jaybird18c

And she explains why she disagrees with the cite, yeah? Because they definitely say two different things. You can't just paper over the cracks and pretend they're not there - these are not examples of a cohesive theory. There's nothing illogical about calling a guy Loraine? I beg to differ! Bet he was never bullied at school... I have no idea how to dumb the concept down for you any further. And his name is an old fashioned one.

Incomplete logic, failure to follow through the conclusion. God is not just omniscient, but omnipotent. God does not just have foreknowledge of events, but he has created every single aspect of the universe that lead to those events. It's the ultimate expression of the butterfly effect, in that a triple-O god could, as he was creating, fine tune the exact starting conditions of his creation to produce the exact results he desires, for every single person in it, for all of time. See, that lady gets it. You realise you just posted two contradictory sources, right? My comment was in response to what jcd11235 said: "An omniscient creator and a creation with free will must be mutually exclusive. Free will implies an unknowable future, even by god." I believe the small section on Boettner's book addresses what he was talking about.

It's from the same book. Strong's "Systematic Theology" is cited within Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination." I thought that was clear. Anyway, Boettner is a man, not a woman. There's nothing illogical about it. https://www.theopedia.com/loraine-boettner

"Foreknowledge must not be confused with foreordination. Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but is not itself foreordination. The actions of free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. Hence Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge. When I say, 'I know what I will do,' it is evident that I have determined already, and that my knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it." [Systematic Theology, p. 357.] Since God's foreknowledge is complete, He knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since he knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is plain that the saved and the lost alike fulfill his plan for them; for if he did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, he could at least refrain from creating them." The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination By Loraine Boettner Chapter 6, pg. 48

Do you ever have anything intelligent to add or are you just working really hard at being an ass?

I thought we were talking about the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. But now we're on to the existence of God?

I "heard" you the first time. I'll ask again. What specifically are you looking for?

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

I wasn't raised in a religious environment and was an atheist up until 1998.

The Bible is in fact, among other things, a record of history. As for it being full of error as you say: "The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired;" that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%." https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible[

You dont "prove the Bible" in the same way you would prove something using scientific methodology, which seems to be what you're looking for and the only thing you'll accept (e.g. Airtight/incontrovertible). There are obviously skeptical alternative (e.g. possible) explanations all over the place. The preponderance of evidence (as you would appropriately judge a literary work, not a scientific theory) is explained very well by Ravi Zacharias. "Defend the Bible? I’d sooner defend a lion!” - Charles Spurgeon https://www.zachariastrust.org/why-trust-the-bible

Legal issues belong to Caesar. Caesar can get it from the estate or do without. Being dead, it won't matter to you, either way. "It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

Given that christian literally means one who follows Christ, such a person has a reasonable claim to being a true christian. It's a legal issue. It doesn't matter how many times you've helped granny across the street if you're already a criminal. When you die, you've gotta pay the bill. How are you going to do it?

Only if you define righteousness as 'what god does'. If you define it according to any remotely acceptable moral code, then no. Romans 3

God’s character is always righteous. The God of the OT the same God in the NT. No. Biblical Christians do not. Only God is righteous. Our deeds cannot make us righteous. I refer you back to this: “As an atheist, you’ve obviously not made God the top priority in your life. If that be the case, you’ve idolized and assigned other things in your life a higher value. I assume that, in spite of your disbelief, you’ve used the Lord’s name in vain. Keeping his day holy would be out of the question. I’m sure you’ve not always honored your parents. If you’ve ever hated another without just cause, you’ve committed murder in your heart. If you’ve ever looked with lust outside the covenantal bounds of marriage, you’ve committed adultery in your heart, if not also in deed. If you’ve ever stolen something, regardless of value or when, you’re a thief. If you’ve ever told a lie, you’re a liar. If you’ve ever dwelt on the desire to have something which doesn’t belong to you, you’re guilty of coveting.”

THERE IT IS!!! The MOST useless post of the day! Thanks jakee!

The overarching purpose of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is to reveal God and his character to us, specifically (“special revelation,” person) rather than just generally (“general revelation,” creation/conscience) and describes his plan of salvation for his people. What Jesus “taught” was that he is the Son of God, that He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” that “no one comes to the Father but by Him,” that while we were still sinning against him, “He died for us,” and that the only way to Him is to “repent and believe.” > The purpose of the Law is to point you towards him. That is completely missing the point. Self-righteousness does not lead to Jesus. Not by, as you say and I would agree, “saying the right words” and I would add “doing the right things.” Isaiah 64:6 – “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.”

The purpose of the Law isn’t so that you can make attempts at working towards fulfilling it in order to be “good.” Otherwise, the Law isn’t the Law. It’s just good advice. Only God is “good.” The purpose of the Law is to point you towards him.

Not at all. Plenary Inspiration – Men chosen by God, without doing harm to their individual personalities or writing styles, etc., recorded exactly as God intended, being moved along like the wind in the sails of a ship. Therefore, while there is secondarily a human author, there is primarily a divine author. Aside from that, it was early church tradition to not include one’s name as the author. Another example would be with the Apostle John. He’s not mentioned directly as the author of his gospel either. He refers to himself multiple times, however, as the disciple “whom Jesus loved.” This appears to be deliberate. It was most likely to show humility in his relationship with Jesus Christ. Also, all that you mentioned as not being important is actually foundational and absolutely necessary for any of it to mean anything ultimately. You said “What matters is how Jesus lived and what he taught.” Jesus lived a life perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the Law which we could not and “he taught” that he was the Son of God (Emanuel – “God with us”). You also said “in general the effort to do so (with regard to meeting the standard of righteousness) makes you a better person.” Why is being “good” (in this sense self-righteous) if you are already guilty of transgression of the Law?

Draw crowds with entertainment, coffee shops, McDonald's style "play places" for the kids, and messages with weak theology lacking much biblical teaching...but...appeals to the masses because it's what makes them "feel" comfortable and gives them lots of the self-help, self-centered advice most people are looking for with just enough Christianity sprinkled here and there for them to call it a church. But...they do have good coffee!

And just for the record. Not that someone need be a Christian in order to be an excellent biblical scholar but it does help with understanding their point of view. I have questions as to whether or not the author of a religious history book I had to read for a seminary class was actually a Christian. However, it was one of the best historical books I've read on the topic. Bart Ehrman is a self-proclaimed "atheist and agnostic" biblical scholar.

The canonicity of Matthean authorship of this gospel were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (ca. A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254): Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). It is clear that this gospel was written at a relatively early date – prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Some scholars have proposed a date as early as A.D. 50. - Dr. John MacArthur

The Gospel According to Matthew Author Although this Gospel does not name its author, some early manuscripts have the inscription “according to Matthew,” and Eusebius (c. A.D. 260-340) tells us that the early church father Papias (c. A.D. 60-130) spoke of Matthew as having arranged the “oracles about Jesus. Subsequent tradition is unanimous that the disciple Matthew also called Levi (9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17), was the author of this Gospel, and not until the eighteenth century was this tradition doubted. There are some problems with the tradition. First, Papias apparently said that Matthew “arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect.” This statement seems to indicate that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic and scholars point out that Matthew does not read like a translation from these languages. It is also quite similar to Mark which was certainly written in Greek. It is possible that Matthew wrote in both Hebrew and Greek, much as Calvin wrote works in both Latin and French. Secondly, since Papias did not say “gospel” but “oracles,” some have identified these “oracles” as one of the sources lying behind our Gospels. But Eusebius appears to have understood “oracles” to mean “gospel,” and Irenaeus (writing about A.D. 180) speaks of a “gospel” by Matthew written “for the Hebrews in their own dialect.” Other objections to Matthew’s authorship are more speculative. Some suggest that the Gospel may have been the product of a group of writers (“school”). Its alleged dependence on Mark and supposedly late composition are given as reasons to doubt Matthew’s authorship. But these objections do not disprove the tradition that Matthew was the sole author. Since the author did not identify himself, he probably thought that it was not essential for his readers to know his name. Working through the human author was the primary author, the Holy Spirit. Date and Occasion The earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew is probably in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans by Igatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110). Almost no one dates the book alter than A.D 100. Some scholars have dated it as early as A.D. 50, but many critics date it after the destruction of Jerusalem, usually between 80 and 100. Their reasons include the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted such future events as the destruction of Jerusalem, the view that the Gospel’s Trinitarian theology (28:19 and exalted Christology (11:27) are late ideas that developed in a Hellenistic environment, and the assertion that the word “Rabbi” (mentioned in 23:5-10) was not used as a title before A.D. 70. Some of these reasons, such as that Jesus could not have predicted the future or that a high Christology is Hellenistic and therefore late are highly dubious and reflect a rejection of supernatural revelation. Further, there is some evidence in the context of the book that Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Gospel warns against the Sadducees, a group that rapidly declined from prominence after A.D. 70 and ultimately ceased to exist. The language used to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in ch. 24 reflects Old Testament prophecies of the divine judgment that Jesus foresaw as connected with the coming of His kingdom. There is no need to explain the content of ch. 24 as the author’s memory of a historical event. The writer of this Gospel probably used the Gospel of Mark. Assuming that Mark was composed with the help of the apostle Peter in Rome, an appropriate date for Matthew would be between A.D. 64 and 70. Antioch in Syria is the most likely location for the writing of the Gospel and for the church for which it was originally composed. Ignatius, the earliest writer to quote Matthew, was bishop of Antioch. The congregation in Antioch was mixed Jewish and Gentile origin (Acts 15), and this would account for the problems of legalism and antinomianism that Matthew particularly addresses. - Dr. R.C. Sproul

The new testament was written on an Assyrian troll farm. It was written to upset the Romans. The same way that you are trolling us about "evidence". Brilliant! Are you upset?

The traditional view is that Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew. https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospel-matthew/ https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom