• 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.
DOC said:
Sorry to hear that, but it's your life I guess.
Click to expand...
Actually, thinking this thread was meaningful is even sadder.
I would be willing to change my opinion if you could:

1.) Actually provide evidence (not hear say or fallacious appeals to authority)
2.) Explain how a person can tell the truth by making up stories (e.g., census story in Luke).
3.) If you claim that Luke was right, then explain how the bible writers could claim to tell the truth when Matthew was wrong about Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem. (both can't be right)
4.) Provide actual evidence that jesus rose from the dead
5.) Explain why you claim Jesus is so moral, yet condoned beating slaves.
 
DOC said:
Then what was the comment I made?
Click to expand...

You actually wrote the words, "No comment." To really provide "no comment" you wouldn't have said anything at all. Instead, you felt the need to post the words "no comment" which are a comment in themselves. Taken at face value they say you've chosen, for whatever reason, to refrain from comment on someone's actions or statements. Delving deeper, the phrase could be taken as self-depreciating:

joobz: RobRoy, you're an ass!
RobRoy: No comment! :D

A commentary on a statement you feel is beneath you:

RobRoy: . . . and then, the fluffy pink bunny rabbit picked me up, and let me ride on his back all the way to La-La land where there was milk, and honey, and chocolate, and those marshmallow chicks, and . . .
joobz: No comment!

Or it could be a sarcastic statement, after someone has said something you find particularly silly or unworthy of addressing:

RobRoy: Huphlelumps!
joobz: No comment.

And that's just scratching the surface! You clearly wanted some kind of response, either from me, joobz, or both of us, else you would have left this thread, which has largely devolved into banality. Instead, you decided to make a post, and thus a comment, and decided to make it obscure enough in the vain hope that, if challenged, you might be able to play it off as just another banality. Of course, then you make the idiotic move of actually challenging the idea that stating "No comment" is not in itself a comment of some kind, even of the literal variety. Please DOC, you're many things, but you're not stupid, and neither are we. You should at least treat us with the respect our intelligence deserves.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
If you claim that Luke was right, then explain how the bible writers could claim to tell the truth when Matthew was wrong about Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem. (both can't be right)
Click to expand...
Matthew didn't say Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, Father Murphy O'Connor did.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I don't believe he does say -- He just says Jesus was born there.
Click to expand...

Funny how you're prepared to speculate and stretch things to support your position, and yet you won't draw an obvious conclusion based on what is written. If it wasn't Bethlehem where they were living, then surely that would have been mentioned.

Is there anything in Matthew to suggest that Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth before their unexplained, and unremarked, visit to Bethlehem?
 
zooterkin said:
Funny how you're prepared to speculate and stretch things to support your position, and yet you won't draw an obvious conclusion based on what is written.
Click to expand...

It is not speculating when a man who has been called one of the world's greatest historians (like Gospel writer Luke has) says Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth and Gospel writer Mathew is silent on where they were living before the birth of Jesus. The preponderance of the evidence is that they were living in Nazareth. To think otherwise is speculating.
 
DOC said:
Matthew didn't say Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, Father Murphy O'Connor did.
Click to expand...
Matthew 1:24
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Click to expand...
Matthew 2:1
1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea,...
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
It is not speculating when a man who has been called one of the world's greatest historians (like Gospel writer Luke has) says Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth
Click to expand...
because he made up a story to fit the narrative better.
DOC said:
and Gospel writer Mathew is silent on where they were living before the birth of Jesus. The preponderance of the evidence is that they were living in Nazareth. To think otherwise is speculating.
Click to expand...
So Matthew was wrong. Ok.
I'm cool with that.
 
DOC said:
It is not speculating when a man who has been called one of the world's greatest historians (like Gospel writer Luke has) says Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth and Gospel writer Mathew is silent on where they were living before the birth of Jesus. The preponderance of the evidence is that they were living in Nazareth. To think otherwise is speculating.
Click to expand...
Doc, Is the person you refer to as one of the world's greatest historians the same historian, Sir William Ramsay, who said we do not even know if Mary was the mother of Jesus.
 
Posted by DOC
Matthew didn't say Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, Father Murphy O'Connor did.

Posted by Joobz
Matthew 1:24
Quote:
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matthew 2:1
Quote:
1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea,...

____

Doc: Well the King James Version doesn't say anything about "home". It just says Joseph took unto him his wife.

But even using your version It doesn't say anything about where Joseph was living.


And your Matthew 2:1 quote (which is different in the King James) is the beginning of a new chapter and means nothing other than Jesus was born after Joseph and Mary were married.
 
DOC said:
It is not speculating when a man who has been called one of the world's greatest historians (like Gospel writer Luke has) . . .

Appeal to (dodgy) authority.


. . . says Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth and Gospel writer Mathew is silent on where they were living before the birth of Jesus.

Absence of evidence etc.


The preponderance of the evidence is that they were living in Nazareth.

Hyperbole.


To think otherwise is speculating.

False trichotomy
Click to expand...


Quadrella!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom