Quote Originally Posted by Faithful View Post
There is no indication that the writings of the NT were decades later. For example, Luke wrote Acts, a biography of Paul, which he said was part two of his former work of the gospel of Luke. Paul died in the Neronian persecutions, along with most of the first Apostles, around 65 AD so Acts had to be written around 55 AD because it makes no mention of Paul's death. That places the gospel of Luke as late as 45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark that places the gospel of Mark even earlier around 35 AD just two years after the cross. Since this is all very reasonable, it should not be an issue.
Are you altogether sure this is all very reasonable? It doesn't seem at all clear that Luke the Evangelist was actually the author, with the only evidence I've seen in support of this claim being tradition of the early church fathers. In addition, most biblical scholars seem to think Mark was the first gospel (as the others seem to borrow from it), and was written around AD 70. You've thrown out a series of very charitable assumptions which, if true, would make an interesting case. . .but I don't think these assumptions are reasonable, and it seems as though most biblical scholars agree.



The burden remains on you to show otherwise.That's actually what the law says too with regard to this ancient document.
I simply don't see any convincing evidence to support your claim about the authorship of the gospels being first-hand accounts. Moreover, your position seems to represent a minority among biblical scholars. Nor am I aware of a law that says anything about this ancient document. . .though on that account perhaps you could enlighten me.

Scientists have no idea how something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.
Sure, according to our human intuition. . .but then our intuition has been shown to be wrong before. In fact on the quantum level things really do seem to be able to just pop into existence out of nothing, though how this can be applied to the origins of the universe is still quite speculative.

. . .scientifically we know the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. When we believe in God we are believing in the uncreated Creator as proven herein.

Now that you know God exists if you care about the evidence, find out where He reveals Himself through nature such as the resurrection proof of Jesus to show only Christianity is true. Praise the Lord! Amen.
You seem to, once again, made some quite charitable, but tragically unwarranted, assumptions here. We don't actually know if the universe requires an outside cause, but lets say we did. Who's to say this outside cause was a god, much less your specific god? Who's to say this outside cause wasn't something entirely temporary or completely trivial?




Lurker