• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
Just for clarity sake (on DOC's Behalf). The Jewish Messiah is NOT divine.
Click to expand...

Yes, correct, sorry to leave that out.

For the Messiah (Meshiach) to be divine would have disqualified him from being the Messiah in second temple Judaism. It should have disqualified him from being altogether since from the time of Josiah onward there was supposed to be only the one God. I'm sure there were still plenty of henotheists and possibly polytheists around in Judaism even after the Babylonian exile -- we know from Maccabees that plenty of folks took on Greek customs at the very least.

The Mashiach was to be an anointed one who filled a divinely sanctioned position such as king, priest or prophet.

References to the anointed as king: 1 Sa 10:1; 1 Sa 16:13; 2 Sa 2:4; 2 Sa 5:3

References to the anointed as priest: Exod 28:41; Lev 8:12; Lev 8:30

References to the anointed as prophet: 1 Ki 19:16; 1 Chr 16:22; Isa 61:1
 
Hokulele said:
Heh, no. But remember, if you were planning to shoot with anything like decent concentration, you put yourself on the wrong side of shirtlessness. :D
Click to expand...

Well, if you're that good shirtless, then from my position of the question, I'm already a winner! :D
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
Yes, but his sentences did imply that the other uses of the expression elsewhere in the Bible were due to 'just some Jewish writer'... That's how I take it, at least.
Click to expand...
I have an idea as to the source of the confusion


Simon39759 said:
his [DOC's] sentences did imply
Click to expand...
That ain't necessarily so...

As in DOC's favourite fantasy stories, an implied meaning and an otherwise obvious inference are by no means one and the same

Some call this poetic licence

Others call it lying for Jeebus
 
It is always amusing to see how the non-believers are more educated about DOC's holy book than he is.
 
paximperium said:
It is always amusing to see how the non-believers are more educated about DOC's holy book than he is.
Click to expand...
Well, that's Ehrman's entire background.

He started out as a fundementalist and wanted to learn more about the word of god. So he started reading the oldest texts and started to realize that he couldn't remain fundie and honest. He decided honesty was best.
 
joobz said:
Well, that's Ehrman's entire background.

He started out as a fundementalist and wanted to learn more about the word of god. So he started reading the oldest texts and started to realize that he couldn't remain fundie and honest. He decided honesty was best.
Click to expand...
Ehrmann, Bob Price and Dan Barker are a couple of others that come to mind.
 
RobRoy said:
Ah, I see where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I do see it.

While DOC may have been referencing other Jewish authors outside of the Bible (whom believers might be willing to discount), I don't see that his comment had to do with those of the Bible. Again, he's making an appeal to authority. Now, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know why he would want to undermine the authority of the authors of the Bible just to provide more authority to Mark.
Click to expand...

But the reference was about the use of the phrase 'Son of God' in the Old Testament.
Really, I don't particularly care, it was just a passing remark, I just found it weird...
 
paximperium said:
A history lesson in what? The rote prayers that Washington used?
Big whoop.
Click to expand...

Respectful correction: the rote prayers that Washington is alleged to have used. (No primary source is given; the quotes are drawn from a book called George Washington, the Christian, from a religious publishing house in 1919.)

I've been following this thread with amusement. It's most entertaining. Has DOC used anything other than Argument from Irrelevant Authority?
 
DOC said:
The Law of Non Contradiction. Both Mormonism and mainline Christianity can't be right.
Click to expand...

But "There was one angel sitting atop the stone outside the tomb",

"There was one MAN sitting INSIDE the tomb",

"There were TWO men STANDING inside the tomb", and

"There were two ANGELS SITTING inside the tomb"

can all be right?
 
Simon39759 said:
But the reference was about the use of the phrase 'Son of God' in the Old Testament.
Really, I don't particularly care, it was just a passing remark, I just found it weird...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And for full caveat I'm only trying to interpret what DOC is saying. I don't know for certain that I'm correct. After all, who among us can know the mind of DOC?
 
Cactus Wren said:
But "There was one angel sitting atop the stone outside the tomb",

"There was one MAN sitting INSIDE the tomb",

"There were TWO men STANDING inside the tomb", and

"There were two ANGELS SITTING inside the tomb"

can all be right?
Click to expand...
Can you imagine a DA using similar evidence to make a conviction.

Your honor we have 4 witnesses to the murder.
witness1: Yes the killer was a black man, and he was outside the building with a gun.
Witness2: Yes, there were two white killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Witness3: The killer was a white guy and he had a knife.
Witness4: There were 2 black killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Judge: YOur accounts do not agree, which one of you is telling the truth?
Witnesses: We all are. They are all true.
Defendant: Your Honor, we wish to file a motion to dismiss all charges on the grounds that the witnesses are retarded.
 
joobz said:
Can you imagine a DA using similar evidence to make a conviction.

Your honor we have 4 witnesses to the murder.
witness1: Yes the killer was a black man, and he was outside the building with a gun.
Witness2: Yes, there were two white killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Witness3: The killer was a white guy and he had a knife.
Witness4: There were 2 black killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Judge: Your accounts do not agree, which one of you is telling the truth?
Witnesses: We all are. They are all true.
Defendant: Your Honor, we wish to file a motion to dismiss all charges on the grounds that the witnesses are retarded.
Click to expand...



:clap:


But the Prosecution then claims that "Differences like this are to be expected in eyewitness accounts, and thus prove that the defendant is guilty. If there were all the same, that would be too suspicious."
 
there is no evidence anything that happened in the NT...actually happened that way.

i have as much faith in the NT as I have in Beowulf.

The Bible is a story.....with a message. That's all its meant to be. Its not a history book.
 
RobRoy said:
Fair enough. And for full caveat I'm only trying to interpret what DOC is saying. I don't know for certain that I'm correct. After all, who among us can know the mind of DOC?
Click to expand...

No problem at all.

So are you a Mormon?
:D
Seriously, are you an ex-mormon?
Your board name suggest Scotland, but that's not a place I'd normally associate with Mormonism (or not/ex-mormonism)
 
X said:
But the Prosecution then claims that "Differences like this are to be expected in eyewitness accounts, and thus prove that the defendant is guilty. If there were all the same, that would be too suspicious."
Click to expand...
That's why, in any true McDemocracy, all High Court judges must be trained in the art of dowsing!
 
six7s said:
That's why, in any true McDemocracy, all High Court judges must be trained in the art of dowsing!
Click to expand...
And don't forget that all the defendants were willing to testify in the court of all, which proves what they said was true! At least in this instance. In other cases, the testimonies didn't prove truth because we didn't know the defendant was guilty. But in this SPECIAL case, I PLEAD that their testimonies prove the man(men)'s guilt.
 
RobRoy said:
Hey, hey, Revelation is in the future, so unless you're claiming to have paranormal-I-know-the-future-capabilities, there's no way you can know that this is wrong. Unlike the guy who wrote it.
Click to expand...
Actually Revelation is a failed prophecy of the past. Like the return of jesus in one generation. People just like to imagine they can still come true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom