BUDOS said:

Ok, my last response to you was the following:

For me to participate in the dialogue, I am attempting to gain a better understanding of your statement. That's it. Sorry for the delays in responding, as I am busier than usual.

Apparently you have chosen not to respond to my last question, which was a question to you so that it would better allow me to respond to our earlier dialogue. Is that correct? Are you of the mindset that you prefer to just stop and move on?

BusyTarpDuster responded:
"I don't respond to people who continually avoid questions asked of them by asking further questions. It's a tactic that everyone sees right through. If you want dialogue, then dialogue, don't monologue."


BTD, you don't make the rules and you are not the judge.
I am beginning to wonder why, once again, you are avoiding my question to clarify your response, by, once again attempting to deflect. Is it because you know what I am going to say next?

Up until about Vatican II (just after 1970), 90% of South America was reliably Roman Catholic.

After Vatican II, that percentage started to drop, and now in Brazil and Chile it is less than 50%.

" You ever been to central Or South America?"

More often than you have, I suspect. But location does not affirm knowledge.

Btw, you saying the Aztecs were Christian? How about the Totonacs?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You ever been to central Or South America?"

More often than you have, I suspect. But location does not affirm knowledge.

Btw, you saying the Aztecs were Christian? How about the Totonacs?

---

lol. Doubtful but aure. Maybe.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You ever been to central Or South America?"

More often than you have, I suspect. But location does not affirm knowledge.

Btw, you saying the Aztecs were Christian? How about the Totonacs?

---

lol. Doubtful but aure. Maybe.

---

Naah.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You ever been to central Or South America?"

More often than you have, I suspect. But location does not affirm knowledge.

Btw, you saying the Aztecs were Christian? How about the Totonacs?

---

lol. Doubtful but aure. Maybe.

---

Naah.

---

Mmmmmmmk. Anyway

Oldbear83 said:

---

" an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition."

(bold in original)

I don't recall any continent ever being converted to Christianity. You have a folk myth, not an established fact there.

---

Apart from the Norse attempting to bring Christianity to Greenland, it was Cortez's who brought Christianity tot the New World. It struggled to take root until Our Lady of Guadelupe appeared in 1531.

Latin America gained 9-10 million Christians in less than 20 years after her apparition. From there it spread to Texas and to eventually California when the holy Franciscan priest, St. Juniper Serra and his missionaries' established missions which became San Diego, Los Angeles, San Juan Capistrano, San Jose, Santa Barbara, and San Fransico.

Please tell me when the folk myth is in any of the narratives.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

---

You will have to prove this claim in counter of the evidence that an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition.

The entire region was filled with pagans practicing human sacrifice and they converted to Christianity - 9-10 million in ten years alone.

That doesn't sound like something the devil would do. The healings have led thousands to have faith in the one triune God. That's not something that Satan would do.

Your anti-Catholic bias and hardened heart are on full display here.

Please let the scales fall from your eyes and see the beauty and truth of the Church that Jesus established.

---

Scales from my eyes?

Says the person who bows to images and statues of Mary prays to her thusly:

" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,

I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....

... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...

... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"


You Roman Catholics who can't see the problem here are just so, so, SO STUPID.

---

Did you notice that rather than addressing the true topic at hand, you resorted to Red Herring attack?

The source for your claims is ... subjective, brother.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The source for your claims is ... subjective, brother.

---

Please let me know how Christianity started and spread in the New World.

The Spanish, Portuguese, and French had a century head start on their protestant brethren.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't take a Christian genius to know that Satan is an enemy of God and would want people in eternal Hell, separated from God forever. Maybe it's because you don't know this, that you so easily fall into his traps and are completely unable to discern his fruits.

Healing miracles do not automatically indicate a person or message is approved by God:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Charities and universities also do not indicate a source approval by God. Muslims do the same. So do Mormons. So do the Free Masons and Shriners.

You are so easily deceived. For your own sake, WAKE UP.

---

You will have to prove this claim in counter of the evidence that an entire continent was converted to Christianity due this apparition.

The entire region was filled with pagans practicing human sacrifice and they converted to Christianity - 9-10 million in ten years alone.

That doesn't sound like something the devil would do. The healings have led thousands to have faith in the one triune God. That's not something that Satan would do.

Your anti-Catholic bias and hardened heart are on full display here.

Please let the scales fall from your eyes and see the beauty and truth of the Church that Jesus established.

---

Scales from my eyes?

Says the person who bows to images and statues of Mary prays to her thusly:

" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,

I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....

... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...

... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"


You Roman Catholics who can't see the problem here are just so, so, SO STUPID.

---

Did you notice that rather than addressing the true topic at hand, you resorted to Red Herring attack?

---

Did you notice that everything I said there is true, and that you really can't deny it?

I wouldn't say this is a "red herring" at all, I'd say it's pretty much the whole story. The real scales are on YOUR eyes, and it's plainly obvious. The "topic at hand" has already been addressed, and you fail to comprehend it precisely because of the enormity of these scales.

BUDOS said:

---

BUDOS said:

Ok, my last response to you was the following:

For me to participate in the dialogue, I am attempting to gain a better understanding of your statement. That's it. Sorry for the delays in responding, as I am busier than usual.

Apparently you have chosen not to respond to my last question, which was a question to you so that it would better allow me to respond to our earlier dialogue. Is that correct? Are you of the mindset that you prefer to just stop and move on?

BusyTarpDuster responded:
"I don't respond to people who continually avoid questions asked of them by asking further questions. It's a tactic that everyone sees right through. If you want dialogue, then dialogue, don't monologue."


BTD, you don't make the rules and you are not the judge.
I am beginning to wonder why, once again, you are avoiding my question to clarify your response, by, once again attempting to deflect. Is it because you know what I am going to say next?

---

No one has forgotten that it was YOU who avoided my question which was before any of yours. You can play this game all you want, but that fact will never be changed. The truth just isn't on your side.

Once again - there is no deflection, no fear of ANYTHING you might say or ask. It's simply this - if you want me to respect your questions, then you need to respect mine. If you don't respect mine, then I have no reason to respect yours. Whatever energy you give to me will returned right back to you. The ball is, and always has been in your court throughout this back and forth. Anytime you want to stop your silly game and answer my question which I've been waiting for much longer than you have for mine, then we might get somewhere.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The source for your claims is ... subjective, brother.

---

Please let me know how Christianity started and spread in the New World.

The Spanish, Portuguese, and French had a century head start on their protestant brethren.

---

Christianity spread the same way everywhere, see the book of Acts for more.

My point is that claiming Mary converted a continent is not consistent with Scripture.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Super thread to share defense of these blessed relics

Some here have claimed they were made by the devil

One self acclaimed scientist said the science is settled and theyve been proven as forgeries but gave no defense.

Will lay out thoughts here over time.

---

The devil is a manmade idea from thousands of years before Christianity as is the concept of hell. The shroud has been proven to be much younger than when christ was around and no one knows what the man looked like. It is so sad to see so many basing their faith on nothing but a fairy tale. Truly yours a former Christian

joseywales said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Super thread to share defense of these blessed relics

Some here have claimed they were made by the devil

One self acclaimed scientist said the science is settled and theyve been proven as forgeries but gave no defense.

Will lay out thoughts here over time.

---

The devil is a manmade idea from thousands of years before Christianity as is the concept of hell. The shroud has been proven to be much younger than when christ was around and no one knows what the man looked like. It is so sad to see so many basing their faith on nothing but a fairy tale. Truly yours a former Christian

---

Telling me with confidence rhat hell doesnt exist wont chamge your outcome if you don't soften your heart to the Truth

And nothing of the sort has been proven obviously. In fact the opposite.

Fre3dombear said:

---

joseywales said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Super thread to share defense of these blessed relics

Some here have claimed they were made by the devil

One self acclaimed scientist said the science is settled and theyve been proven as forgeries but gave no defense.

Will lay out thoughts here over time.

---

The devil is a manmade idea from thousands of years before Christianity as is the concept of hell. The shroud has been proven to be much younger than when christ was around and no one knows what the man looked like. It is so sad to see so many basing their faith on nothing but a fairy tale. Truly yours a former Christian

---

Telling me with confidence rhat hell doesnt exist wont chamge your outcome if you don't soften your heart to the Truth.

---

He currently has no eyes to see or ears to hear. It is clear as day to those that have been drawn to Him.

He is of the world.. His only choice for salvation is to repent before it is too late. The kingdom of God is at hand.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The source for your claims is ... subjective, brother.

---

Please let me know how Christianity started and spread in the New World.

The Spanish, Portuguese, and French had a century head start on their protestant brethren.

---

In general, in the 1700s with Spanish missionary efforts starting in the south/southwest/southeast of the continent and Orthodox missionary efforts starting in the northwest.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

Wicked people are wrong when they say to themselves, "Our life is short and full of sorrow, and when its end comes, there is no escape. No one has ever been known to come back from the world of the dead. We were born by chance, and after life is over, we will be as if we had never been born at all. Our breath is no more than a puff of smoke; our mind is nothing more than a spark thrown off by the beating of our heart. When that spark dies, our body will crumble into ashes, and our breath will become part of the empty air. In time, no one will remember anything we ever did, and even our names will be forgotten. Our lives will pass away like the traces of clouds and vanish like fog in the heat of the sun. Our time on earth is like a passing shadow. There is no escape from the day of our death; it is fixed, and no one can postpone it.

The wicked say, "Come on, then, let's enjoy the good things of life, and live in this world the way we did when we were young and free of care! Let's drink the most expensive wines and use the finest perfumes. Let's not miss a single flower in the springtime! 8Before the roses wither, let's pick them and wear them in our hair! Let's all join in and leave signs everywhere of our carefree revelry! Life owes us that much!

- Wisdom of Solomon 2:1-9

At some point, it becomes casting jewels before Razorbacks. Nobody was ever debated into the Kingdom of God.

I recognize that TexasScientist argument represents a certain type of scholar. The argument I present and currently lean towards is that presented primarily by conservative or evangelical scholars which is to argue for a AD 60-66 date for Luke. This reasoning comes from a different set of assumptions than the mainstream AD 8090 dating. Here are the three major reasons which I will present from these sources, and they include points conceptually mentioned.

Acts ends with Paul alive (AD 62)
If Acts is the sequel to Luke (Acts 1:1), and Acts ends with Paul alive, under house arrest in Rome and with no mention of his trial, release, or death then some scholars conclude Acts must have been written before those events happened around 62. Since Luke was written before, they place Luke around 60-63AD
This may be the strongest argument for the early date.

Luke does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70)
* If Luke wrote after AD 70, he most certainly would have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem.
* Luke 21 contains Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem's fall, but Luke does not say, "and this happened just as Jesus predicted."
* Therefore, it appears logical that Luke must have written prior to 70D.

Luke's portrayal of Rome seems too positive for a postNero era
Some argue:
* Overall, Luke and Acts portray Roman officials as fair, reasonable, and often protective of Paul.
* After Nero's persecutions (AD 64), Christians were brutally targeted.
* Therefore, Luke's positive tone toward Rome suggests a date before AD 64.
(This argument was largely taken from Andrew Larkin's analysis.)

Luke is believed to be dated 60-66 AD because:
* Acts was written before Paul's death (AD 62).

Very sound reasoning.

Just another completely inexplicable miracle thats converted 10s of millions to Catholocism praise God

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The source for your claims is ... subjective, brother.

---

Please let me know how Christianity started and spread in the New World.

The Spanish, Portuguese, and French had a century head start on their protestant brethren.

---

Christianity spread the same way everywhere, see the book of Acts for more.

My point is that claiming Mary converted a continent is not consistent with Scripture.

---

It was Jesus working thru his Blessed Mother. The image of Our Lady of Guadelupe helped convert the continent.

Your claim has an anti-Catholic bias. It would be akin to someone claiming that Billy Graham didn't help convert thousands to Christianity. Switch the people and see if your viewpoint changes.

Do a little research on the time and area.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The source for your claims is ... subjective, brother.

---

Please let me know how Christianity started and spread in the New World.

The Spanish, Portuguese, and French had a century head start on their protestant brethren.

---

In general, in the 1700s with Spanish missionary efforts starting in the south/southwest/southeast of the continent and Orthodox missionary efforts starting in the northwest.

---

And that was springboarded by the final apparition on December 12, 1531 on Tepeyac Hill with the conversions of millions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did you notice that everything I said there is true, and that you really can't deny it?

I wouldn't say this is a "red herring" at all, I'd say it's pretty much the whole story. The real scales are on YOUR eyes, and it's plainly obvious. The "topic at hand" has already been addressed, and you fail to comprehend it precisely because of the enormity of these scales.

---

The topic at hand is ONLY to say that the Satan was responsible for this apparition. I refuted that claim with the following:

Quote:

---

The entire region was filled with pagans practicing human sacrifice and they converted to Christianity - 9-10 million in ten years alone.

That doesn't sound like something the devil would do. The healings have led thousands to have faith in the one triune God. That's not something that Satan would do.

---

You didn't respond to the fact that Satan did NOT cause this because of the fruit that it bore.

I could equally claim that Satan has caused you to harden your heart against the Mother of God as demonstrated in your posts.

You have no logical answer.

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

---

I'll consider any objective evidence when you produce some.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

---

I'll consider any objective evidence when you produce some.

---

Or you could just pay attention to more than your assumptions.