Are you lawless?

Who do you think? The same people that continue to question the Bible despite the fact that they have been proven wrong so many times. The same ones that people such as yourself have used in the past to support your claims.

Nothing that Jesus did for three and a half years was done in secret......all of the citizens of Jerusalem would know or at least head about some of what Jesus did. And while Mark may not have been one of the original twelve he no doubt knew Jesus and at least heard and saw some of what happened. In fact many other who became converted soon after Jesus' resurrection were people who know Jesus and was instrumental in having Him crucified became a disciple of Jesus afterwards. And no doubt all the 12 would have told Mark what they have seen things he may not be aware of. And besides, the Bible tells us that after Jesus' resurrection He was seen by many of His disciples at the same time........Paul was one of those who saw Jesus after He was resurrected. And also, God reveals things to those who are filled with His Spirit of things that they would not otherwise be able to know or have the ability. The original disciples were able to speak in several languages after they received the Holy Spirit even though they did not speak even one foreign language.

Paul's word has a lot of credibility considering that this is the same man who went about persecuting the disciples;and to have him now defending the very same thing that he hated and said that he saw Jesus is a testimony not to be taken lightly.

When you say the first line then you are focusing on the first line........if you had meant the second line as well, then why did you not say that as well? Besides, all those in Jerusalem were eye witness of what Jesus did, including His crucifixion. Even Jesus and Paul said He did or what happened was not done in secret.


John 18:20-21 (ASV)
20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.
21 Why askest thou me? Ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.


Acts 26:26 (BBE)
26 For the king has knowledge of these things, to whom I am talking freely; being certain that all this is common knowledge to him; for it has not been done in secret.

The things that were fulfilled (Jesus birth, His ministry, His death and resurrection) were spoken about by the prophets in the Old Testament.

The whole of Jerusalem was a eye witness of Jesus' ministry whether they believe Him at the time or not and if Luke was there then there is no doubt that he had seen Jesus.

Who made up that rule......the rebutter? Well, I'm rebutting you.

That's the author's prerogative.......you can't dictate to an author that they must write according to the way you would. People are individual and they decide how they are going to say and do what they are going to say and do.

You are like a man that looks at a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces and say its a bunch of unrelated pieces because they are all different.

Too bad for you that you don't like the answer but the answer is going to be the same no mater how many times you ask it.

Ignorance and assumption keeps people from gaining knowledge.......Jewish usage is why Mary's lineage was given to her husband......one is not under any law or obligation to explain there custom to people whom he intended the latter to get to, because they would already are well familiar with it. Are you aware of some of the customs in those times or do you just choose to want to know only certain things?

There is no law of any kind that say that the answer to a question is going to be what person wants to hear.

What you expect God to accept people into His kingdom those who want to continue in there old sinful ways? You want God to accept you even if you disbelieve the gospel? That is how the world works but that is not how God do things.......its not going to be business as usual in God's kingdom.

 

So, you're unable to actually name any expert.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with Matthew relying on Mark's testimony.

Do you understand that an 's' on the end of a word indicates plurality? I said the first lineS. Multiple. Plural.

Yes, and that's is the Christian claim. What does it have to do with what the author of Luke wrote in the first lines?

And why would you think he was there?

It's both a rule of logic and a rule of common life. You seemed to have no problem to tell me that I needed to prove my claim, and yet when I turn the tables you claim you are unaware of such a rule?

It has nothing to do with dictating what he wrote, it's called having a standard for historical claims. If they are contradictory, with some claiming that Jesus rose one donkey and another claiming he rode two donkeys somehow, then the claim comes into doubt.

Except that this isn't a jigsaw puzzle, it's a series of books with different tellings of supposedly the same story. If this occurred for any other historical event, it would call the event into question. And yet you think that the different tellings makes the case stronger somehow.

Except it isn't the same answer; there are about four different apologetic excuses for every contradiction pointed out. Simply because you can explain away the contradictions doesn't mean your explanation is correct.

Yes I am, are you? And are you also aware of the Jewish rebuttal to Chrisianity's claims?

Not what I said.

Uh, YES, if he was actually benevolent. As long as they're good people, why shouldn't they?

Yes, because the God you worship is simply not a good and moral entity by today's standards.

 

I see you are playing dumb. Was it just the lay atheist that was questioning whether Moses existed, or saying he never wrote parts of the Old Testament? Was it just the lay atheist that claimed that the Hittites never existed? Was it only the lay atheist that claimed that Belshazzar never existed?

I guess one more thing that went over your head.

Do you know that when you say Luke 1:1 that it does not include verse 2?

Now you are excluding verse 2.....you are sending double messages so make up your mind......are you only dealing with Luke 1:1 or verse 2 as well?

The Bible does not tell us that Luke was a stranger in Jerusalem.

That's a made up logic. True logic demands that if you are going to question what someone believes then you must provide evidence that what you believe it the truth. It makes no sense to tell someone that what they believe is false but you don't know if what you believe is the truth. That's like telling a judge in court that the defendant is not telling the truth, but you not only have no evidence to prove that he is lying but you were not even a witness in the first place.

I'm done with this.

Well, it is.


Isaiah 28:9-13 (ASV)
9 Whom will he teach knowledge? and whom will he make to understand the message? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts?
10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little.
11 Nay, but by men of strange lips and with another tongue will he speak to this people;
12 to whom he said, This is the rest, give ye rest to him that is weary; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 Therefore shall the word of Jehovah be unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.


God deliberately inspire His word so as to make it hard to understand for the unbeliever. Even Jesus when He preached the gospel hid His message to those who were spiritually blind.

Matthew 13:13 (ASV)
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.


So the more you question the scriptures the more you prove that you are spiritually blind.

Another one of those vague things again that you talk about. Besides, I don't care about your alleged different apologetic excuses. Even when I don't understand something in the Bible, my position is always on the side of the Bible.

Rebuttal to what claims?

Those are questions that I was asking you.

That's a laugh.....coming from a human being.......look at the world that human beings have created? A world filled with hate, greed, wars, crimes, sicknesses, disease, sexual perversions of all kinds, racism, sexism, corruption of all sorts; the list is endless. Human beings without God has not been going a good job of making the world a better place, have they?

 

This one we are still unsure about, but he certainly didn't write the Pentateuch like tradition claims.

What atheist or biblical scholar has claimed the Hittites never existed?

No, it was almost every scholar until we found evidence of his existence.

Considering you never even mentioned Matthew relying on Mark's testimony... I don't think so.

The ONLY time I brought up Luke 1:1 was when I was asking why you were focusing on that verse since I mentioned the first LINES of Luke sayin something, never like 1:1. You're confused. Go back and read my posts.

Are you seriously unable to comprehend that LINES is the plural form of line? The first lineS of Luke, that includes more than the first line.

No, it just tells us he is a companion of Paul, who was NOT an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. So, why would you assume he was?

Uh, it certainly does make sense, see my examples below.

No, it's like you telling me that you believe 1,000,000 x 3.14 = blue, me disagreeing with you, but my being unable to tell you the true answer off the top of my head. If you believed that the world was created from the bowel movement of a cow, it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve that claim until you provide evidence of it. Do you think that it'd be unreasonable for me to disbelieve someone that told me they believed they were an alien just because I couldn't prove that they weren't one?

Why is that, no rebuttal?

How convenient for your argument. If the Bible is clear, it proves it's correct. If the Bible is unclear and seemingly contradictory, that proves it correct as well.

This argument would be so much more in your favor if the religious could agree on what their Scripture says.

Which means you're close minded. Doesn't seem much more of anything to discuss if you've already precluded the idea that the book can never be wrong.

Well... I asked one question, so I'm not sure what questions you're referring to.

Considering your God has promoted slavery, genocide, infinite torture for a finite thought crime, sexual dominance over women, death of children to punish their parents... You don't have much of a leg to stand on.

 

Bye....

 

Childish.