A small thanks to the resident Theists..

[Tonus]

Paul is martyred in 64 or 67AD.

From your link:

Neither the Bible nor other sources say how or when Paul died, but Ignatius, probably around 110, writes that Paul was martyred. Christian tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero around the mid-60s...

The name Ignatius links to an article stating that he...

...was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle.

The article only gives a range for the years of his life and death, and like Paul his death as a martyr is "according to Christian tradition."

In other words, no proof, just statements from the people and the religion that rely on those statements to confirm their beliefs. For the Christian they are sufficient, for the non-Christian they are not.

Now you will tell me the same thing that every atheist says to this evidence - that the prophecy was inserted AFTER AD 70 into a copy of each of the Gospels.

Or that none of the gospels were written before 70AD. None of the original manuscripts survives, and the estimates of when they were written depend, not surprisingly, on whether or not you need for the dates to conform to pre/post-destruction of Jerusalem. The Christian must presume that they were written before, else they won't seem genuine. The non-Christian can approach the writings as they would any other ancient text purporting to describe specific future events in enough detail to make them clear.

[Captain Colostomy]

Aractus must argue only with tweener FarceBookers if every atheist he knows gets torn asunder by the evidence he presents as 'proof'.

[Aractus]

Or that none of the gospels were written before 70AD. None of the original manuscripts survives, and the estimates of when they were written depend, not surprisingly, on whether or not you need for the dates to conform to pre/post-destruction of Jerusalem. The Christian must presume that they were written before, else they won't seem genuine. The non-Christian can approach the writings as they would any other ancient text purporting to describe specific future events in enough detail to make them clear.

Okay, a few things, let's work in reverse-order. "Any other ancient text", well let me repeat the example I've already given you.

Up until about 20 years ago it was general consensus among historians that the Egyptian Pyramids were built by slaves. This was based on one single source, written by a contemporary Greek historian in the 5th century BC. Herodotus visited Egypt c. 450BC, and was told that the pyramids were built by slaves.

Then, the graves of Egyptian workers were excavated alongside one of the pyramids, and now every historian believes that none of the pyramids were built by slaves - even though, and here's the interesting part, it's still equally possible that some pyramids were built by slaves and others by workers - after all they were built centuries apart!!

So don't presume to go on to me about what constitutes an acceptable level of evidence, if the single piece of writing by Herodotus is enough to convince historians that the pyramids were built by slaves for 2400 years, then I expect to see counter-evidence that is at least equal to the evidence that I've provided, not a simple dismissal of the evidence.

We don't need to presume when they were written, we do what is done with all historical documents, we date it as best we can from the available internal and external evidence. The fact that none of the Gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem, makes it highly likely that they were written before that evident. The fact that Luke does not record Paul's death in Acts makes it highly likely that Paul has not yet died; Luke ends with Paul under house arrest, there's no other reason for this. Note that no events past AD 61 are recorded in the book of Acts; even though the book starts "historically" and ends in the "present". This is what gives us the most solid dating of the writing.

---

None of the original manuscripts survives

This is true for most ancient texts, correct? Would you really expect papyrus originals to still exist vs parchment copies?

[Whateverist]

Up until about 20 years ago it was general consensus among historians that the Egyptian Pyramids were built by slaves. This was based on one single source, written by a contemporary Greek historian in the 5th century BC. Herodotus visited Egypt c. 450BC, and was told that the pyramids were built by slaves.

That is a fine point. The decisions of historians along with their best guesses never quite rise above the level of speculation. Some speculation is better founded than others, but it is all speculation nonetheless. I accept this.

But then what sort of scholarship does it require to determine which holy book is the actual word of the one and only living god?

[Tonus]

Okay, a few things, let's work in reverse-order. "Any other ancient text", well let me repeat the example I've already given you.

Your example indicates that taking the ancient texts at face value may lead historians to an incorrect conclusion. Doesn't that reinforce the point I made?

Further, if the initial source had stated that these pyramids were being built for gods who stood twenty feet tall and breathed fire, historians would not have accepted that as fact. It would be expected that they would approach any extra-normal claims with considerable suspicion. I think that they would approach claims of prophecy similarly. It may help them determine dates, but not by assuming that the "prophecies" were made prior to the event in question.

So don't presume to go on to me about what constitutes an acceptable level of evidence, if the single piece of writing by Herodotus is enough to convince historians that the pyramids were built by slaves for 2400 years, then I expect to see counter-evidence that is at least equal to the evidence that I've provided, not a simple dismissal of the evidence.

You stated to Missluckie that you can prove that the Bible isn't 'fake' but that her bias would prevent her from accepting it. Then you provide the testimony from texts for which the dates are in a wide range and for which acceptance may depend heavily on bias. And you follow it up with a Wiki entry that specifically denies that the date of Paul's death is known and that the guesses as to his fate are made by those who stand the most to gain by pretending that they're reliable.

I don't see how your information proves that the Bible is not fake. Acceptance or rejection of your argument is based at least to some degree on bias. And that was my point.

We don't need to presume when they were written, we do what is done with all historical documents, we date it as best we can from the available internal and external evidence.

The range given for the gospels is something like 44AD to 137AD. If it's as simple as assuming that what is stated in the texts is honest and true and extrapolating from there, those date ranges would be much narrower.

[Beta Ray Bill]

I really like it when Christians actually provide some evidence for their beliefs. It's refreshing, compared to just reading blind speculation. As nice as it is to read, though, I have yet to read any evidence that can't be picked apart by atheists. Atheist logic has always out-performed Christiam evidence, at least to me.

And regardless of how good the Christian proof of Jesus' existence, the tons of reading that I have done explaining how impossible it can be negates anything a Christian says about Jesus. Say what they will, Christians will never convince me of Jesus' divinity, because there is just no way a god exists.

[catfish]

I really like it when Christians actually provide some evidence for their beliefs. It's refreshing, compared to just reading blind speculation. As nice as it is to read, though, I have yet to read any evidence that can't be picked apart by atheists. Atheist logic has always out-performed Christiam evidence, at least to me.

You obviously haven't read this thread in it's entirety.

[Mystical]

Wow, you really aren't that bright, huh? If "proof" constituted linking to CARM, then you'd believe in God, right?

No I don't need to believe anything besides the bible, apparently, if I want to avoid a hellish damnation of fiery judgement. Since this whole CARM thing is hanging you up, I brewed up my own rebuttal below though. You're welcome.

I suppose you ignored my rebuttal to CARM's opening line, I also suppose the guys from CARM missed it too.

Your opening line from doucebag anonymous wrote:
"Thus says the Lord" occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament.

Really? What do you think happens to the unerring aspect when one of those 400 times says this:
"19.Ezekiel 22:28
And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken."

My claim is not that the bible is unerring, though. That's the bibles claim. Doesn't matter to me if it says "the lord said" or not (other than the fact that simpletons across the globe take it as such), and I'll explain why next. But first, why are you using an old testament book of Ezekiel to refute the validity of both old testament and new testament scripture? And why would you just disregard the verses that say that if you deny the prophecy of god then you call god a liar? Are you calling god a liar? You and I both know you aren't technically, but what do you use as a qualifier to know the real god instructions from the non Lord hath spoken scripture?

[quote=catfish]
Or better yet, why don't I refute the claim you made in the quote above and refute your bf's BS at the same time.
"The Bible is the direct word of god per your own brethren's words "

1 Corinthians 7:12-16
New International Version (NIV)

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Verse 12 there is proof against your "direct word of God" claim.

You must not have read the two chapters before that one, then.


1 Cor. 5:1-5

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

So this author (one of many) is literally handing out judgements on behalf of god, and you're saying they don't claim to speak for god?


Or these verses:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." --CARM

Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

The prophecy of Jesus Christ is therefore spoken directly from God through the holy spirit, and therefore to reject the prophecy of Jesus: one is calling god a liar. And I've already established what happens to liars..

Acts 3:18, "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled."

<snipped for brevity and to keep missluckie focussed>

Romans 2

Romans 2 is not an answer. Neither is focussed an actual word. You'd be better off putting it in a full sentence, possibly with an ex-plan-ation. We can call Esquilax in to teach you about that term and the correct spelling of focused too, if you want.


*edited for brevity and a quotation error

[Beta Ray Bill]

I really like it when Christians actually provide some evidence for their beliefs. It's refreshing, compared to just reading blind speculation. As nice as it is to read, though, I have yet to read any evidence that can't be picked apart by atheists. Atheist logic has always out-performed Christiam evidence, at least to me.

You obviously haven't read this thread in it's entirety.

I've read a lot of threads here. I can't say if I've read all of this thread, but what I said goes beyond just this forum. I've really tried to hear both sides of the atheist/Christian debate, from the web to books I've read.

What I said stands.

[catfish]

Wow, you really aren't that bright, huh? If "proof" constituted linking to CARM, then you'd believe in God, right?

No I don't need to believe anything besides the bible, apparently, if I want to avoid a hellish damnation of fiery judgement. Since this whole CARM thing is hanging you up, I brewed up my own rebuttal below though. You're welcome.

I almost understood this.

I suppose you ignored my rebuttal to CARM's opening line, I also suppose the guys from CARM missed it too.

Your opening line from doucebag anonymous wrote:
"Thus says the Lord" occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament.

Really? What do you think happens to the unerring aspect when one of those 400 times says this:
"19.Ezekiel 22:28
And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken."

My claim is not that the bible is unerring, though. That's the bibles claim.
...<snipped deflection(s)>...

Watch how this stance comes back to bite you on the ass.

Or better yet, why don't I refute the claim you made in the quote above and refute your bf's BS at the same time.
"The Bible is the direct word of god per your own brethren's words "

1 Corinthians 7:12-16
New International Version (NIV)

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Verse 12 there is proof against your "direct word of God" claim.

You must not have read the two chapters before that one, then.


1 Cor. 5:1-5

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

So this author (one of many) is literally handing out judgements on behalf of god, and you're saying they don't claim to speak for god?

What the Hades does this have to do with your "direct word of God" claim? I showed a verse that unconditionaly states that it was the author's words and not God's.

Or these verses:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." --CARM

Sorry, that states neither that the Bible is unerring nor that it must be followed.

Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

The prophecy of Jesus Christ is therefore spoken directly from God through the holy spirit, and therefore to reject the prophecy of Jesus: one is calling god a liar. And I've already established what happens to liars..

Sorry, that states neither that the Bible is unerring nor that it must be followed.

Acts 3:18, "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled."

Sorry, that states neither that the Bible is unerring nor that it must be followed.

<snipped for brevity and to keep missluckie focussed>

Romans 2

Romans 2 is not an answer. Neither is focussed an actual word. You'd be better off putting it in a full sentence, possibly with an ex-plan-ation. We can call Esquilax in to teach you about that term and the correct spelling of focused too, if you want.


*edited for brevity and a quotation error

That's cool if you want to nitpick spelling errors, I know you're on the run and will grasp at anything possible.
Yes, Romans 2 is an answer, the same way that you think any verse you post is "proof". You may not like the answer or perhaps understand it, but it is an answer to your "those who don't follow the bible will go to hell" claim.

Romans 2:14-15
New International Version (NIV)

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Seriously though, read the whole chapter, it'll be good for you.