Once you enter the road to christianity, its nigh on impossible to turn back. Because you are made to despise your old carnal worldly life and christian friends and family keep pulling you along. Admitting failure is not something humans enjoy. Admitting to yourself that christianity is a failure in your life when christians portray themselves as good, righteous, sincere, godly, saved, honest, humble, thankful and surrounded by like minded people, yup, not easy casting that aside. The immediate conclusion one can draw, when you leave christianity is you return to sin, depravity, evil, filth, lies, the gutter, drugs, alchohol abuse......etc. It is not so, if it's not what you want.
But real people cannot predict the future. Only a REAL God can do that. One of the prophecies mentioned in this video was given by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. We now know that this prediction came about in 70 A.D. Your only choice, if you aren't going to believe Jesus gave the prediction, is to believe that people somehow came up with this prediction AFTER the fact. BUT, there are some very good reasons to believe that this prediction was given by Jesus beforehand. I changed some of the font to blue for emphasis. WHEN WERE THE FOUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? The Amazing Historical Accuracy of the Bible – Question 10 The evidence shows that the four Gospels were written in a relatively short time after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Examining the internal evidence of the New Testament itself can make this plain. The evidence is as follows: 1. The City of Jerusalem and the Temple Were Still Standing When the Gospels Were Written The first three Gospels, and possibly also the fourth, were apparently written while the city of Jerusalem was still standing. Each of the first three Gospels contains predictions by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but none records the fulfillment. We know that Titus the Roman destroyed the city and Temple in A.D. 70. Hence, the composition of the first three Gospels most likely occurred sometime before this event, otherwise their destruction would have been recorded. The fact that all four gospels are written from the perspective that the city of Jerusalem and the temple had not been destroyed gives evidence of an early date. 2. The Book of Acts Gives a Clue to the Date of the Gospels The Book of Acts also provides us with a clue as to when the gospels were written. Acts records the highlights in the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. The book concludes with Paul at Rome awaiting trial before Caesar. It says: And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. (Acts 28:30-31 KJV) The New Living Translation reads: For the next two years, Paul lived in his own rented house. He welcomed all who visited him, proclaiming the Kingdom of God with all boldness and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ. And no one tried to stop him. (Acts 28:30-31 NLT) The inference is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, seeing that his death is not recorded. Since there is good evidence that Paul died in the Neronian persecution about A.D. 67, the Book of Acts can be dated approximately A.D. 62. 3. Luke’s Gospel Was Written Earlier than Acts If Acts were written about A.D. 62, then this helps us date the four gospels. The Book of Acts is the second half of a treatise written by Luke to a man named Theophilus. Since we know that the Gospel of Luke was written before the Book of Acts, we can then date the Gospel of Luke sometime around A.D. 60 or before. 4. The Brother Who Was Well-Known May Have Been Luke There may be further evidence for an early date for Luke’s gospel. Paul wrote of a brother who was well-known among the churches for the gospel: And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel. (2 Corinthians 8:18 TNIV) There is ancient testimony that this refers to Luke and his written gospel. If this is speaking of Luke and the gospel he composed, then we have it well-known in the mid-fifties of the first century. 5. Mark May Have Been a Source for Luke There may be a reference in the writings of Luke that he used Mark as a written source. John Mark is called a “minister” by Luke in Acts 13:5 (the Greek word huparetas). In 1:2, Luke says he derived the information for his gospel from those who were “eyewitnesses” and “ministers” of the word. The term translated “minister” is the same Greek word huparetas. It is possible that this could be a reference to Mark as one of his written sources. 6. Mark Was Likely Written Before Luke Furthermore, modern scholarship has generally assumed that the Gospel of Mark was written before Luke. If this is the case, then we are somewhere in the fifties of the first century when this book was composed. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred approximately in the year A.D. 33, these two gospels were written during the time when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive. These eyewitnesses could either verify or falsify the information contained in the gospels. 7. Matthew Was Always Believed to Have Been Written First We now go a step further by considering Matthew’s gospel. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church, Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s gospel in A.D. 41. If the ancient testimony is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then we have a third independent source about the life of Christ written during the eyewitness period. 8. John Was an Eyewitness to the Events The Gospel of John is usually assumed to have been the last of the four gospels composed. John testified that he was an eyewitness to the events that he recorded. He said: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31 ESV) The New Living Translation puts it this way: Jesus’ disciples saw him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life. (John 20:30:31 NLT) John also wrote: This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24 ESV) It is clear that John claimed to have been there when the events in the life of Jesus transpired. There Is Internal Evidence of an Early Date for John There is also internal evidence that John himself wrote before A.D. 70. We read the following description of Jerusalem in the fifth chapter of John: Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethesda in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways. (John 5:2 NET) John describes the sheep gate as still standing at the time he wrote. He could not have made this statement after A.D. 70—there was no sheep gate. The sheep gate was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, along with the rest of the city of Jerusalem. This could very well be an indication that John wrote his gospel before the city of Jerusalem was destroyed. Conclusion: There Is Evidence for an Early Date for the Four Gospels When all the historical and textual evidence is amassed, it becomes clear that the four gospels were composed at a very early date either by eyewitnesses, or those who recorded eyewitness testimony. Therefore, we have every reason to trust what they wrote. Summary – Question 10 When Were the Four Gospels Written? When all the evidence is in, it shows that the four gospels were written soon after the events they recorded. An examination of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke show that each one has Jesus predicting the destruction of the city of Jerusalem as well as the temple. However, none of these writings records the fulfillment. Since the city and temple were both destroyed in the year A.D. 70, there is good reason to believe that these three gospels were written before this destruction took place. The same is true with the Gospel of John. It is written from the perspective of the city of Jerusalem still standing. This would make all four gospels written during the period when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive. There is also some possible evidence from the Book of Acts as to the early date of the gospels. Acts is the second part of two books written by Luke. There is internal evidence from Acts that it should be dated before the death of Paul. If this is true, then it was composed before A.D. 68. Since Luke’s gospel was written before Acts, that would place it in the early 60’s of the first century or earlier. Add to this the possibility that Luke may have used Mark as a source; this would mean that we have an earlier date for Mark. Finally, the early church unanimously believed Matthew was the first gospel written. This places the writing of the first three gospels within thirty years of the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, between the lack of the recording of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, as well as working back from the end of the Book of Acts we have internal evidence from the New Testament that the gospels were composed fairly soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com.../question10-when-were-the-gospels-written.cfm
It's unclear what you mean. It's possible you still believe that the Christian narrative about Jesus is his own narrative about himself. In that way, you allow them to pretend to have a monopoly on all there is to know on the subject. This is convenient because their narrative about him is indeed ridiculous, and so, easy to mock. What I see are two narratives, the atheist narrative and the Christian narrative both equally atheistic about the narrative I promote. Maybe atheistic is not the right word...more like equally ignorant of new information, or new interpretations that would challenge the status quo stalemate in human psychology, a state of mind prone to bigotry. Personally I do accept that Jesus could have volunteered to show that even crucifixion need not be painful or harmful. The ability to walk out of a tomb after apparently dying is also an accepted probability for anyone with the same understanding of Self that Jesus had. Those have been put forth as prerequisite beliefs to be able to join the Christian club, but you should know that I remain anathema to those club members, and ignored, with the aid of the Elite Trader ignore button, by the leading protagonists of the most popular, but also most bigoted narrative among Christians here on Elite Trader The mainstream interpretation of Jesus painless/harmless demonstration is a form of terrorism, not too different from Pontius Pilate's own intent to terrorize the local population into submission. And so yah, that interpretation is worthy of mockery, as it does indeed mock and blaspheme any god that is actually Good. Likewise the pain scenario proposed by the terrorists...not to mention the death scenario. But you are responsible for acting like those are the narratives of Christ, about Christ's own Self. That act, the inability to read nuance, does get old and deserves its own ridicule.
Yeah, God is good. Here's how God treats His own child. How does God like it when the cat-o'-nine tails pull rib bones out of Jesus's back? God is SUCH a loving father. Painless? It's all BULLSHIT.
You too are acting like the mainstream narrative on all things Jesus and Christ is our only option, as if christians represent Jesus, or Christ. The main protagonists (here at Elite Trader) of the mainstream blaspheme, I mean the broad path narrative, still have me on ignore. One of the reasons they are ignoring me is because I have stated, for a long time now, that Jesus volunteered for crucifixion, confident he would feel no pain, didn't feel any pain, and so, successfully taught that if his followers kept following him, his way, they too would learn how to pass through hell without any more pain. Any other interpretation will usually be blasphemous, with expected results. Acting like the blasphemous interpretation is the only interpretation is weird, if not bigoted. [Edit add: pain is a sin]
So you are suggesting that the path through life and it's outcome is hell outright, guaranteed, unless we find Jesus in our hearts and minds and soul. That is BS.
Most humans are do dumb as they don't know where they come from, why they exist or what happens after death. But if you were to talk to christians, they'll tell you with 100% certainty, they have the answer to everything and proof is in the bible. Right christians!? If you ask how come the bible is correct in everything, well, they say, because the bible says so.
Although some scientists equate the term humans with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member. Anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago in Africa..... wiki. Elsewhere in Wiki.... Within the biblical framework and chronology, various dates have been proposed for the date of creation since ancient times, to more recent periods. The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the Earth, the rest of the Universe, and the Earth's plants and animals, including the first humans, in six days. A second narrative begins with the first human pair, Adam and Eve, and goes on to list many of their descendants, in many cases giving the ages at which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted literally throughout and the genealogies are considered closed, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years after creation. Numerous efforts have been made to determine the biblical date of creation, yielding varying results. Besides differences in interpretation, the use of different versions of the Bible can also affect the result. Two dominant dates for creation using such models exist, about 5500 BC and about 4000 BC. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The older dates stem from the Greek Septuagint. The later dates are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text...... Elsewhere in Wiki.... The study of human evolution involves several scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, evolutionary anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics. Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.
So we have earth millions of years old, modern humans hundreds of thousands years and the bible less than 10,000 years for creation & humans. Don't tell me God wrote a bible that's confusing!