• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
I just consulted my kingdom, I was told that Jesus was just a guy and not the son of god. Yup. Can you believe that?
 
DOC said:
Gospel of Luke chapter 17 verses 20,21

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Click to expand...

That's not evidence. That's hearsay. It's not even good hearsay. Really, King James? That's SOOOOOOOOO sixteen hundreds. Could you pick a less reliable translation? Let's try picking one based on something other than just the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Like something based on one of the Semitic languages.

And don't get me started on the whole homo-erotic side of "the kingdom of God is within you." I mean...pfft...could it BE more obvious?
 
Elizabeth I said:
Is it just me, or are KK's posts taking on a more hysterical note? (Even than before, that is...)
Click to expand...

I've thought the same thing. She seems to getting more strident and unable to discuss issues without preaching. I can only assume that she's going to more bible classes then comes here to preach to us (after she's inspired by whatever biblical nonsense that's she's fed in her bible classes).
 
DOC said:
Did it ever occur to you to respond to my actual post where I said I showed Ehrman was wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes... it did occur to me

It also occurred to me that, as your lies are indexed by Google, it would be simpler to quote the p4wning you received just over six weeks ago:

joobz said:
DOC said:
Someone summarized some of his points in here and I've already shown he was wrong to say Jesus was just a prophet in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark chapter 9 shows Jesus was the Son of God and not just a prophet
Click to expand...
And i've stated that son of god doesn't mean "SON" of god in jewish writings. that was also explained in that article. You can also see it here.
from wiki on Son of GodWP
Son of God is a phrase found in the Hebrew Bible, various other Jewish texts and the Christian Bible. In the holy Hebrew scriptures, according to Jewish religious tradition, Son of God has many possible meanings, referring to angels, or humans or even all mankind. According to most Christian traditions, it refers to the relationship between Jesus and God, see also God the Son.
Click to expand...

So, Ehrman was right.

ETA: DOC, I read large sections of Geisler's book. I did this out of respect for you and those I debate with. It is why I can confidently consider Geisler a hack. His book is a perfect example of flawed logic and fallacy.

Now, perhaps you'd like to offer the same curtesy and actually read something of Ehrman's? I would be happy to even buy you a copy.
Click to expand...
​

Google is your friend - if you're honest

@DOC: Please do tell me how much of Ehrman's book you have read? (an approximate figure will suffice)
 
joobz said:
And we had also explained that the "Son of God" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

But the gospel writer Mark [who was an associate of Peter (who was actually at the transfiguration)] doesn't use the phrase "Son of God" when describing God talking. He says He calls Jesus his "beloved Son".

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Mark 9:8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.


If skeptics and Ehrman want to believe the above three verses from the Gospel of Mark just refers to a prophet who predicted himself rising from the dead -- that's your right.

ETA: I know of no prophet in the bible who was called "My beloved Son" by God and I know of no prophet that predicted he would rise from the dead.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Gospel of Luke chapter 17 verses 20,21

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Click to expand...


That's nice. Now how about some evidence?
 
DOC said:
But the gospel writer Mark [who was an associate of Peter (who was actually at the transfiguration)] doesn't use the phrase "Son of God" when describing God talking. He says He calls Jesus his "beloved Son".

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Mark 9:8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
Click to expand...

So, who actually wrote that story down, and when? Who told him what happened, and when? Then explain why that account should be reliable, and what independent supporting evidence there is.

Oh, and as for this bit:
ETA: I know of no prophet in the bible who was called "My beloved Son" by God and I know of no prophet that predicted he would rise from the dead.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a prediction if no-one was able to share it outside the inner circle until after it was 'fulfilled', is it? We have about as much evidence that the prediction was made as that the resurrection itself happened.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
But the gospel writer Mark [who was an associate of Peter (who was actually at the transfiguration)] doesn't use the phrase "Son of God" when describing God talking. He says He calls Jesus his "beloved Son".

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Mark 9:8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.


If skeptics and Ehrman want to believe the above three verses from the Gospel of Mark just refers to a prophet who predicted himself rising from the dead -- that's your right.

ETA: I know of no prophet in the bible who was called "My beloved Son" by God and I know of no prophet that predicted he would rise from the dead.
Click to expand...


Beloved son or son of God carries the connotation of being chosen. Within Mark's story that is the point -- that Jesus is the chosen one of God, the annointed, the Messiah.

Not that he was divine himself.

The transfiguration fits within Mark's story perfectly and it is not a reference to Jesus as divine. If it were, then the transfiguration wouldn't make any sense at all.

Remember that one of Mark's themes is that Jesus is the chosen one of God but no one seems to know it. Then we get the story of the blind man who is gradually cured -- he gradually comes to see. This is immediately followed by Peter's finally coming to see that Jesus is the Messiah. This is followed closely (but not immediately) by the transfiguration, which is a literary device allowing everyone to see that Jesus is not only as great as Moses and Elijah, but that he transcends even their greatness in God's plan/eyes.

If Jesus were being viewed as divine, why in the world would he be compared in any way to two mortals -- Moses and Elijah? The whole thrust of Mark's gospel depends on the fact that Jesus is mortal and not a god at all.
 
DOC said:
But the gospel writer Mark [who was an associate of Peter (who was actually at the transfiguration)] doesn't use the phrase "Son of God" when describing God talking. He says He calls Jesus his "beloved Son".

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Mark 9:8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

.
Click to expand...
Sounds an incredible event. I would love to hear in greater detail what happened from Peter, James and John rather than hearsay from Mark.

This must have been the most incredible event of their lives and being eye witnesses I expect they went in to great detail.
 
DOC said:
But the gospel writer Mark [who was an associate of Peter (who was actually at the transfiguration)] doesn't use the phrase "Son of God" when describing God talking. He says He calls Jesus his "beloved Son".
Click to expand...
That's your defense? That because the quote of god didn't use the third person that saying My son isn't the same as saying Son of God?

And Ichneumanwasp hit the nail squarely on the head.
His argument fits even better when you consider the more accurate translation of the passage, "This is my Son, The Beloved." (NRSV)

DOC said:
ETA: I know of no prophet in the bible who was called "My beloved Son" by God and I know of no prophet that predicted he would rise from the dead.
Click to expand...
Because only Jesus was supposed to be the Messiah. But there is nothing saying the Messiah was divine.
 
So: 'Son of God' =/= from 'my beloved Son'.
If Bob says 'this is my son' or somebody says 'this is the son of Bob' they are making a radically different statement?


Wouldn't have God been clearer saying:
'This is myself, incarnated on earth in a human form', rather than using a term very similar to one that already had been employed many times with a very different meaning?

Once again, God doesn't feel like he can be bothered getting his message out with any degree of clarity.
Considering that the immortal fate of billions of people hinged onto getting the message, I think that it is quite an a------ move from God...
 
Kingdom of God

Why, then, if the kingdom of god is within us, do christians insist on proselytizing? We have the kingdom, leave us be.

(in my kingdom, everyone rides rainbow unicorns and eats pineapple-flavored cotton candy)
 
siddhigyrl said:
Why, then, if the kingdom of god is within us, do christians insist on proselytizing? We have the kingdom, leave us be.

(in my kingdom, everyone rides rainbow unicorns and eats pineapple-flavored cotton candy)
Click to expand...
Heathen!
In my kingdom, everybody wears "Who Farted?" T-shirts.
 
My kingdom is a loosely governed whateverocracy.
The only seriously enforced law is the state-mandated happy hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom