darkrider

in reply to BDT, there is no evidents to support that the bible was writen by Bishop but the bible it self. meaning that the proof of a god or prof on the bible's truth can not be proved though the bible.:devil1:

darkrider

do you have any your self?:devil1:

mountainman

Dear darkrider,

Yes, I have evidence that it is false to assume that none of its authors intended to deceive anyone. Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, while to all appearances stands at a hands length and passes the canon to Constantine along with an additional history of the tribe of christians for the preceeding few centuries, we cannot be sure of its (the canons) independences from this author. Moreover we have good reason to believe that Eusebius was either a liar or a simpleton (to paraphrase Richard Carrier).

Here is a Dosier on Eusebian integrity.

Best wishes,


Pee

judge

If you write a sory about a great flood where the entire world is deluged etc etc....because this story conveys another meaning, perhaps a change in psychological posture of a culture, then does that make it a lie if someone else years afterwards, sees it as a "newspaper report"?

mountainman

Dear Judge,

We have two series of newspaper reports separated by many centuries, one called the Old Report and the other called the New Report. The Bible contains both of these two separate newspaper reports bound together and we need to deal with each separately, before we deal with the whole of this thing we call "the Bible".

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

But the written statements of the author of Acts of the Apostles claimed thousands of people were converted as Jesus believers sometimes on a daily basis. Their teachings were not "Jewish', based on this author.

They had receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost and were carrying out miracles and asking people to believe in Jesus as the son of the God of the Jews.

If the written statements of the aurthor of Acts is not true, then I cannot assume I know what happened or who was living in the 1st century without the corroboration of some other external source.

Sheshbazzar

From post #18
'The Acts of The Apostles' was fabricated by Greek Gentiles for the "education", the indoctrination, and the manipulation of Gentile christians. No, their teachings were not "Jewish", they had abandoned the teachings of the Jewish Nazarene sect, for their own fabels.
Very little of what Acts has to say about anything is truthful or trustworthy. It is no more an accurate account of any actual history than are the Gospels.
The author of Acts makes quite a few "written statements", many being just as bogus as those recorded in The Gospels. You reject the Gospel stories, and the existence of any actual living, breathing historical Jesus, because of the implausibilities contained within the "written statements". The Book of Acts is not one whit better in that regard, its "written statements" alleging that supernatural feats were done by the power of the "Holy Ghost", that this "Ghost" manifested itself under the sign of "cloven tongues as of fire" (Acts 2:2-4) and that these men were then magically able to speak, and be understood in other languages, every man hearing their words in his own language.
Moreover, Acts also has "written statements" that these magical miracle workers went out and healed the lame (3:2-8) and the sick (5:16 & 8:7) cast out "unclean spirits" (ibid), and restored life to the dead ( Acts 9:36-41 & 20:9-10)

So, Yes, You cannot assume that you know what happened, or who was living in the first century- based only on those "written statements" as found in the late Gentile fictional work called the Acts of the Apostles.
Sure we can use it as "a point of reference", but just like The Gospels, it is a fictional propaganda work, and there is nothing that is at all trustworthy to be found in it.

jab

So, like I said, at least part of the Bible is a deliberate falsehood, a lie.:wave:

Sheshbazzar

Well, that conclusion would really depend on how you looked at the stories, The guy that was writing them down was not the guy who made them up.

Or look at it this way, Is the tenth person to hear and repeat a urban legend automatically a liar by repeating a falsehood? If he heard it from a trusted oral source, believed it, wrote it down and passed it on?
By believing the story he may have been gullible, but is he guilty of writing a deliberate falsehood when he has no knowledge nor awareness that what he has written is false, but rather in all sincerity believes what he wrote to be the truth?

Had a dear friend that got caught it one of those situations a few years ago, read something on the net, believed it, copied and forwarded it to hundreds of people, becoming charged with slander and libel, although innocent of intent.

aa5874

But, why assume that any of the authors had no ability to investigate the authenticity of their stories about the character called Jesus?

Why assume that the authors of the NT and the church writers actually heard stories about Jesus?

The writers called Paul claimed they got their information about Jesus by revelation from Jesus in heaven which could not be true, that is, we know that these writers called Paul are LIARS.

The writers called Paul got their information of Jesus from some other source.

And, you really do not know the intent of your friend.