• 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.
Lothian said:
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.
Click to expand...

From a archaeologist's perspective we don't know, but that didn't keep him from believing it as he was converted to Christianity.
 
DOC said:
From a archaeologist's perspective we don't know, but that didn't keep him from believing it as he was converted to Christianity.
Click to expand...
proving, once again, that people are willing to believe anything regardless of the evidence.
 
DOC said:
From a archaeologist's perspective we don't know, but that didn't keep him from believing it as he was converted to Christianity.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your statement that Ramsay's opinion are irrelevant without any ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.
(Edited to remove irrelevant speculative garbage.)
 
DOC said:
From a archaeologist's perspective we don't know, but that didn't keep him from believing it as he was converted to Christianity.
Click to expand...
Quite true but this thread is about evidence and Sir William Ramsey who you call one of the world's greatest historians has said that there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible. Unless you think he is wrong, and you have evidence, the thread is just about over (again).
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Strange that matthew would omit such a point, then, isn't it?
 
Lothian said:
Quite true but this thread is about evidence and Sir William Ramsey who you call one of the world's greatest historians has said that there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible. Unless you think he is wrong, and you have evidence, the thread is just about over (again).
Click to expand...

I give it another five to ten pages of DOC bringing it back to life, again, stating some random number of posts as evidence, again, and chalking it up to victory, again . . . before my banality takes hold, again.
 
Lothian said:
Quite true but this thread is about evidence and Sir William Ramsey who you call one of the world's greatest historians has said that there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible. Unless you think he is wrong, and you have evidence, the thread is just about over (again).
Click to expand...

I never called Ramsay one of the world's great historians but Ramsay did call Gospel writer Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

And Ramsay never said there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible.
 
RobRoy said:
How can that be a strawman, when he's agreeing with the statement of your cited source? It's not even an argument.
Click to expand...
DOC has never once shown an understanding of "strawman". He thinks by just calling something "strawman", it magically makes it so.

Paximperium-->Strawman!!!
Joobz-->Tinman!!!
Lothian-->Cowardly Lion!!!
RobRoy-->Dorothy!!!

DOC-->The Wizard!!!
 
paximperium said:
DOC has never once shown an understanding of "strawman". He thinks by just calling something "strawman", it magically makes it so.

Paximperium-->Strawman!!!
Joobz-->Tinman!!!
Lothian-->Cowardly Lion!!!
RobRoy-->Dorothy!!!

DOC-->The Wizard!!!
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, makes sense now why DOC keeps saying, "Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain!"
 
DOC said:
I never called Ramsay one of the world's great historians but Ramsay did call Gospel writer Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

And Ramsay never said there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible.
Click to expand...
He said "The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence. That truth exists and moves on a higher plane of thought."

What he is saying is the generality fits. There were Romans. There were prophets the geography is about tight but for the interesting parts of the bible; the supernatural; son of god; zombie bits there is no historical evidence. You can only find that through faith. There is no evidence for the important bits. Never mind Jesus's father he said there is no evidence that his mother was Mary.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And Ramsay never said there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible.
Click to expand...

Never, huh? Not once, in his entire life?

You've exhibited zero knowledge of Ramsay's career, beyond a single quote. And even for that particular quote, you've demonstrated that you really have no idea what information he based it on.

Unless you've been holding back massive amounts of information, which I doubt, I have to conclude that there's no way on God's green earth that you're familiar enough with Ramsay or his career to make that claim.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
DOC has never once shown an understanding of "strawman". He thinks by just calling something "strawman", it magically makes it so.
Click to expand...

The attack the messenger mode is heating up again, some of my posts must have hit home.

A strawman is misrepresenting someone's position in a debate which is what you did in post 5523 when you said this

"I completely agree with your statement that Ramsay's opinion are irrelevant without any ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE."

I never said this knighted archaeologist's opinions are irrelevant in any way and thus you are misrepresenting my position and thus a strawman.

I must admit though that you (and some others) are quite good at misrepresenting my position.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
A strawman is misrepresenting someone's position which is what you did in post 5523 when you said this
Click to expand...

Wrong. You substitute one argument with another, more easily defeated argument, knock it down (like a strawman), and declare victory.

Come to my debate class. I'll have some high school students school you in how this is done.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The attack the messenger mode is heating up again, some of my posts must have hit home.
Click to expand...

Premise is flawed, conclusion way off.

A strawman is misrepresenting someone's position which is what you did in post 5523 when you said this
Click to expand...

No, that's not what "strawman" means.

"I completely agree with your statement that Ramsay's opinion are irrelevant without any ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE."

I never said this knighted archaeologist's opinions are irrelevant in any way and thus you are misrepresenting my position and thus a strawman.

I must admit though that you (and some others) are quite good at misrepresenting my position.
Click to expand...

Given the way you misrepresent facts, you really have no business whining about others misrepresenting you.
 
DOC said:
I never said this knighted archaeologist's opinions are irrelevant in any way
Click to expand...
So when he said, talking of the bible story "The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence. That truth exists and moves on a higher plane of thought."
What are the surrounding facts that can be proved and what are the essential facts that have no evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom