Churchwork
01-01-2007, 10:18 PM
Robert Beckford,
The Holy Spirit has revealed to me all your words are very irreverent, and so shall you be punished by God.
May I say, that certain points of data, can be received from a non-Christian such as yourself, but the spin you place on that data is itself not needed to be accepted. Another glaring thing I noticed is that a person's words often project their own heart condition, and one key word you used was "spin".
Your various fancy strategies against Christianity do fail one by one:
1. The claim the kingdom of David and Solomon was not 1000 B.C., but that archeology says it was 8 B.C. and that it was not as nearly as large as the Bible claims.
I believe the explanation for this accusation is archeology can be biased and just because you see something archaeologically of one century does not mean the kingdom did not exist in the other century, but rather is a remnant. I don't think the Bible is claiming these kingdoms were as fantastic as is being accused of. The whole land area is indeed owned by the kingdom of Solomon, but that doesn't mean fantastic Egyptian buildings need to be built.
2. The books of the Bible were written too many decades too late.
The answer to this is why is it assumed the books of the Bible are written so many decades too late? Paul said he met with Peter and James early on which would be within 5 years of Christ's death. There is no reason to think they did not start writing soon afterward, even sooner than that.
And as the centuries progressed, each new book of the Bible was added until it was completed with 39 books. With each new book added, revelation of God built upon revelation, so as to always remain in harmony, never overassuming God's will.
3. Moses writes about his death historically, but how could this be possible if he died already?
Obviously, though Moses wrote most of the 5 first books of the Bible, there would be some inclusions of other writers that would round out gaps in information. Seems reasonable. Let's say you write a book, but before you are able to round it out, you die. An editor who is with Moses would round out the patches to give you a complete picture of any missing details that Moses did not get a chance to finish. The editor is perfectly right in doing so, because God gave him the authority to supply the completed work. As a testimony to this fact, notice no mistakes are found in these books.
There are 4 types of the Torah called by name:
1. Jahweh - tells the stories the best, are detailed and elaborate with lots of emotion. It is very God oriented, saying God did this and God did that, in dealing with people directly. E.g. in Exodus 3, God Himself frees the people from Egypt.
2. Elohim - God mediates to His people through angels, visions or dreams so there was no immediate relationship between people and God such as in the burning bush which would be an intermediary. Incidentally, there have been found certain brushes that continue to burn like charcoal (Miracles of Exodus, by Colin J. Humphreys).
3. Priestly Source - has a great deal of interest in things like law, priestly affairs and sacrifice.
4. Deuteronomy - in these 5 books there is a distinct emphasis on monotheism.
I don't see why these differences pose a problem, for God can not indwell the spirit of man in the OT period, because the veil has not yet been rent; that is, Jesus has not yet died on the cross, resurrected and raised up to bring forth the Holy Spirit so that Christ can live in you.
God is also very lively, has an appropriate dish of emotion displayed. The emphasis on the law and sacrifices is definitely important, and emphasis on God being monotheistic is also vital.
Therefore, none of these things are mutually exclusive, but just like you have differences on small details on certain verses in the Bible today, so you have the same issue then. Or perhaps like today some add things to the Bible like extra books, so may a story have been included that should not belong then. Suffice it to say, what is in the Bible today is the most humble approach, the minimal facts approach.
My belief is that because there are 4 different renderings, yet essentially saying the same, this gives more credibility to the source that is being felt and relayed and understood by people from different perspectives, just like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John produce the same effect.
Scholars agree that the 5 books of Moses were agreed in one version in the 8th century. That seems fair. So this then becomes the best estimate we have of the 4 different perspectives. They converged in Jerusalem because of events taking place. The king in Jerusalem at that time was Hezekiah who emphasized monotheism as cults were coming on, so by unifying the 4 versions of the Torah, strength was given to God's Word. There needs be one specific place, one temple, in Jerusalem and not many different temples across the countryside with conflicting ideas.
It would be inaccurate to say the Torah was rewritten or added onto, since nothing was added in unifying these 4 versions. Rather, a coherent message that unifies the emphasis of each is brought together in a coherent package. For example, since all 4 versions held to monotheism, monotheism does not become a new idea at all. God can communicate to you through angels, but also directly and intuitively. But Moses had to cover his face with a veil when the glory of God came in to communicate to him, because that glory faded so fast.
What about the claim in Assyrian writings that Assyrians conquered Hezekiah and he paid off Assyria to stop the battle? No such account was found in the Bible.
The account in 2 Kings 18 says Hezekiah gave the Assyrians all the gold they asked for, but the king of Assyria attacked anyway (v.18). So what happened next? "Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying..." (2 Kings 19.7-9).
So what occurred was the Assyrians were attacked by another army which protected at the very least up to Jerusalem itself.
"And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead" (2 Kings 19.35-37).
So the angel of the Lord provided for this other army to attack the Assyrians and consequently, Jerusalem was saved. If the accounts of Assyrians mention anything about Israel, then it would be an embarrassment, because they Assyrians obviously failed.
What about the political agenda to give money to the government through tithing?
Self-sacrifice is already in the Torah, so this is not a new introduction at all.
What about the new introduction of a Messiah with Isaiah? Or that the OT is just a book for the Jews?
This is actually not a new introduction, but merely more detail is given. Many of the other books of the Bible prophecy the Messiah (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1907&highlight=prophecies) in various ways. But these books including Isaiah prophecy that Israel will reject their own Messiah. In other words, He will be the King, but just not right away, for first the Christ must die on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Then He shall return to reign as the King. The Jews played the hand in killing their own Messiah as the OT predicted.
God first reveals Himself to one nation. That nation is Israel. Why? Because they suffered 430 years enslaved to Egypt. Who better to listen to God than people who had suffered so much! Therefore, the Word of God begins to unfold to the people of Israel. Makes sense!
What about Jewish Rabbis who do not engage the scholarship discussion of the evidence why the Torah is God given?
Christians can not speak for Jewish Rabbis who are unsaved and reject as their Lord and Savior, but what we can say is that the Torah is proven because definitely God created because nothing in nature happens all by itself, and the conduct of the God shown in the Torah is of a conscience and mind that none can compare to in His dealing with Israel's sin and the sin of other nations. May this give you confidence in the Torah in its power of predicting the Messiah through 62 prophecies of His coming. The accuracy of the creation and restoration of earth is immaculate, as well as choosing the right nation who suffered the most and the right man who was Abram. This is a God of Abraham who builds a nation of Israel, one of only few that remain today from that region. And a nation that was fierce against the sacrificing of children that other nations consistently engaged in.
There are 21 letters of the NT.
No. There are 27 letters, that is, 27 books of the NT, not 21.
But, the 4 gospel accounts introduce different items.
These differences give strength to the accounts because they make you realize that they are truly independent accounts and not copies of each other. And they were not conducive to legend because legend would have created much similar accounts.
Ya, but the gospel of Mark was not written till about 70 AD and we don't know who wrote Mark.
The Mark writing is the John Mark that Paul refuse to take with him on his second trip. So Barnabas and Paul split up, and Barnabas took Mark instead. The reason why Paul did this was because Mark's attitude was all wrong on the first trip when he gave up along the trip. He was uncommitted. However, as the years went on Paul commended Mark for his much improved attitude. Unless shown otherwise, we should believe the person who wrote Mark was in fact Mark. And we need not believe Mark was written so late. Mark has within it very old language and simple language, indicating it was very early written. Really, Mark could have been written at any time within a few years of Christ's birth up to about 60 A.D. which is the latest date scholars suggest it could have been written. Either way, this oral tradition remained in the heart of Mark whenever it was written, and there is even one verse and scenario which puts Mark on the scene of the time of Jesus. Mark not only knew Paul, and Peter, but likely some of the other apostles as well.
Matthew doesn't look like the product of an eyewitness?
How so? If you can't make your case, you have no case and should be disregarded. There is no reason to doubt Matthew wrote Matthew early on. Matthew was a tax collector, and so this type of person is reflected in the writing of the Matthew account by seeming to be like a code of many laws of Judaism which Jesus came to fill up as you would expect a tax collector to follow.
But the Matthew accounts copied off of Mark?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Matthew account is so different than Mark so that it can't be trusted, then turn around and say it is copying Mark. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Understand that your arguments are for the sake of being an antichrist rather than being concerned with the truth. Don't accuse of plagiarism if you don't have evidence. Self-declarations do not count.
Fine, but what about the fact that Matthew makes Jesus more Jewish than Mark?
Matthew emphasizes Jesus being a king, Mark emphasis a man, Luke emphasizes a servant, and John emphasizes deity of Jesus. There is nothing to indicate that Matthew disagreed with Mark. They both know Jesus was born of David.
Ya but Matthew introduces the Christmas story and Mark doesn't?
There was no Christmas story, for Jesus was born in September. Old records released in the last 10 years from the vatican show that Jesus' birth was celebrated in the early centuries on September 8th, not December 25th. His birth was 6 months after John was born the Bible says, and John was born around passover, 9 months after the course his father performed for the temple. Since Matthew is emphasizing Jesus as King, birthright is included.
But doesn't this all seem like propaganda?
Well, God wants to reveal Himself to His creation, so why accuse Him of propaganda? Satan surely does no less.
Isn't John rewriting history?
Not at all. As Matthew was ordained to show Jesus is the King of the Jews, Mark shows Jesus is fully man, Luke shows Jesus is a servant, John must show His deity. Is this really so unreasonable, this comprehensive picture of the Gospel?
But, they are not eyewitness accounts and not literal?
Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts and we have one verse that indicates Mark was an eyewitness too. Even so, Mark and Luke were close to the action as any could be without actually seeing Jesus, and that's alright for they faithfully recorded what was recorded and preserved through oral tradition not long after Jesus died. They really are eyewitness accounts and really literal events that took place just like the Old Testament, in which all these events took place. This is always substantiated by all the efforts men have put forth to find fault with the books of the Bible, but none have found any credible disputation that has been able to stand up against historicity, multiple attestation and archeology.
How do you know the supernatural is real?
Take for example a criminal who lived his life of crime. And one morning he wakes up and sees say a haze of smoke in the corner of his room. In that haze of smoke he sees two eyes and a mouth there. What's going on? His conscience is speaking to him about God and is being manifested in this vision. It is the Holy Spirit drawing Him to God. You see we all are made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness, so we all know deep down inside we need the forgiveness of God's Son, but it is so deep seated and smothered by our soul's activities in the world, we can't sense it anymore. Non-Christians are dead to God; their spirit is insensitive to things of God, but by the grace of God, He reveals Himself, and you had better to choose the Lord and Savior, because if you don't, there is an eternal separation in hell for you.
Is the Bible really truly historical?
The historical Jesus is the Jesus of faith. No doubt about it. He is fully attested to as anything is in antiquity. The Bible is the handbook and highway code of life. It is a book of power that can help you and give you the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
But isn't there are a problem if none of these were eyewitness writers?
Orally they are repeating what was well preserved if they weren't original eyewitnesses, but all accounts show us they were eyewitnesses and no credible disprove of this has been given, so to suggest otherwise need not be given any consideration. Peter, Jude, James, John, Paul, Matthew all saw the person of Jesus. Mark in one verse is shown to have likely seen Jesus. And Luke is as close to an eyewitness account as you can get without actually being one. This is wonderful attestation on multiple levels and many different groups of the resurrection of Jesus.
Large collective narratives are very well preserved orally and writing. You can't deviate much from them if at all, because that would put you into a whole different camp as we soon find out in the gnostics who followed later.
How can Jesus walk on water?
Is not God at liberty to walk on water? How did the water get there in the first place? How could you even exist? How did the universe begin to begin with? These are the same questions. Surely if God created, He can break into His own creation and manipulate it at will as long as it is done righteously and according to His holiness.
What about the spin on all these events?
There is nothing wrong with giving something some color in otherwise dull events as long as it really is still true, for there is deep meaning involved. These are not devious alterations to glorify Satan, but expounding on the vital elements that have occurred literally. We need to not let our petty selves say it happened this way or that, rather than seeing it happened one way in the eyes of the person who wrote based on his biases and abilities given to Him by God to perceive and understand.
But isn't the Bible authoritative just because it has come to be accepted as such?
It's not the case at all. The reason why the Bible is authoritative is because it is always grounded in proper root causes. For example, Genesis says God created in verse 1 of chapter 1. This is a very reasonable statement. He does not say how long He took to create, only that it did take. Scientifically today we know nothing in nature happens all by itself, ergo it is was created by the uncreated creator. Seeing how we all sin and sin leads to death, salvation is in order. But where is our forgiveness? It must be given to us by our creator as He relates to us in entering into His creation through the Son which the the OT prophesizes His coming to redeem mankind.
What about all the other gospels centuries later?
I think you just answered your question. What about them? They were centuries later. Most of the books of the NT were written within a few decades of Christ's death with no competing writings at that time.
Ya, but 200 years after Jesus died, the whole Bible was still not fully compiled?
And that's ok, for that work would be consummated in due course. Nothing God does is ever so simple as one would hope for in their flesh. And if He did, would we respect it? If God just magically produced the whole Bible by the time the last book was written perhaps 95 AD with the book of Revelation, would that satisfy you? You see God enjoys our involvement in the process in the writers writing the Bible. He loves our participation and the synergy of our cooperation in listening to His will be done.
Ya but you got to buy the book at a store near you?
Actually, the Bible is the cheapest and freest book ever known to mankind. You could go to any Christian anywhere today and they would buy the book for you or give you one for free. There is usually a Bible in every hotel room. It is disingenuous that you claim you have to pay for it. It exposes you when you say that. If you went to any church and said you needed a Bible it would be given to you freely.
By the 4th century there was the move from papyrus to parchment or animal skins, which could finally put the whole Bible together in one volume. Do you blame history for not yet having this technology?
Constantine commissioned 50 Bible is 312 AD about what was in or out.
No problem. Today you are free to compare all known writings to see even now if something should be included or not. You will come to the realization not a book of the Bible should be excluded, nor should any books be added. The thing about books is if even one small detail is wrong it should be excluded from the whole Bible. This is God's way of checks and balances. The Holy Spirit working you would expect at some point in history would bring together one compilation. And well provide other clues such as limiting the information to the time period of the apostolic age and other clues like the number 66. There are 66 books of the Bible. 6 is the number of Satan, but also the number of man. Man love Satan's ways. The Bible is the redemptive design that separates or breaks apart this union of Satan and man that had begun from the fall.
The oldest Bible is significant then?
Yes, the Codex Vaticanus is the oldest complete manuscript of the Bible. A momentous occasion.
Couldn't have something been lost?
Would God let something be lost that He wanted revealed? Funny.
What didn't make it into the Bible? Could have people in power hid some key truths? Why was the book of Mary excluded from the Bible?
Because it has Taoist and Buddhist concepts. There is no conspiracy. Jesus did cast out 7 demons from Mary Magdalene. But also women could be apostles. Junia was an apostle, and so was Mary Magdalene. "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils" (Luke 8.2).
Isn't the work of the Spirit the right to ask questions, analyze and determine what was right?
Yes, and that is how we come by the the 66 books of the Bible which you yourself still can find no fault with as you can see I have countered all your negative ideas about the Bible.
But I still can't get over the the idea the Bible was written decades after the events took place?
This is a Napoleonic code assumption: you are guilty until proven innocent. English common law says you are innocent until proven guilty. It is God's Word until you prove it isn't. Surely the latter has more weight? When you stand in judgment of Scripture, that is a theology of death. You are writing your own demise.
According to God's loving and righteous Word, I am convinced Robert Beckford is going to Hell (as at the time of this writing).
The Holy Spirit has revealed to me all your words are very irreverent, and so shall you be punished by God.
May I say, that certain points of data, can be received from a non-Christian such as yourself, but the spin you place on that data is itself not needed to be accepted. Another glaring thing I noticed is that a person's words often project their own heart condition, and one key word you used was "spin".
Your various fancy strategies against Christianity do fail one by one:
1. The claim the kingdom of David and Solomon was not 1000 B.C., but that archeology says it was 8 B.C. and that it was not as nearly as large as the Bible claims.
I believe the explanation for this accusation is archeology can be biased and just because you see something archaeologically of one century does not mean the kingdom did not exist in the other century, but rather is a remnant. I don't think the Bible is claiming these kingdoms were as fantastic as is being accused of. The whole land area is indeed owned by the kingdom of Solomon, but that doesn't mean fantastic Egyptian buildings need to be built.
2. The books of the Bible were written too many decades too late.
The answer to this is why is it assumed the books of the Bible are written so many decades too late? Paul said he met with Peter and James early on which would be within 5 years of Christ's death. There is no reason to think they did not start writing soon afterward, even sooner than that.
And as the centuries progressed, each new book of the Bible was added until it was completed with 39 books. With each new book added, revelation of God built upon revelation, so as to always remain in harmony, never overassuming God's will.
3. Moses writes about his death historically, but how could this be possible if he died already?
Obviously, though Moses wrote most of the 5 first books of the Bible, there would be some inclusions of other writers that would round out gaps in information. Seems reasonable. Let's say you write a book, but before you are able to round it out, you die. An editor who is with Moses would round out the patches to give you a complete picture of any missing details that Moses did not get a chance to finish. The editor is perfectly right in doing so, because God gave him the authority to supply the completed work. As a testimony to this fact, notice no mistakes are found in these books.
There are 4 types of the Torah called by name:
1. Jahweh - tells the stories the best, are detailed and elaborate with lots of emotion. It is very God oriented, saying God did this and God did that, in dealing with people directly. E.g. in Exodus 3, God Himself frees the people from Egypt.
2. Elohim - God mediates to His people through angels, visions or dreams so there was no immediate relationship between people and God such as in the burning bush which would be an intermediary. Incidentally, there have been found certain brushes that continue to burn like charcoal (Miracles of Exodus, by Colin J. Humphreys).
3. Priestly Source - has a great deal of interest in things like law, priestly affairs and sacrifice.
4. Deuteronomy - in these 5 books there is a distinct emphasis on monotheism.
I don't see why these differences pose a problem, for God can not indwell the spirit of man in the OT period, because the veil has not yet been rent; that is, Jesus has not yet died on the cross, resurrected and raised up to bring forth the Holy Spirit so that Christ can live in you.
God is also very lively, has an appropriate dish of emotion displayed. The emphasis on the law and sacrifices is definitely important, and emphasis on God being monotheistic is also vital.
Therefore, none of these things are mutually exclusive, but just like you have differences on small details on certain verses in the Bible today, so you have the same issue then. Or perhaps like today some add things to the Bible like extra books, so may a story have been included that should not belong then. Suffice it to say, what is in the Bible today is the most humble approach, the minimal facts approach.
My belief is that because there are 4 different renderings, yet essentially saying the same, this gives more credibility to the source that is being felt and relayed and understood by people from different perspectives, just like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John produce the same effect.
Scholars agree that the 5 books of Moses were agreed in one version in the 8th century. That seems fair. So this then becomes the best estimate we have of the 4 different perspectives. They converged in Jerusalem because of events taking place. The king in Jerusalem at that time was Hezekiah who emphasized monotheism as cults were coming on, so by unifying the 4 versions of the Torah, strength was given to God's Word. There needs be one specific place, one temple, in Jerusalem and not many different temples across the countryside with conflicting ideas.
It would be inaccurate to say the Torah was rewritten or added onto, since nothing was added in unifying these 4 versions. Rather, a coherent message that unifies the emphasis of each is brought together in a coherent package. For example, since all 4 versions held to monotheism, monotheism does not become a new idea at all. God can communicate to you through angels, but also directly and intuitively. But Moses had to cover his face with a veil when the glory of God came in to communicate to him, because that glory faded so fast.
What about the claim in Assyrian writings that Assyrians conquered Hezekiah and he paid off Assyria to stop the battle? No such account was found in the Bible.
The account in 2 Kings 18 says Hezekiah gave the Assyrians all the gold they asked for, but the king of Assyria attacked anyway (v.18). So what happened next? "Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying..." (2 Kings 19.7-9).
So what occurred was the Assyrians were attacked by another army which protected at the very least up to Jerusalem itself.
"And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead" (2 Kings 19.35-37).
So the angel of the Lord provided for this other army to attack the Assyrians and consequently, Jerusalem was saved. If the accounts of Assyrians mention anything about Israel, then it would be an embarrassment, because they Assyrians obviously failed.
What about the political agenda to give money to the government through tithing?
Self-sacrifice is already in the Torah, so this is not a new introduction at all.
What about the new introduction of a Messiah with Isaiah? Or that the OT is just a book for the Jews?
This is actually not a new introduction, but merely more detail is given. Many of the other books of the Bible prophecy the Messiah (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1907&highlight=prophecies) in various ways. But these books including Isaiah prophecy that Israel will reject their own Messiah. In other words, He will be the King, but just not right away, for first the Christ must die on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Then He shall return to reign as the King. The Jews played the hand in killing their own Messiah as the OT predicted.
God first reveals Himself to one nation. That nation is Israel. Why? Because they suffered 430 years enslaved to Egypt. Who better to listen to God than people who had suffered so much! Therefore, the Word of God begins to unfold to the people of Israel. Makes sense!
What about Jewish Rabbis who do not engage the scholarship discussion of the evidence why the Torah is God given?
Christians can not speak for Jewish Rabbis who are unsaved and reject as their Lord and Savior, but what we can say is that the Torah is proven because definitely God created because nothing in nature happens all by itself, and the conduct of the God shown in the Torah is of a conscience and mind that none can compare to in His dealing with Israel's sin and the sin of other nations. May this give you confidence in the Torah in its power of predicting the Messiah through 62 prophecies of His coming. The accuracy of the creation and restoration of earth is immaculate, as well as choosing the right nation who suffered the most and the right man who was Abram. This is a God of Abraham who builds a nation of Israel, one of only few that remain today from that region. And a nation that was fierce against the sacrificing of children that other nations consistently engaged in.
There are 21 letters of the NT.
No. There are 27 letters, that is, 27 books of the NT, not 21.
But, the 4 gospel accounts introduce different items.
These differences give strength to the accounts because they make you realize that they are truly independent accounts and not copies of each other. And they were not conducive to legend because legend would have created much similar accounts.
Ya, but the gospel of Mark was not written till about 70 AD and we don't know who wrote Mark.
The Mark writing is the John Mark that Paul refuse to take with him on his second trip. So Barnabas and Paul split up, and Barnabas took Mark instead. The reason why Paul did this was because Mark's attitude was all wrong on the first trip when he gave up along the trip. He was uncommitted. However, as the years went on Paul commended Mark for his much improved attitude. Unless shown otherwise, we should believe the person who wrote Mark was in fact Mark. And we need not believe Mark was written so late. Mark has within it very old language and simple language, indicating it was very early written. Really, Mark could have been written at any time within a few years of Christ's birth up to about 60 A.D. which is the latest date scholars suggest it could have been written. Either way, this oral tradition remained in the heart of Mark whenever it was written, and there is even one verse and scenario which puts Mark on the scene of the time of Jesus. Mark not only knew Paul, and Peter, but likely some of the other apostles as well.
Matthew doesn't look like the product of an eyewitness?
How so? If you can't make your case, you have no case and should be disregarded. There is no reason to doubt Matthew wrote Matthew early on. Matthew was a tax collector, and so this type of person is reflected in the writing of the Matthew account by seeming to be like a code of many laws of Judaism which Jesus came to fill up as you would expect a tax collector to follow.
But the Matthew accounts copied off of Mark?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Matthew account is so different than Mark so that it can't be trusted, then turn around and say it is copying Mark. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Understand that your arguments are for the sake of being an antichrist rather than being concerned with the truth. Don't accuse of plagiarism if you don't have evidence. Self-declarations do not count.
Fine, but what about the fact that Matthew makes Jesus more Jewish than Mark?
Matthew emphasizes Jesus being a king, Mark emphasis a man, Luke emphasizes a servant, and John emphasizes deity of Jesus. There is nothing to indicate that Matthew disagreed with Mark. They both know Jesus was born of David.
Ya but Matthew introduces the Christmas story and Mark doesn't?
There was no Christmas story, for Jesus was born in September. Old records released in the last 10 years from the vatican show that Jesus' birth was celebrated in the early centuries on September 8th, not December 25th. His birth was 6 months after John was born the Bible says, and John was born around passover, 9 months after the course his father performed for the temple. Since Matthew is emphasizing Jesus as King, birthright is included.
But doesn't this all seem like propaganda?
Well, God wants to reveal Himself to His creation, so why accuse Him of propaganda? Satan surely does no less.
Isn't John rewriting history?
Not at all. As Matthew was ordained to show Jesus is the King of the Jews, Mark shows Jesus is fully man, Luke shows Jesus is a servant, John must show His deity. Is this really so unreasonable, this comprehensive picture of the Gospel?
But, they are not eyewitness accounts and not literal?
Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts and we have one verse that indicates Mark was an eyewitness too. Even so, Mark and Luke were close to the action as any could be without actually seeing Jesus, and that's alright for they faithfully recorded what was recorded and preserved through oral tradition not long after Jesus died. They really are eyewitness accounts and really literal events that took place just like the Old Testament, in which all these events took place. This is always substantiated by all the efforts men have put forth to find fault with the books of the Bible, but none have found any credible disputation that has been able to stand up against historicity, multiple attestation and archeology.
How do you know the supernatural is real?
Take for example a criminal who lived his life of crime. And one morning he wakes up and sees say a haze of smoke in the corner of his room. In that haze of smoke he sees two eyes and a mouth there. What's going on? His conscience is speaking to him about God and is being manifested in this vision. It is the Holy Spirit drawing Him to God. You see we all are made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness, so we all know deep down inside we need the forgiveness of God's Son, but it is so deep seated and smothered by our soul's activities in the world, we can't sense it anymore. Non-Christians are dead to God; their spirit is insensitive to things of God, but by the grace of God, He reveals Himself, and you had better to choose the Lord and Savior, because if you don't, there is an eternal separation in hell for you.
Is the Bible really truly historical?
The historical Jesus is the Jesus of faith. No doubt about it. He is fully attested to as anything is in antiquity. The Bible is the handbook and highway code of life. It is a book of power that can help you and give you the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
But isn't there are a problem if none of these were eyewitness writers?
Orally they are repeating what was well preserved if they weren't original eyewitnesses, but all accounts show us they were eyewitnesses and no credible disprove of this has been given, so to suggest otherwise need not be given any consideration. Peter, Jude, James, John, Paul, Matthew all saw the person of Jesus. Mark in one verse is shown to have likely seen Jesus. And Luke is as close to an eyewitness account as you can get without actually being one. This is wonderful attestation on multiple levels and many different groups of the resurrection of Jesus.
Large collective narratives are very well preserved orally and writing. You can't deviate much from them if at all, because that would put you into a whole different camp as we soon find out in the gnostics who followed later.
How can Jesus walk on water?
Is not God at liberty to walk on water? How did the water get there in the first place? How could you even exist? How did the universe begin to begin with? These are the same questions. Surely if God created, He can break into His own creation and manipulate it at will as long as it is done righteously and according to His holiness.
What about the spin on all these events?
There is nothing wrong with giving something some color in otherwise dull events as long as it really is still true, for there is deep meaning involved. These are not devious alterations to glorify Satan, but expounding on the vital elements that have occurred literally. We need to not let our petty selves say it happened this way or that, rather than seeing it happened one way in the eyes of the person who wrote based on his biases and abilities given to Him by God to perceive and understand.
But isn't the Bible authoritative just because it has come to be accepted as such?
It's not the case at all. The reason why the Bible is authoritative is because it is always grounded in proper root causes. For example, Genesis says God created in verse 1 of chapter 1. This is a very reasonable statement. He does not say how long He took to create, only that it did take. Scientifically today we know nothing in nature happens all by itself, ergo it is was created by the uncreated creator. Seeing how we all sin and sin leads to death, salvation is in order. But where is our forgiveness? It must be given to us by our creator as He relates to us in entering into His creation through the Son which the the OT prophesizes His coming to redeem mankind.
What about all the other gospels centuries later?
I think you just answered your question. What about them? They were centuries later. Most of the books of the NT were written within a few decades of Christ's death with no competing writings at that time.
Ya, but 200 years after Jesus died, the whole Bible was still not fully compiled?
And that's ok, for that work would be consummated in due course. Nothing God does is ever so simple as one would hope for in their flesh. And if He did, would we respect it? If God just magically produced the whole Bible by the time the last book was written perhaps 95 AD with the book of Revelation, would that satisfy you? You see God enjoys our involvement in the process in the writers writing the Bible. He loves our participation and the synergy of our cooperation in listening to His will be done.
Ya but you got to buy the book at a store near you?
Actually, the Bible is the cheapest and freest book ever known to mankind. You could go to any Christian anywhere today and they would buy the book for you or give you one for free. There is usually a Bible in every hotel room. It is disingenuous that you claim you have to pay for it. It exposes you when you say that. If you went to any church and said you needed a Bible it would be given to you freely.
By the 4th century there was the move from papyrus to parchment or animal skins, which could finally put the whole Bible together in one volume. Do you blame history for not yet having this technology?
Constantine commissioned 50 Bible is 312 AD about what was in or out.
No problem. Today you are free to compare all known writings to see even now if something should be included or not. You will come to the realization not a book of the Bible should be excluded, nor should any books be added. The thing about books is if even one small detail is wrong it should be excluded from the whole Bible. This is God's way of checks and balances. The Holy Spirit working you would expect at some point in history would bring together one compilation. And well provide other clues such as limiting the information to the time period of the apostolic age and other clues like the number 66. There are 66 books of the Bible. 6 is the number of Satan, but also the number of man. Man love Satan's ways. The Bible is the redemptive design that separates or breaks apart this union of Satan and man that had begun from the fall.
The oldest Bible is significant then?
Yes, the Codex Vaticanus is the oldest complete manuscript of the Bible. A momentous occasion.
Couldn't have something been lost?
Would God let something be lost that He wanted revealed? Funny.
What didn't make it into the Bible? Could have people in power hid some key truths? Why was the book of Mary excluded from the Bible?
Because it has Taoist and Buddhist concepts. There is no conspiracy. Jesus did cast out 7 demons from Mary Magdalene. But also women could be apostles. Junia was an apostle, and so was Mary Magdalene. "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils" (Luke 8.2).
Isn't the work of the Spirit the right to ask questions, analyze and determine what was right?
Yes, and that is how we come by the the 66 books of the Bible which you yourself still can find no fault with as you can see I have countered all your negative ideas about the Bible.
But I still can't get over the the idea the Bible was written decades after the events took place?
This is a Napoleonic code assumption: you are guilty until proven innocent. English common law says you are innocent until proven guilty. It is God's Word until you prove it isn't. Surely the latter has more weight? When you stand in judgment of Scripture, that is a theology of death. You are writing your own demise.
According to God's loving and righteous Word, I am convinced Robert Beckford is going to Hell (as at the time of this writing).