Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

---

Already did. You should try it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

---

Already did. You should try it.

---

You have a problem discerning objectivity and reality. That's our disconnect.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

---

Already did. You should try it.

---

You have a problem discerning objectivity and reality. That's our disconnect.

---

Vice verse, as well you know.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

They were NOT converted to Christianity. They were converted into a Marian cult.

This is the whole problem. You don't know what Christianity really is. To you, Christianity deeply involves mariolatry, because that's what you've been led to believe your entire life. It's your identity. You've been brainwashed into it. And because you aren't regenerated by the Holy Spirit, you completely lack the discernment to know what it is you're actually doing and saying (bowing and praying to Mary and crediting her for your salvation) and how clear and obvious it is that it isn't from God, it's from the Devil.

Therefore, when people are converted into the same belief system you are in, i.e. Roman Catholicism, naturally you think they've converted into Christianity. But they've been converted, rather, into a counterfeit Christianity. One that does just enough to look like actual Christianity, even mimicking the vocabulary and using the same texts, but which twists and distorts it just enough to render it into a fatal error. It tricks people into thinking they are a Christian, but the truth is they've been lied to, and have been led away from true Christianity. And this is EXACTLY the modus operandi of Satan. He takes the truth, and twists and distorts it, and takes people down with him. THIS is the fruit that is born of Satan.

It's sooo bad, that you actually believe it's "Satanic" to be "hardened" against "the Mother of God", a completely unbiblical title, a title that arose from the Christian compromise with Roman paganism. There is NO "Mother of God". God NEVER told us that. That came from the whims of fallible man. Jesus never even called Mary his "mother" in Scripture. Yet, somehow your "church" turned Mary into nothing short of a goddess, who is co-equal in attributes to that of Jesus Christ. And you made this belief about her a requirement, or you go to Hell. If you can not recognize this as surely NOT being from God, then you are nothing but a complete fool.

For the love of God, man, HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE:

*******************************************************
"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."
******************************************************

To the Roman Catholics reading this who can't see the problem there, or think it's actually justifiable in some way, shape, or form: simply stated, you do not belong to God, you are of the Devil. I'm not addressing you. However, to the Roman Catholics who really are true believers and do belong to God, and who know this is wrong: I plead with you to open your eyes, stop all this, repent, and get out. "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues" - God

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

The Apparition was a force for good that converted locals to Christianity. Whereas, the events surrounding the founding of Mormonism and Islam were most likely a demon pulling souls away from the Christian God.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

The Apparition was a force for good that converted locals to Christianity. Whereas, the events surrounding the founding of Mormonism and Islam were most likely a demon pulling souls away from the Christian God.

---

The problem is your account is Catholics saying Mary appeared and it's true because the Catholics say so.

As a Christian, I believe God performs miracles, and I believe He acted in that event. But I will not apply a different standard to a Christian claim than I would to a Mormon or Muslim claim.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

The Apparition was a force for good that converted locals to Christianity. Whereas, the events surrounding the founding of Mormonism and Islam were most likely a demon pulling souls away from the Christian God.

---

The problem is your account is Catholics saying Mary appeared and it's true because the Catholics say so.

As a Christian, I believe God performs miracles, and I believe He acted in that event. But I will not apply a different standard to a Christian claim than I would to a Mormon or Muslim claim.

---

You can simply go Look at it. I have.

Praise God

Mother Mary, pray for us!!!

It's fake.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

wow. Thanks for the substantive reply with proof of your claim.

You may want to get your own podcast or YT channel. I'm sure folks would flock to it with the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

You can go view the nearly 500-year-old tilma today with your own eyes. It should have broken down after 30 - 50 years, yet spent more than 100 years in the humid, salty air and candle smoke before it was put behind glass. It survived an explosion caused by the Mexican government in an attempt to destroy it. By the power of God, it survived.

Please cite any LDS or Muslim veridical claim that that we can witness. What "cred" do they have? Golden plates? Broken moon?

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real