you refute these facts?
Acts 22:6-11 NIV
[6] “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. [7] I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ [8] “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. [9] My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. [10] “ ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ [11] My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me."

So Yes Paul saw the risen Lord Jesus as I said. The verse you gave also shows that Paul recieved his Doctrine directly by Jesus Christ, not by man. Exactly! Because Paul's Doctine was different from that of the 12 and God didn't want Paul confused.

Yes their paths did cross at some point...on the road to Demascus.
My statement has been demonstrated to be true. Again Paul ordered the death of Stephen. Do you know who Stephen was?

According to you and your Liberal sources, Mark wasn't an eyewitness. According to the Scholars through history and the Conservatives in this day, he WAS an eyewitness and at a very minimum was given his info by Peter, but most would say that he was Peter’s Scribe and wrote down what Peter wanted him to write.

The Bible was written by the eyewitness to the events. They weren't necessarily present at every event, but they at least had direct knowledge of what happened. It was also written by direct revelation from God Himself. Moses obviously recieved direct Revelation from God about the Creation of all things for example.

Do you know what a non sequitor is? Paul seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul having Steven killed, your rants about "liberal sources" like Papias none of this follows your argument that until recently no one ever questioned that the New Testament was writen by "eyewitnesses" to the events they were writing about.

Luke was an eyewitness to what in the Gospel of Luke?
Now decades ago we had someone around here that insisted that Luke and Mark were among "the seventy". But of course that is ridiculous because we wouldn't call them followers of Paul and Peter respectively if they were actual followers of Jesus. And we wouldn't in Mark's case be saying that he got his info from Peter if he was actually at events.

Paul was an eyewitness to what in the Gospel of Luke?
What percentage of Acts is Paul, and by extension Luke present to be an eyewitness?
So now, via your last paragraph you back off the claim and instead say that at least some of this isn't eyewitness accounts but devine revelation. So even you acknowledge that it isn't entirely eyewitness accounts. Thus it isn't just those with "liberal sources" that reject this absurdity. What's next? That Christians, at least educated ones have known this all along?

 

[Zow]

I have to chuckle at "eyewitness accounts" being the definitive proof that Jesus was the Son of God as more and more studies show that eyewitness accounts are very unreliable. I see that play out in court all the time where two neutral, honest individuals will give significantly varying accounts of an incident. To then suggest that these accounts would then be accurately written down by the viewer decades later or, worse, past down through oral tradition like a game of telephone, is similarly unable to stand up to scrutiny.