• 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.
This is an empty post unless you present at least 3 significant modern findings that provide evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Huh? we're talking Sir Ramsay and archaeology?
 
Last edited:
Is that the best you can do? What about gods power? Isn't he able to see the future as well as the past/ A timeless being? Surely such a being would see the faults in the creation and rectify them before he created.

Yes if God wants to create robots. But I would have to assume a perfect God didn't want to create robots programmed not to sin. He wanted to give us the gift of perfect free will.

He also could have programmed us to love Him and our neighbor but then that wouldn't have been real love.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the Archaeology Proves the Bible? thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149824 where DOC's source has also been discredited.

Not according to Phase Inverter:


Originally Posted by Phase Inverter

Apparently this is indeed a direct quote from Ramsay:

"this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Ramsay, William. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953. p. 222.
 
Not according to Phase Inverter:


Originally Posted by Phase Inverter

Apparently this is indeed a direct quote from Ramsay:

"this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Ramsay, William. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953. p. 222.

Shame on you DOC, bearing false witness agan. Did you read the rest of that post you just quote-mined?
Apparently this is indeed a direct quote from Ramsay:


"this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Ramsay, William. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953. p. 222.


In light of this information I make the following correction:

Well, it seems that the phrase "world's greatest historian" was not pretty much what Ramsay actually said. However Additionally, there are still those, such as DOC, that do agree with Ramsay and also regard the author of "Luke" as a great historian.​


There, now that it's been corrected, I can continue:

I recognize the historical value of any ancient text, I just have (potential) issue with referring to the gospel authors as historians (using the modern usage of the word) much like I have issue with referring to the gospels as eyewitness accounts.​
 
Last edited:
Sir William Ramsay didn't think it was nonsense when he discovered there was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus. When you give a source I'll give one.
And Father Murphy O'COnnor's Point is that the birth didn't take place in ROME but an independant Jewish state. The Roman Census story is "COMPLETE NONSENSE"

If you have evidence that JEsus was born in roman territory, than that would be a different thing. BUt as it stands, the story is false. Luke made it up. At least according to the MODERN Biblical scholar and Dominican Priest, Father Dr.Murphy-O'Connor.
 
Last edited:
Yes if God wants to create robots. But I would have to assume a perfect God didn't want to create robots programmed not to sin.


Why assume this?

He wanted to give us the gift of perfect free will.


What do you mean by free will?

He also could have programmed us to love Him and our neighbor but then that wouldn't have been real love.


What makes that love any more real than a programmed version?
 
Yes if God wants to create robots. But I would have to assume a perfect God didn't want to create robots programmed not to sin. He wanted to give us the gift of perfect free will.

He also could have programmed us to love Him and our neighbor but then that wouldn't have been real love.


God seems pretty constrained for a purported all powerful being.
 
So using the bible to cite itself, an archeologist from the early days of modern archeology, and your post count are enough proof to satisfy the OP?
 
Google Books limit users to the US only. It's posted on the first few pages of this thread. It was then subsequently torn to shreds. This is about the tenth time he keeps parroting Geisler, probably one of the worst apologists out there.
 
It's posted on the first few pages of this thread. It was then subsequently torn to shreds.
I disagree, so it looks like people will have to actually read the thread.

And any troll who has never read one word of a thread can go into any thread and tell the thread creator that his/her arguments have been demolished or torn to threads -- It means nothing.
 
I disagree, so it looks like people will have to actually read the thread.
Yup. Its a very short read. The arguments are shredded within the first ten pages and everything else is DOC repeating the same nonsense ad nauseaum and playing the martyr.
It means nothing.
Except when it is true.
 
Yes if God wants to create robots. But I would have to assume a perfect God didn't want to create robots programmed not to sin. He wanted to give us the gift of perfect free will.

He also could have programmed us to love Him and our neighbor but then that wouldn't have been real love.

Why assume this?

Because I would think a perfect God has more depth than that.

What do you mean by free will?

Not being a robot, like you would be if God programmed you never to do evil.


What makes that love any more real than a programmed version?
Are you kidding?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom