• 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:
and what does it say on the trustworthiness?

Start with the order and method where Ramsay says So right at the start Ramsay says that the following is not scientific and that it is subject to his bias, As you keep reminding us he was a Christian.

However this qualifier and fact that he was a Christian does not mean that he did not explicitly state where evidence was lacking.



So what are the surrounding facts in the bible story that can be proved and what are the essential elements that can not? As Ramsay admits there is no evidence that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Given Mary can not be proven the virgin and holy Ghost story fails the evidential test. As does the trek to Bethlehem for the alleged census.

While you may get excited by the index this book does not help you. Show me where in the book Ramsay gives evidence for any of the supernatural events in the bible.
Click to expand...

Lothian how come you don't give the url. What url are you getting this from so we can read it in context. By not giving the URL it gives the impression of cherry picking.
 
zooterkin said:
Got any evidence that god exists? Scared of having to think for yourself?
Click to expand...
What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews. Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else. Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews. Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else. Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.
Click to expand...
Thread derail again. How does any of your nonsense have anything to do with "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" or have you completely given up on that?
 
DOC said:
What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews. Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else. Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I have this correct......... without an absolute, it is not possible, even in theory, for one set of practices to be better or more conducive to life than another set of practices? Is that what you really think?

I don't know of any person who has ever believed the sort of ethical relativism that you portray. No, not one.
 
DOC said:
I never argued Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves, you must have me confused with joobz.
Click to expand...
You must have everyone confused with being idiots and someone who has not read your apologies for Jesus' pro-slavery and YOUR OWN pro-beating of slaves stance.
And please put all slavery references in joobz slavery forum
Click to expand...
Ahhh, the forum you cowardly refuse to participate after being continuously being shown to be wrong.
And by the way I"ve already shown that Luke 12:47 talks about servants not slaves. The word doulos that was used in the Greek was translated over a hundred times in the bible and it never was translated as slave only servant, or bondsman -- mostly as servant..
Click to expand...
No you haven't. You've claimed that you've "explained it" and have used pretty stupid apologists websites to try to apologize your way out of it but in all, a slave is a slave in your magic book and your pro-beating of "doulos" is evil.
 
Hokulele said:
Because he is citing an actual book, rather than a website.
Click to expand...

So are you saying Lothian typed all the following out by hand and didn't get it from a URL


Quote:
"arguments regarding the trustworthiness of the ancient authors generally cannot be dissociated from a certain element of subjectivity, and made purely scientific. We must therefore frankly acknowledge that a thoroughly scientific character cannot be given to the present or to any similar argument regarding historical trustworthiness. The case is stated as it appears to the writer, and others will judge for themselves; but it seems then necessary to premise a statement regarding his bent and attitude of mind, so that readers may be in a position to judge what allowance to make for his prejudices and proclivities and personal bias. In the main part of the book there is no attempt to follow a strictly scientific order, because, as has just been said, the subject is not susceptible of strictly scientific treat.



Why, don't you have access to the books you keep referencing?
Click to expand...
If I give a quote, I usually give a URL I got it from whereas Lothian rarely does this regarding Ramsay which make reading his quotes in context difficult. He doesn't even give the page number of the above quote. Thus it could argued there is cherry picking occurring.
 
DOC said:
So are you saying Lothian typed all the following out by hand and didn't get it from a URL
Click to expand...
When I quote Ramsay the last time, I typed it by hand. Are you attempting a lame ad hominem with an Argument from Incredulity DOC boy?
If I give a quote, I usually give a URL I got it from whereas Lothian rarely does this regarding Ramsay which make reading his quotes in context difficult. He doesn't even give the page number of the above quote. Thus it could argued there is cherry picking occurring.
Click to expand...
So why don't you have the book you keep referencing to be able to look up the original?
 
Lothian said:
I am happy to provide references where required. Let me know which bits you are having trouble finding and I will give you the page number of the book.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you typed out the quote I show in post 5849 and didn't cut and paste it. And you should always give a page number if you have a hard copy of a book.
 
What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews. Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else. Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.
Click to expand...

Let us all be grateful this person believes in God because, by his own statement, that is all that keeps him from being a mass murderer. And his mentor, as well.

I never understand why people who say stuff like this don't see that.

So are you saying Lothian typed all the following out by hand and didn't get it from a URL

Quote:
"arguments regarding the trustworthiness of the ancient authors generally cannot be dissociated from a certain element of subjectivity, and made purely scientific. We must therefore frankly acknowledge that a thoroughly scientific character cannot be given to the present or to any similar argument regarding historical trustworthiness. The case is stated as it appears to the writer, and others will judge for themselves; but it seems then necessary to premise a statement regarding his bent and attitude of mind, so that readers may be in a position to judge what allowance to make for his prejudices and proclivities and personal bias. In the main part of the book there is no attempt to follow a strictly scientific order, because, as has just been said, the subject is not susceptible of strictly scientific treat.

If I give a quote, I usually give a URL I got it from whereas Lothian rarely does this regarding Ramsay which make reading his quotes in context difficult. He doesn't even give the page number of the above quote. Thus it could argued there is cherry picking occurring.
Click to expand...

ROFL. This is one of the funniest, not to say stupidest, things you have ever written. Some people actually read books- you know, those things with pages you turn, with words written on them - and do take the time to copy passages they think useful or relevant to the subject under discussion.

I have sometimes done it myself.
 
DOC said:
What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews. Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else. Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth I said:
Let us all be grateful this person believes in God because, by his own statement, that is all that keeps him from being a mass murderer. And his mentor, as well.

I never understand why people who say stuff like this don't see that.
Click to expand...

Your statement is not logical. If I didn't believe in God, that doesn't mean I would be a mass murderer. I might not have a desire to be a mass murderer for a variety of reasons. I might even believe it is wrong to be a mass murderer, but it would then just be an opinion without God, and I would have no right to tell someone else who believed mass murdering is OK they were wrong because without God and absolute morality they have just as much a right to their belief as I do to mine.
 
Your statement is not logical. If I didn't believe in God, that doesn't mean I would be a mass murderer. I might not have a desire to be a mass murderer for a variety of reasons. I might even believe it is wrong to be a mass murderer, but it would then just be an opinion without God, and I would have no right to tell someone else who believed mass murdering is OK they were wrong because without God and absolute morality they have just as much a right to their belief as I do to mine.
Click to expand...

Of course you would. In the United States we do it all the time. We call them laws - rules and principles that our society decides will govern how we interact with each other.

They arise from logic and empathy. A great number of people say, "Gosh, I wouldn't like it if I were murdered, so it's logical to suppose that other people wouldn't like it either. Maybe we should stop people from murdering other people."

You have said that without God there is nothing stopping people from antisocial behavior. "People" includes you. Maybe you don't want to be a mass murderer. Maybe you just want to be a Bernie Madoff and ruin the lives of thousands who trusted you. Without God, what's stopping you? Maybe you want to stalk young women and terrorize them. Without God, what's stopping you? Maybe you want to set fire to thousands of acres of land. Without God, what's stopping you?

Or is it just that you are better than all the rest of us and you can control yourself but all us raging sociopaths can't? Spiritually arrogant as well as ignorant, are you?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Translation: I have done the same thing DOC is doing, and quoted from books that I never possessed or read entirely.
Click to expand...
Yes I have; BUT I have read them. But you see, my arguments do not rely one ONE person like your irrelevant and stupid arguments do. When I quote someone, it is only ONE piece of evidence I provide and supported by my training and knowledge.

On the other hand, your entire retarded argument relies on archeological knowledge over 1 century old that you're not even familiar with. How does that change the fact that you are quoting someone you have never read and seem to have no understanding of his writings?

How does any of this thread derail have anything to do with the OP?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom