• 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.

We Now Know When Jesus Returns

Status
Not open for further replies.
bikerdruid said:
the earliest gospel was writtein in the late first century.
it's writer could not have known jesus.
.
Click to expand...
All the gospels were written during Jesus' life and/or shortly after His death. Mark identifies himself as the man running naked in the street. Luke is is Luke's former work that preceded Acts which makes no mention of Paul's death. And John places himself at the cross. And the writer used the Son of God phrase in Revelation unique to the writer of John.

You can disprove your theory by realizing that church fathers in the 2nd century quoted all the verses of the NT except for 11 verses.

And the Apostles were martyred around 65 AD so you know the gospel accounts were written before then since it is too difficult to write when you are dead.
 
Last edited:
Resistible said:
You can disprove your theory by realizing that church fathers in the 2nd century quoted all the verses of the NT except for 11 verses.
Click to expand...

So because it was quoted in the second century it can't possibly have been written in the late first century? You do know how centuries work right?
 
Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke, Mark wrote Mark, John wrote John, Luke wrote Acts, Paul wrote his epistles, Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter, Jude wrote Jude, James wrote James, John wrote Revelation and 1,2,3 John.

No evidence otherwise?
 
My favorite piece of evidence is Paul said he spent 15 days with Peter, and with James, later with John and they all testified to the same eyewitness account in various group settings and set up the churches based on their eyewitess testimony of His resurrection.

My second favorite piece of evidence is Luke said Acts was part two of his former work Luke. He makes no mention of Paul's death so he wrote it before 65 AD. That places Acts around 55 AD and Luke around 45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark that places Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross. And since Peter worked with Mark that places Peter's two books quite early too.
 
Resistible said:
Fact: nature can't always have existed because you would have happened already.
Click to expand...

The logic here fails. Badly. Perhaps we could examine the bases that you rest this *assumption* on, first? And is there some actual reason why we couldn't have happened already, anyways?

Resistible said:
Fact: something can't come from nothing for it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

That includes your version of the "Creator." But, sure. This *assumption* sounds reasonable enough, though if anyone actually claimed that "something came from nothing," I'd be surprised. It's not a straw man argument, thankfully, because you haven't tried to say that anyone else claimed this. Either way, saying that something always existed is not, in fact, saying that something came from nothing.

Resistible said:
Fact: a mind is needed to create a mind because non-life can't produce life.
Click to expand...

This just make me raise my eyebrows. Unfounded assertion. Completely unfounded, no less, given that in the theoretical realm that this deals in, there have already been a fair few completely reasonable theories advanced for how life can develop from non-life. Perhaps you should learn more about abiogenesis?

Resistible said:
Thus, uncreated Creator exists.
Click to expand...

Again, proposing a solution that clearly violates 2/3 of the assumptions that it rests on is no solution. Using assumptions that are, clearly, not certainly true, means that your conclusion is not certainly true, even if it directly followed from those assumptions, which I'd suggest that it likely doesn't.

A conclusion is only as certain as the least likely of the bases that it proceeds from, in the best case scenario.

Resistible said:
Share.
Click to expand...

As a kindness, perhaps you could quote the post that you're responding to, for clearness, politeness, and etiquette's sake?
 
Resistible said:
Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke, Mark wrote Mark, John wrote John, Luke wrote Acts, Paul wrote his epistles, Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter, Jude wrote Jude, James wrote James, John wrote Revelation and 1,2,3 John.

No evidence otherwise?
Click to expand...

This doesn't in any way prove that any of the writers knew or interacted with Jesus. Can you prove that they did, or that Jesus ever existed?
 
Resistible said:
Matthew wrote Matthew, Luke wrote Luke, Mark wrote Mark, John wrote John, Luke wrote Acts, Paul wrote his epistles, Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter, Jude wrote Jude, James wrote James, John wrote Revelation and 1,2,3 John.

No evidence otherwise?
Click to expand...

even so,.....which is doubtful.
none of them were writing first hand.
and paul does not even count.
 
You have noticed that no one has been right on this point yet. Are you really that eager to go out like Camping? Do you promise to come back after this doesn't happen so we can laugh at you mercilessly?
 
Flea2143 said:
This doesn't in any way prove that any of the writers knew or interacted with Jesus. Can you prove that they did, or that Jesus ever existed?
Click to expand...
This proves they knew and interacted with Jesus for they said so and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.
 
Craig4 said:
You have noticed that no one has been right on this point yet. Are you really that eager to go out like Camping? Do you promise to come back after this doesn't happen so we can laugh at you mercilessly?
Click to expand...
At least we have something in common. Neither of us can disprove the prophecy. There is nothing to disprove yet since you can't disprove the proof until 2014 or 2015.
 
Aridas said:
The logic here fails.
Click to expand...
The logic stands. If you want to claim an infinite regress of cause and effects then that is an eternity of the past in which you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, yet here you are.
 
Resistible said:
This proves they knew and interacted with Jesus for they said so and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure people willingly die for anything, you still haven't actually provided any evidence of Jesus' existence, and "they said so" is not a valid proof of anything.
 
Flea2143 said:
I'm not sure people willingly die for anything, you still haven't actually provided any evidence of Jesus' existence, and "they said so" is not a valid proof of anything.
Click to expand...
Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity so if he didn't exist then nobody did, and if nobody did then you wouldn't exist.
 
Resistible said:
Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity so if he didn't exist then nobody did.
Click to expand...

The ONLY writing about Jesus that is from anything close to the time he is alleged to have existed is the Bible, and considering there are no extra-biblical contemporary writings about him, I'd say he isn't all that well-documented at all. Unless of course, you actually have some of this documentation.
 
Resistible said:
This proves they knew and interacted with Jesus for they said so and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.
Click to expand...

This is over-the-top bad reasoning. People willingly die for lies all the time, whether they know it or not.

But you know what, we'll wait for 2015. As I said it is far more likely for you to die from a lightning strike in a rubber factory before being raptured.

Overall we humans have surpassed many failed rapture dates. Yours has no more basis for validity than theirs. When the date comes and goes and you see nothing happen, I personally want your faith so shaken that, once my question is answered in the Questions forum, I'll come to collect.
 
Flea2143 said:
The ONLY writing about Jesus that is from anything close to the time he is alleged to have existed is the Bible, and considering there are no extra-biblical contemporary writings about him, I'd say he isn't all that well-documented at all. Unless of course, you actually have some of this documentation.
Click to expand...
There's no contemporary writings about anyone in antiquity. But as far as sources go within 150 years of his death, he is has more sources than any ten individuals combined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom