|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Why isn’t it ?
quote: And there you go repeating the same misrepresentation again. Peter clearly says that holding the money back WAS wrong. He says that they had control of the land and the money from its sale to emphasise that they COULD have given all the money to him.
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
quote: From the actual text the lying to the Holy Spirit seems to mean Ananias holding back money (it doesn’t mention Ananias saying anything) and Sapphira telling Peter that they had given all the money.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The description of Judas death in Acts looks pretty suspicious, too. And Peter is the one reporting it. Interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which would matter if you had a direct report from Peter. You don’t. You have one source the Book of Acts.
quote: You seem to have forgotten that the fact that the Book of Acts does not report Ananias telling a lie, only Peter chiding him for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: None of those mention the story of Ananias or Sapphira, do they ?Not that quotes in the Gospels can be counted as coming direct from Peter (Mark may be based on material derived from Peter but it is still not direct). Nor can 1 and 2 Peter be safely accounted to be actually written by the disciple. If you want to claim Peter as a source you certainly need something that came direct from him - not a story that came from an unknown source.
quote: I certainly think that if you simply failed to understand how evidence was assessed you should at the least have a direct statement that Ananias lied in the Book of Acts to claim Luke as a source independent of the statement attributed to Peter. To imply that you did have such a statement when the fact that there is none had been an important point in the recent discussion seems suspect at best. If you were honest you would admit that you only have the Book of Acts as a source for the story, and that only has Peter saying that Ananias lied. Even the absurd rules of Biblical Inerrancy allow that Peter could be wrong. So you have neither the Book of Acts reporting that Ananias has lied, nor do you have any report from Peter concerning the matter. So, yes, I think you should reword both parts of your claim. You have neither Peter nor the Book of Acts reporting that Ananias lied. Only that the Book of Acts says that Peter accused Ananias of lying - without any mention of what Ananias is supposed to have said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The part you quoted isn’t a biased opinion, it is a fact. You have the Book of Acts claiming that Peter accused Ananias of lying. You do not have any statement from Peter on the matter. I hardly believe that the whole history of Christianity has been lying about that, but even if it were true it would only condemn Christianity.
quote: Luke does not say that Ananias lied. Percy kept asking you about that remember ? And it wasn’t there, was it ?
quote: No he doesn’t. Try reading in context. The words attributed to Peter condemn Ananias for not giving all of the money to Peter. Since Ananias had control of the land and the money he had no excuse for holding any back.If you disagree quote the part where Peter says that it would have been alright to hold back part of the money.. Or admit that you can’t because there is no such statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You have an account written by someone who wasn’t there, based on unknown sources, written at a time when historians routinely invented the words they attributed to their subjects. That may be all you need but rational people are aware of the limits of the evidence. No matter how much you pretend to have Peter’s statement you don’t.
quote: If Ananias had not had control of the land or the money he would not have had the right to unilaterally hand over all the money to Peter. He would have had to have the agreement of the other interested parties. Maybe you consider that absurd but very few other people would. Including the courts.
quote: Except that there is absolutely nothing to support that claim. Which makes more sense if Peter is emphasising that Ananias had no excuse for not handing over all the money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Obviously he wasn’t much of a skeptic. A real skeptic would have noticed that the Biblical accounts are hardly reliable sources. A missing body is just a missing body. But, more than that, we have no real evidence that anyone was interested in contradicting the story - even in the Bible. There is no crackdown on the people spreading the story. The authorities never see any real evidence that Jesus is alive - which they might well have been interested in. It is not at all clear that the authorities would have heard anything before the body would have decayed beyond recognition- and why tamper with a grave to counter vague rumours if it won’t even work ?
quote: Given the fact that ancient readers seem to have taken it the same way - Paul and the John who wrote Revelation both expect the end to happen in the near future - it hardly seems that the problem is with modern readers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Selwyn wrote the review. The book was written by Frank Morison (not his real name). As I commented above Morison was not very sceptical at all - or he would have realised that the Biblical accounts are not trustworthy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Which is not much more believable than the dead bodies walking around - which nobody else happened to notice. In case you haven’t noticed, the Gospel of Matthew is not a reliable or trustworthy source.
If your evidence is likely fiction you don’t have much of a case. In fact the evidence against the resurrection - if rationally examined - I’d pretty convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Then the problem is clearly with those irrational people who want to believe. (Cue the usual false accusation)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: About two hundred years, not a few hundred. And since the Abomination is associated with the destruction of the Herodian Temple it can hardly be in our future.
quote: No, it really doesn’t. If you read it in context it is all about the destruction of the Herodian Temple and the events surrounding it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I’d say that you have plenty of problems.
quote: Sure you did. You started by talking about those who didn’t want to believe so those who are left must be the ones who did want to believe.
quote: You Bible-twisting idolators may enjoy your egotistic delusions, and your sins. Fortunately for you, you are wrong - or you would be doomed to Hell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But - according to Mark, copied by Matthew - Jesus said that there would be. Reading in context is a fine thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If they didn’t want to believe they would find reasons not to - you said it. And there are good reasons not to believe - as is clear from your failure to answer them. Sorry, but you are wrong, as usual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The message I was replying to, of course. Message 906 quote: In Daniel 7 it refers to Antiochus’ pagan altar in the Temple. There was nothing like that in 70AD.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024