http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1973755/posts

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? (Chapt. 5)

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm |
1959 | F.F. Bruce

Posted on 02/20/2008 7:20:50 PM PST by blue-duncan

CHAPTER V

THE GOSPEL MIRACLES

Before we leave the Gospels, something ought to be said about the
miracle stories which are found in them. Anyone who attempts to answer
the question which forms the title of this book must recognize that
for many readers it is precisely these miracle-stories which are the
chief difficulty in the way of accepting the New Testament documents
as reliable.

To some extent it is true to say that the credibility of these stories
is a matter of historical evidence. If they are related by authors who
can be shown on other grounds to be trustworthy, then they...

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:35:35 -0800 in
3d685c4e-cef5-4d71-aea8-3d4fe8947119@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Sound
of Trumpet mailhaven.com> wrote:

No.

Next question?

--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of
religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools
until we train up a generation of people who know that there is
no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education,
and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in
constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious
order which finally denies the religious liberty of the
enemies of God."
-- Gary North in "Failure of the American Baptist Culture"

No less reliable than you.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:35:35 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
mailhaven.com> wrote:

You have *got* to be kidding. The authorship of the NT documents is
largely unknown, none can be dated closer than a few decades after the
time of the events that they purport to describe, two of four
supposedly "divinely inspired" authors can't agree on the genealogy of
Jesus, the accounts of the Resurrection are mutually contradictory,
and they include absurdities like a whole host of dead prophets
walking around Jerusalem that managed to escape the attention not only
of any contemporary historian, but the authors of three of the four
Gospels. Reliable? Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the
dictionary?

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:12:06 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:

Ask an expert.

Yes.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:35:10 -0800, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

No kidding.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:44:15 -0500, raven1 nevermore.com> wrote:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James.

What's your problem???

They are solid references to the beliefs of the new Christian people when
published. Those people all believed. The writings are current.

Heeheehee. One is by Joseph, one is by Mary. Heeheeheehee.

Every one nails the main point - HE IS RISEN.

Heeheehee.

On Feb 22, 4:02 pm, duke cox.net> wrote:

You are not an expert.
So, no.

PDW

In article dialup-4.230.135.109.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net> "Mark K. Bilbo" writes:

OK. Will I find fortune, happiness, and an insatiable
18 year-old blonde cheerleader?

-- cary

raven1 wrote:

How about completely unknown. The only NT books that even had a chance were
the epistles of Paul. But outside the bible there is no evidence Paul
existed. More than half were written by others and express a different
theology than what are considered the true Pauline letters. Of those
considered authentic Pauline epistles they contradict themeselves and the
others such as the Pastoral letters. They seem to have been written with
many interpolations and by multiple people.