RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 5:49 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 6:08 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:That closes off another atheist argument: that the apostles were lying intentionally.
And the evidence that there were any "apostles" is what? They are like Robin Hood's Merry Men. Chrome on the bumper of your bullshit story.
Quote:John 21:20-24
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Quote:P.S. The only person who thinks that any fucking apostles - illiterate Galilean fisherman who suddenly became "literate" in Koine Greek! - wrote anything is you. And I have alredy dismissed you as a fucking moron.
Quote:Matthew 9:9
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
As a tax collector, Matthew was hated by the Jews because he worked for the Romans. But he was not illiterate. In fact, Matthew may have been chosen by Jesus specifically because of his ability to write, and consequently, his eyewitness accounts could possibly be contemporaneous.
Luke was a gentile, and a trained physician...a man of education like Paul. And Mark, John Mark, had travelled extensively throughout Greek-speaking lands with Peter, Paul and Barnabas.
