Lothian
should be banned
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Lothian
should be banned
Actually Christianity is growing in absolute numbers around the world. and leads in converts. Also it is projected to be the leading religion in 2050.
http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html
And it seems that as the US and Europe are becoming less Christian (unlike Africa and Asia) their economies are becoming less powerful at the same time. And Africa and Asia's economies are increasing.
Last edited:
It's logical evidence. It doesn't make sense for the destruction of Jerusalem not to be mentioned in the gospels if they were written after 70 ad.
And what is your source as to when the "vast majority" of scholars believe the gospels were written.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
I know it isn't concrete evidence, but most reliable N/T scholars regard Mark to be written around 66-70. The last, John, some say could have been written as late as 100-120 CE. or even later. They reach these conclusions by the contend found in them. Luke and perhaps Mathew thought the destruction of Jerusalem was proof Jesus was about to restore the kingdom.
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
That data shows that Islam is expected to increase in absolute numbers at a rate similar to Christianity. However Christianity has a much higher starting point.
The total world population is expected to grow at 57.76% over the period.
Christianity will be rising at a rate 7% lower than the world poulation increases. Islam will grow 30% higher than the world population. Get this. Atheists will grow at a rate 1023% higher than the world population increases.
Thank you for confirming my point with your figures.
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
Scholars variously assess the majority view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[32] c 65-70[3]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[32] c 80-85.[3] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c 80-85[3]
John: c 90-100,[3]
link
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You've returned to Comedy Central just to slop bilge all over the place???
You wouldn't know a likely scenario if it bit you on the arse.
Do you have any evidence for this drivel?
As seemingly impossible as it sounds, you know less about creating analogies than you do about likely scenarios or evidence. Tragic.
You should have stayed away, I think.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I wonder why they use absolute numbers rather than relative numbers.
OK, I lied. I know exactly why they do, but I'll bet you don't, do you DOC?
Maybe if you've read Lothian's response to this nonsense of yours then you should understand a bit better, but I'm willing to bet you won't admit it.
Let's see the actual figures and we'll discuss it.
In the course of gathering the data to support your argument (?) can you try and keep in mind that Asia and Africa are continents and the United States of America is a country.
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
This particular post is so astoundingly stupid that it deserves two responses.
To start with, DOC, the years 1990 to 2000 do not constitute a decade, now do they?
Check it out:
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Count 'em up, Einstein.1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Once you've done that, perhaps you'd like to tell us in which of those years you would have included the events of 2001.
So you changed from saying a vast majority to majority. A majority could mean 51 to 49 percent. Here is more info from your Wiki link:
"Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty.
<snip>
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed][ Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
* Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.
Last edited:
Rincewind
Philosopher
Doc wrote - "Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates."
There's only one thing to comment to that:
Well they would, wouldn't they?
There's only one thing to comment to that:
Well they would, wouldn't they?
Didn't you see where I wrote the book was written in 2003. Are you saying an author who wrote a book about the history of New York in the 90's decade (in 2003) would never mention 9/11. Yes I know 2001 is not in that decade but still it is likely the author would say something about it at least once, and probably more than once.
Gone with the Wind was a novel. Can you name any novels written in Palestine during the 1st century?
Maybe some do (just like some scholars who are anti-Christian might lean to the later dates) but they have information to back it up as shown in post 16313.
Lothian
should be banned
- Status