Doesn't Living Like the Devil After Being Saved Disprove Once Saved Always Saved?

[rewriter]

Then i guess you just so happen to overlook/dismiss what you did want to hear from the book of acts.

..And I was right..


Not true.. Or you would be able to produce a citation that supports your assertion.
The best you seem to be able to ever muster is a commentary from some other athesitic source. You never seem to be able to produce actual historical documentation to support your claims. Claims like acts can not work with Paul's chronology unless Jesus was crucified at 30..

Great, now show me source material that supports this claim. When I ask for proof I am not asking for another atheist's commentary. Show me a historical document that supports your claim please.



Again you can not use this factoid unless you can support your accusation. which makes the rest of your argument moot/red herring, and not worth reading..

Let's see, Paul gives a timeline of his activities after conversion in Galatians. He says that immediately after converting he went to Arabia without consulting with anyone. But of course, Luke writing in Acts knows better and has Paul consulting with several people. But Paul waits three years before going to Jerusalem. Keep in mind 3 years. Paul then goes to Syria/Cilicia, a combined Roman province, where he remains for 14 years. Now add 14 and 3, I think that makes 17. Even allowing for a partial year to count as a full year, one still needs at least 15 years to cover this. Now the famine in Judah is known to have occurred between 45 and 47 CE. The options for Jesus's crucifixion are 30 and 33. Thus for Acts chronology where Paul begins his first missionary journey partially to obtain relief for Jerusalem believers during the famine and still have stayed away from Jerusalem for at least 15 years, Jesus had to be crucified before 32 at the latest, or since 30 is the only option, in 30.

Now since I am just citing scripture. I this should meet your criteria.

Now since the only reference we have within scripture for when Jesus began his ministry, we must look to outside sources. But scripture assures us that Jesus began his ministry after John the Baptist was arrested, and that was after Antipas married Herodias. In order to do this Antipas had to go to Rome to get permission, and Josephus dates this to 29 when Antipas went of Rome to participate in a celebration for Sejanus, the patron of Pilate, which took place during the entire month of June, a time when it would have been inappropriate to engage in political negotiations, such as divorcing one imperially arranged wife and marrying another. Petitioning and approval would have taken at least two weeks, and the return journey to Judah, via the fastest and most dangerous means, used only in cases of absolute necessity, would take two weeks. thus, returning the very end of July or early August of 29, thus the earliest that the protests of John the Baptist could be learned of and responded to by John's arrest. If Jesus was crucified in 30, his ministry, at the longest, would be approximately 8 months.

Now I have cited two sources that you should plausibly accept, scripture and Josephus. What is your next objection, as I am sure you will have one because I am threatening your preferred understanding of scripture.

 

[Drich]

Let's see, Paul gives a timeline of his activities after conversion in Galatians.

So?

He says that immediately after converting he went to Arabia without consulting with anyone.

Again, so?

But of course, Luke writing in Acts knows better and has Paul consulting with several people.

Where in the book of acts? Also what does any of this matter? How does this time line biz tie to your original point that Tiberius was not a tyrant, and his tyranical acts where all made up by christian historians?

I think you have bought into your own red herring, and have lost yourself in side topics that have nothing to do with what was being discussed.

But Paul waits three years before going to Jerusalem. Keep in mind 3 years. Paul then goes to Syria/Cilicia, a combined Roman province, where he remains for 14 years. Now add 14 and 3, I think that makes 17. Even allowing for a partial year to count as a full year, one still needs at least 15 years to cover this. Now the famine in Judah is known to have occurred between 45 and 47 CE. The options for Jesus's crucifixion are 30 and 33. Thus for Acts chronology where Paul begins his first missionary journey partially to obtain relief for Jerusalem believers during the famine and still have stayed away from Jerusalem for at least 15 years, Jesus had to be crucified before 32 at the latest, or since 30 is the only option, in 30.

Now since I am just citing scripture. I this should meet your criteria.

You get that Jesus was not born on 0 AD right? That our best approximation to his birth was between 4BC and 6 bc?
Not to mention you have not provided a source for the Famine of 45/47 AD. The bible does not pin point this date. In fact the only famine in the bible that takes place in Judah was in the book of ruth which is not set in 45 AD.

Now since the only reference we have within scripture for when Jesus began his ministry, we must look to outside sources. But scripture assures us that Jesus began his ministry after John the Baptist was arrested, and that was after Antipas married Herodias.

Sorry, no this in incorrect. Jesus started His ministry after his baptism which is recorded in all 4 gospels. Not when John was arrested, or executed.
He was baptized and then lead into the wilderness for 40 days, was tempted/tried, and then he started his ministry.
Luke 3 starting at verse 21

In order to do this Antipas had to go to Rome to get permission, and Josephus dates this to 29 when Antipas went of Rome to participate in a celebration for Sejanus, the patron of Pilate, which took place during the entire month of June, a time when it would have been inappropriate to engage in political negotiations, such as divorcing one imperially arranged wife and marrying another. Petitioning and approval would have taken at least two weeks, and the return journey to Judah, via the fastest and most dangerous means, used only in cases of absolute necessity, would take two weeks. thus, returning the very end of July or early August of 29, thus the earliest that the protests of John the Baptist could be learned of and responded to by John's arrest. If Jesus was crucified in 30, his ministry, at the longest, would be approximately 8 months.

irrelevant. as again you are a year to 3 years off on your time line. A time line which acts as a red herring to distract from the original subject of persecution of the church by Tiberius.

Now I have cited two sources that you should plausibly accept, scripture and Josephus. What is your next objection, as I am sure you will have one because I am threatening your preferred understanding of scripture.

My next objectionable (to you) action is to try and put this discussion back on topic, and try and discuss the points and citations I made on my three part post that you seem desperate to avoid talk about, as it had you concoct this whole time line side bar/red herring.

 

[rewriter]

So?

Again, so?

Where in the book of acts? Also what does any of this matter? How does this time line biz tie to your original point that Tiberius was not a tyrant, and his tyranical acts where all made up by christian historians?

I think you have bought into your own red herring, and have lost yourself in side topics that have nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You get that Jesus was not born on 0 AD right? That our best approximation to his birth was between 4BC and 6 bc?
Not to mention you have not provided a source for the Famine of 45/47 AD. The bible does not pin point this date. In fact the only famine in the bible that takes place in Judah was in the book of ruth which is not set in 45 AD.

Sorry, no this in incorrect. Jesus started His ministry after his baptism which is recorded in all 4 gospels. Not when John was arrested, or executed.
He was baptized and then lead into the wilderness for 40 days, was tempted/tried, and then he started his ministry.
Luke 3 starting at verse 21

irrelevant. as again you are a year to 3 years off on your time line. A time line which acts as a red herring to distract from the original subject of persecution of the church by Tiberius.

My next objectionable (to you) action is to try and put this discussion back on topic, and try and discuss the points and citations I made on my three part post that you seem desperate to avoid talk about, as it had you concoct this whole time line side bar/red herring.

You claim to want evidence, yet you will make assertions without providing any. Archeological and various historic records date the famine in Judah to 45-7.

Now Mark and Matthew both date Jesus's ministry in Galilee to after John's arrest, so any claims that He had a ministry in Galilee earlier are questionable. John has Jesus engaged in BAPTISMAL ministry in Judah before John's arrest, but that does not fit with His ministry as recorded in the Synoptics.

As for my timeline being off, I recognize that Jesus was not born in 0 CE, a year you invented.

And where is your evidence that Tiberius was not favorable to the Christians, even Christians into the late 2nd century claimed that Tiberius was favorable to Christians. So where is your evidence that Tiberius persecuted the church? All accounts of persecution by Romans date to well after the death of Tiberius and his two successors. Now unless you have some evidence to support your claims, you have no basis for complaining about mine.

 

[Drich]

You claim to want evidence, yet you will make assertions without providing any. Archeological and various historic records date the famine in Judah to 45-7.

Actually no. I am pointing out that the bible does not record a famine in Judah anywhere in the NT.

Now Mark and Matthew both date Jesus's ministry in Galilee to after John's arrest,

Not true. in mat 3 Jesus was baptized, in mat 4:1 he was lead into the wilderness to fast and be tempted, and the very next thing that happens is that Jesus starts his ministry, he calls his disciples and then preaches the sermon on the mount. which takes us through mat 7. John was not executed in the book of matthew till chapter 14.

So no, Jesus in the book of matthew did not start his ministry till after mat 14.

The book of mark shares a similar but more aggressive outline. chapter 1 verse 1 introduces john. by verse 9 of chapter 1 Jesus is getting baptized. which again supports what I said. Jesus starts His ministry after He is baptized.

so any claims that He had a ministry in Galilee earlier are questionable.

These 'claims' are made in the Gospels of Luke, Matthew, and John.

John has Jesus engaged in BAPTISMAL ministry in Judah before John's arrest, but that does not fit with His ministry as recorded in the Synoptics.

Citation please, as I demonstrated that the gospels (plural ) does indeed support Jesus' ministry before John's arrest.

As for my timeline being off, I recognize that Jesus was not born in 0 CE, a year you invented.

Then understand that you no longer have the book ends you need (Jesus' birth and the famine of Judah) to claim whatever you point was, that I have completely lost intrest in out side of proving you wrong. (Meaning the bible can not be used as source material for your time line shenanigans

And where is your evidence that Tiberius was not favorable to the Christians, even Christians into the late 2nd century claimed that Tiberius was favorable to Christians. So where is your evidence that Tiberius persecuted the church? All accounts of persecution by Romans date to well after the death of Tiberius and his two successors. Now unless you have some evidence to support your claims, you have no basis for complaining about mine.

in the three page post you did not read.

 

[rewriter]

Actually no. I am pointing out that the bible does not record a famine in Judah anywhere in the NT.

Not true. in mat 3 Jesus was baptized, in mat 4:1 he was lead into the wilderness to fast and be tempted, and the very next thing that happens is that Jesus starts his ministry, he calls his disciples and then preaches the sermon on the mount. which takes us through mat 7. John was not executed in the book of matthew till chapter 14.

So no, Jesus in the book of matthew did not start his ministry till after mat 14.

The book of mark shares a similar but more aggressive outline. chapter 1 verse 1 introduces john. by verse 9 of chapter 1 Jesus is getting baptized. which again supports what I said. Jesus starts His ministry after He is baptized.


These 'claims' are made in the Gospels of Luke, Matthew, and John.


Citation please, as I demonstrated that the gospels (plural ) does indeed support Jesus' ministry before John's arrest.

Then understand that you no longer have the book ends you need (Jesus' birth and the famine of Judah) to claim whatever you point was, that I have completely lost intrest in out side of proving you wrong. (Meaning the bible can not be used as source material for your time line shenanigans

in the three page post you did not read.

So, given that there was a well-documented famine relief effort launched to provide food for famine-stricken Judah and numerous records of a famine in Judah between 45 and 47 CE must be wrong because scripture does not reference them? I hate to tell you, but scripture does not reference many things. North America is not directly referenced anywhere in scripture, does that mean that it does not exist?

Likewise, scripture does not give specific timelines for many events in Jesus's life outside of Holy Week. To imply that it does or that when it makes specific statements regarding times that it is incorrect if it differs with how you interpret some other passages is effectively stating that YOU are more correct than scripture as scripture must follow your assumptions. The most likely template for Mark's gospel is clearly not chronological in large part thus, Mark is likely not perfectly chronological in large part, which then means that Matthew and Luke, which both depend heavily on Mark, are not. Also, since John recognizes Jesus's first portion of his ministry immediately after baptism as being baptismal and in Judah, while Matthew, Mark and Luke all have him in Galilee immediately after His baptism, are you claiming that John is wrong?

When reading scripture, and seeking to understand what you read, the easy answers are not always the most accurate. In fact, in many cases, such as yours, the easy answers contradict other parts of scripture, thus either making the easy answers clearly wrong and those promoting them as in error, aka lying, or they are contradicting the claim that all scripture is true.

This does not even address the mountains of available evidence recorded by CHRISTIANS not atheists, that I can cite, contradictory to your claim that I cite atheists. You do not know my sources, you make erroneous assumptions and prove yourself posting false witness.

 

[Drich]

So, given that there was a well-documented famine relief effort launched to provide food for famine-stricken Judah and numerous records of a famine in Judah between 45 and 47 CE must be wrong because scripture does not reference them?

Again, I made no claim for or against this famine.

I am pointing out that you misrepresented your facts concerning this famine as having come from scripture.

here are your words:

Now add 14 and 3, I think that makes 17. Even allowing for a partial year to count as a full year, one still needs at least 15 years to cover this. Now the famine in Judah is known to have occurred between 45 and 47 CE. The options for Jesus's crucifixion are 30 and 33. Thus for Acts chronology where Paul begins his first missionary journey partially to obtain relief for Jerusalem believers during the famine and still have stayed away from Jerusalem for at least 15 years, Jesus had to be crucified before 32 at the latest, or since 30 is the only option, in 30.
Now since I am just citing scripture. I this should meet your criteria.

Again, you are not citing scripture because nothing in the NT says anything about judah having experienced a famine. The only famine recorded in the bible that plagued Judah was in the book of ruth.
Again whether or not the famine happened is irrelevant. You said scripture recordes this famine when it does not.

This means you have misrepresented your facts inorder to win an argument. (Using the authority of scripture as the finial word.) The only problem with that is scripture never records this event, so to use the authority of scripture here is intellectually dishonest.

I hate to tell you, but scripture does not reference many things.

Irrelevant. As You Represented this famine as having come from scripture.

North America is not directly referenced anywhere in scripture, does that mean that it does not exist?

Again, whether scripture mentions something or not is not the point. YOU Claiming scripture mentioning something when it does not, is the point being made here.

You lied about the details of the judean famine having come from scripture. That is what is being discussed here, not the famine itself.

You do not know my sources, you make erroneous assumptions and prove yourself posting false witness.

That's the problem is it not? You dole out random fact-oids (a Fact-oid is like the word human-oid. Human like, but not real) as if they where common knowledge and when questioned about the source, you change the subject. When pressed about your sourceless 'fact-oid' you offer a different factoid to try and bait the subject into a more favorable direction/red herring..

When someone will not let it go, you pair your fact-oid with scripture and pretend it comes from the bible. Then when called out/notified that your fact-oid does not come from scripture, now you make fake claims about bearing false witness.

I have asked for citation after citation after citation You have failed to produce even one legitimate source, that I can go and look up by following your prompting. You even misrepresented the time line the book of Matthew offers in the way of Jesus' baptism/beginning of His ministry, and when John the Baptist died. Yet you claim I am bearing false witness against you?

 

[rewriter]

Again, I made no claim for or against this famine.

I am pointing out that you misrepresented your facts concerning this famine as having come from scripture.

here are your words:



Again, you are not citing scripture because nothing in the NT says anything about judah having experienced a famine. The only famine recorded in the bible that plagued Judah was in the book of ruth.
Again whether or not the famine happened is irrelevant. You said scripture recordes this famine when it does not.

This means you have misrepresented your facts inorder to win an argument. (Using the authority of scripture as the finial word.) The only problem with that is scripture never records this event, so to use the authority of scripture here is intellectually dishonest.


Irrelevant. As You Represented this famine as having come from scripture.


Again, whether scripture mentions something or not is not the point. YOU Claiming scripture mentioning something when it does not, is the point being made here.

You lied about the details of the judean famine having come from scripture. That is what is being discussed here, not the famine itself.



That's the problem is it not? You dole out random fact-oids (a Fact-oid is like the word human-oid. Human like, but not real) as if they where common knowledge and when questioned about the source, you change the subject. When pressed about your sourceless 'fact-oid' you offer a different factoid to try and bait the subject into a more favorable direction/red herring..

When someone will not let it go, you pair your fact-oid with scripture and pretend it comes from the bible. Then when called out/notified that your fact-oid does not come from scripture, now you make fake claims about bearing false witness.

I have asked for citation after citation after citation You have failed to produce even one legitimate source, that I can go and look up by following your prompting. You even misrepresented the time line the book of Matthew offers in the way of Jesus' baptism/beginning of His ministry, and when John the Baptist died. Yet you claim I am bearing false witness against you?

Should you know your history, there was a famine relief mission sent out, first stop Crete, which just happens to coincide with Paul's reported first missionary journey that began in Crete, is that a coincidence? And the famine is mentioned as coming in Acts 11:28, there was no empire wide famine, but there was one in Judea and surrounding territories in 45-47. Perhaps you need to read more carefully and learn your history.

 

[Drich]

Should you know your history, there was a famine relief mission sent out, first stop Crete, which just happens to coincide with Paul's reported first missionary journey that began in Crete, is that a coincidence? And the famine is mentioned as coming in Acts 11:28, there was no empire wide famine, but there was one in Judea and surrounding territories in 45-47. Perhaps you need to read more carefully and learn your history.

Again, I made no claim for or against this famine.

I am pointing out that you misrepresented your facts concerning this famine as having come from scripture.

 

[rewriter]

Again, I made no claim for or against this famine.

I am pointing out that you misrepresented your facts concerning this famine as having come from scripture.

And so, you doubt Acts 11:28? Acts might have misrepresented the facts, but that does not change that I correctly noted that it was referred to. Your determination to find some wiggle room to avoid something uncomfortable does not cause me any grief.