Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[paximperium]

Win!

There are so many wins against DOC that it kinda feels cheap...its like getting a medal just for competing ...or winning a boxing match against a 7year old one legged blind girl while armed with a tank.

 

[MIKILLINI]

So you're saying it did not mean what it said when it says "Being forty days tempted of the devil.

40 days? This is something I have some difficulty with. The reason being that if Jesus can be shown the kingdoms with all their glory in a moment of time, what else would be left to tempt him for the next 30+ days?
Perhaps Satan told him "I'll give you a couple weeks to think it over?"

 

[truethat]

You can buy a copy for under $4.

http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?M=DOVER-PUBLICATIONS&ID=2068062&ref=GB

Actually Jefferson never called it the Jefferson Bible. He called it the life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

And do you think Jesus took LSD back in Bible times?

You didn't answer the question. What wisdom. Surely there must be some earth shattering wisdom in the bible that comes up with something better than "do unto others" etc, since the Teletubbies and Barney have that message nailed as well.

What wisdom.


I challenge you DOC to write three messages of wisdom from the bible.


I don't think you can.

 

[boloboffin]

Yes, this is what some have called "Cafeteria Christianity" -- I'll take a little of this, and a little of that, and discard what I don't like.

A prime example of this is Thomas Jefferson's Bible, which you continue to hold up as an worthy example. BTW, it was "left hand not letting the right hand know what it's doing," not left brain and right brain.

Only one of two of Josephus' references to Jesus has been argued a interpolation. The other is considered authentic.

Sadly, no.

 

[Lothian]

So you're saying it did not mean what it said when it says "Being forty days tempted of the devil.



I thought he was supposed to be in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. If you walk from a high mountain top to a temple inside Jerusalem that would probably take about 3 or 4 days and at least another day or two to walk back into the wilderness. So according to your belief that 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness was interrupted by at least a day or two while in the busy city of Jerusalem. If it was all happening in the spirit the 40 days and 40 nights would not be interrupted.

Doc,

You really should read the bible some time.

Luke
4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. Satan Tempts Jesus
4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

The 40 days end then the devil tempted him and afterwards took him up the mountain then on to Jerusalem, as is clear from

Matthew

4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple.


I think your spirit story is dead in the water but if you want to fish it out perhaps you could revisit this bit

Anyway when Jesus was baptized he came out of the water and saw the heavens open up to him and the Holy Spirit descend like a dove. Notice it says nothing about whether John also saw this happening or whether John heard God's voice which would seem odd if John in fact did see and hear what was happening to Jesus. This implies this was all happening in the spirit

in light of

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.


Did I mention that you should read the bible?

 

[DOC]

Are you going to produce any of the evidence in support of the OP?

Haven't you read my 259 posts.

You ask for evidence, what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe that the New Testament writers told the truth? If you can't answer that question, you are phony for asking.

 

[zooterkin]

Haven't you read my 259 posts.

You ask for evidence, what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe that the New Testament writers told the truth? If you can't answer that question, you are phony for asking.

How many unicorns would it take to pull Santa's sleigh?

Let's worry about the quantity and quality of evidence just as soon as you start producing any.

 

[DOC]

Doc,I think your spirit story is dead in the water but if you want to fish it out perhaps you could revisit this bit

in light of

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

So, we have a claim that John the Baptist (who is a historical figure according to Josephus) saw something physical descend on Jesus (another historical figure who was mentioned twice by Josephus). I thank you for bringing that in because Geisler also talks how John (the Gospel writer) was also a very detailed accurate person just like Luke was. I'll bring in that info just how detailed John was within the next couple of days.

And if you don't want to believe in God because of a verse where it says the devil showed Christ all the kingdoms of the world in a "moment of time" that is certainly your right.

 

[zooterkin]

So, we have a claim that John the Baptist (who is a historical figure according to Josephus) saw something physical descend on Jesus (another historical figure who was mentioned twice by Josephus). I thank you for bringing that in because Geisler also talks how John (the Gospel writer) was also a very detailed accurate person just like Luke was. I'll bring in that info just how detailed John was within the next couple of days.

You're not at all embarrassed about your earlier statement, then?

 

[DOC]

Are you going to produce any of the evidence in support of the OP?

Haven't you read my 259 posts.

You ask for evidence, what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe that the New Testament writers told the truth? If you can't answer that question, you are phony for asking.

How many unicorns would it take to pull Santa's sleigh?

Let's worry about the quantity and quality of evidence just as soon as you start producing any.

You didn't answer my question in a specific way the way I answered Darat when he asked a similar question. That tells me no amount of evidence short of seeing Christ in the flesh would satisfy you. And if that is true, then, yes, I will admit I haven't presented evidence that Christ is currently physically visible in this thread.

 

[Lothian]

So, we have a claim that John the Baptist (who is a historical figure according to Josephus) saw something physical descend on Jesus (another historical figure who was mentioned twice by Josephus). I thank you for bringing that in because Geisler also talks how John (the Gospel writer) was also a very detailed accurate person just like Luke was. I'll bring in that info just how detailed John was within the next couple of days.

Josephus has been dealt with.
I would be interested to hear what John said about the trip up the mountain.

And if you don't want to believe in God because of a verse where it says the devil showed Christ all the kingdoms of the world in a "moment of time" that is certainly your right.

I have no reason to believe in God, the verse does not change that. The mountain story simply tells me that your claim that Luke is a detailed and accurate account is false or God did not know that the world he created was a globe.

 

[zooterkin]

You didn't answer my question in a specific way the way I answered Darat when he asked a similar question. That tells me no amount of evidence short of seeing Christ in the flesh would satisfy you. And if that is true, then, yes, I will admit I haven't presented evidence that Christ is currently physically visible in this thread.

As it seems to have slipped your mind, the thread topic is, "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."

You have already been told several times what might count as evidence. One example would be independent (i.e. not in the bible) first-hand (i.e. not a report of what Christians believed) reports of the events in the bible.

 

[DOC]

You're not at all embarrassed about your earlier statement, then?

No, it hasn't been disproved. I still believe Christ could have been seeing the devil in the spirit for some of the reasons I gave earlier. The spirit is what is really matters anyway with God, the physical is of much lesser importance.

 

[Lothian]

yes, I will admit I haven't presented evidence

Acceptance is the first step.

 

[Lothian]

No, it hasn't been disproved. I still believe Christ could have been seeing the devil in the spirit for some of the reasons I gave earlier. The spirit is what is really matters anyway with God, the physical is of much lesser importance.

Are you saying that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead and those who were reported as claiming to do so did so spiritually?

 

[zooterkin]

No, it hasn't been disproved. I still believe Christ could have been seeing the devil in the spirit for some of the reasons I gave earlier. The spirit is what is really matters anyway with God, the physical is of much lesser importance.

I should have been clearer, though I think it was pretty obvious from the context. I meant this:

Anyway when Jesus was baptized he came out of the water and saw the heavens open up to him and the Holy Spirit descend like a dove. Notice it says nothing about whether John also saw this happening or whether John heard God's voice which would seem odd if John in fact did see and hear what was happening to Jesus. This implies this was all happening in the spirit (although it is certainly possible it was happening in the natural). Then it says and "immediately" the "Spirit" driveth him into the wilderness".

After being corrected by Lothian, you have the front to switch claims without even acknowledging your error.

So, we have a claim that John the Baptist (who is a historical figure according to Josephus) saw something physical descend on Jesus (another historical figure who was mentioned twice by Josephus).

I'd suggest you take a sabbatical from this forum, and go and find out what it is you actually believe in, and what it's based on, before exposing yourself to more ridicule.

 

[joobz]

So, we have a claim that John the Baptist (who is a historical figure according to Josephus) saw something physical descend on Jesus (another historical figure who was mentioned twice by Josephus). I thank you for bringing that in because Geisler also talks how John (the Gospel writer) was also a very detailed accurate person just like Luke was. I'll bring in that info just how detailed John was within the next couple of days.

And if you don't want to believe in God because of a verse where it says the devil showed Christ all the kingdoms of the world in a "moment of time" that is certainly your right.

The Movie JFK by Oliver Stone contained many Historical Figures:
JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw.
I'd say nearly the whole movie contained people who did exist.

Now, Let me ask you:
Why Would Oliver Stone go through the trouble of including historically real people include historically accurate events and then also make up parts of the movie from whole cloth?

Using your arguments (actually Geisler's arguments), you must also accept the arugment that the movie is a 100% truthful account of the kennedy assasination.

 

[DOC]

you have the front to switch claims without even acknowledging your error.

There was no error in what I said, I was talking about the gospel of Luke, and now that one of the other 90 posters in this thread has discovered that the historical figure John did indeed see the spirit descend on Christ, I still maintain that Christ could have been seeing the devil in the spirit. I don't believe Christ and the devil physically walked through the streets of Jerusalem to get to the temple, do you.

 

[DOC]

yes, I will admit I haven't presented evidence

Acceptance is the first step.

Your cutting off my quote was deceptive at best, and totally out of context. The entire quote is below.

You didn't answer my question in a specific way the way I answered Darat when he asked a similar question. That tells me no amount of evidence short of seeing Christ in the flesh would satisfy you. And if that is true, then, yes, I will admit I haven't presented evidence that Christ is currently physically visible in this thread.

 

[Lothian]

There was no error in what I said, I was talking about the gospel of Luke, and now that one of the other 90 posters in this thread has discovered that the historical figure John did indeed see the spirit descend on Christ, I still maintain that Christ could have been seeing the devil in the spirit.

Why didn't he just use his eyes?

I don't believe Christ and the devil physically walked through the streets of Jerusalem to get to the temple, do you.

No, I don't believe in the devil either.