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

[Akhenaten]

I simply was focused on the point I was making and mistakenly wrote Sir William M. Mitchel instead of Sir William M. Ramsay. I quickly edited the mistake. Mitchell is Ramsay's middle name. I try to use the M. because There is another famous William Ramsay who is a chemist.

I have talked about the archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay many times so it was just a mistake that was quickly corrected.

A dishonest response was expected. Those expectations are now met.

"quickly"? Nearly 45 minutes after the original post, and 6 minutes after it was pointed out? You might have had the decency to either acknowledge Akhenaten's correction, or note why you had made the edit if it was truly something you noticed yourself.

Exactly.

Sorry, I was probably focused on the many other posts. If you don't believe me so be it. This thread is not about me although a newbie would never know that by the amount of time people try to make it about me.

The thread is about nothing, because that which is described in the title simply doesn't exist. The dishonest attempts herein to sustain the unsustainable have reached the level of nauseating.

This little business about misnaming your own main source and then lying about the correction of it tells me, and doubtless many others pretty much all they need to know about yourself and your subject.

Carry on, Doc. You harm your own cause more than I ever could.

 

[pakeha]

Let's not forget that more happened surrounding Jonestown than what happened in the camp: A U.S. Congressman, Leo Ryan, and members of his entourage were murdered by Temple followers at the Port Kaituma airfield. Sharon Amos and her daughter Liane, on orders radioed to them from Jonestown, killed Sharon's two younger children Temple headquarters in Georgetown. Afterward, Sharon helped Liane take her own life then committed suicide herself.

But these people were coerced into committing these acts by Jim Jones, yes? I mean, there is just no way they acted on their own beliefs, right DOC?

Thanks for information, Mark A Seifert, that's new to me.
Time to read up on Jonestown and that group.

 

[DOC]

It's very self explanatory.

That's a cop out, you call something stupid and irrational but don't explain why. Any troll who never read one word of the thread could do the exact same thing.

I believe people don't explain themselves for 2 reasons.

1) It takes no work; in other words its the lazy man's debating method.

2) You guard yourself against me being able to respond to specific points of your argument since you don't give any.

You might fool some of the people with this lazy man's debating method, but I have to feel most people will eventually see through it.

 

[paximperium]

That's a cop out, you call something stupid and irrational but don't explain why. Any troll who never read one word of the thread could do the exact same thing.

I believe people don't explain themselves for 2 reasons.

1) It takes no work; in other words its the lazy man's debating method.

2) You guard yourself against me being able to respond to specific points of your argument since you don't give any.

You might fool some of the people with this lazy man's debating method, but I have to feel most people will eventually see through it.

I'm sorry did you have some evidence to present? No?

 

[DOC]

The thread is about nothing, because that which is described in the title simply doesn't exist. The dishonest attempts herein to sustain the unsustainable have reached the level of nauseating.

This little business about misnaming your own main source and then lying about the correction of it tells me, and doubtless many others pretty much all they need to know about yourself and your subject.

It scares me that there are probably people like you on jury duty. I guess that's why so many people get convicted wrongly. All this new DNA technology is freeing a lot of people wrongly convicted. Some have even been put to death wrongly

I've been through this same thing several times in my 2 and a half years on the system. It's the ol' "you took this much time and you took that much time" before you edited. Some people are desperate to find anything on me. And when they think they found one thing on me they jump on it like a pack of wolves. I'm not even going to spend one second looking at the times of my edit, because I've been through this all before. I know I just made a simple mistake on a name that I have used many times in here and corrected it when I noticed it upon rereading my post. I know this same thing will happen again in the future, but it's just part of the territory.

And your continued presence and responses in this thread will blow to pieces your statement that you find the thread nauseating.

I did not lie and if you don't believe me stay out of the thread but I have a feeling that won't happen.

 

[paximperium]

It scares me that there are probably people like you on jury duty. I guess that's why so many people get convicted wrongly. All this new DNA technology is freeing a lot of people wrongly convicted. Some have even been put to death wrongly

I've been through this same thing several times in my 2 and a half years on the line. It's the ol' "you took this much time and you took that much time" before you edited. Some people are desperate to find anything on me. And when they think they found one thing on me they jump on it like a pack of wolves. I'm not even going to spend one second looking at the times of my edit, because I've been through this all before. I know I just made a simple mistake on a name that I have used many times in here and corrected it when I noticed it upon rereading my post. I know this same thing will happen again in the future, but it's just part of the territory.

And your continued presence and responses in this thread will blow to pieces your statement that you find the thread nauseating.

I did not lie and if you don't believe me stay out of the thread but I have a feeling that won't happen.

I'm sorry did you have some evidence to present? No?

 

[DOC]

I'm sorry did you have some evidence to present? No?

You must have missed this website:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...efox-a#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

And also my other 1100 posts.

Those outside of the US will not be able to get info from the above website so you might try the following site by one of the authors of the book cited in post #1. If you want to see how highly detailed the Gospel writers Luke and John were scroll down to the 84 and 59 facts they presented in their NT writings.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

 

[paximperium]

You must have missed this website:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...efox-a#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

And my other 1100 posts.

Those outside of the US will not be able to get info from the above website so you might try this site by one of the authors of the book cited in post #1. If you want to see how highly detailed the Gospel writers Luke and John were scroll down to the 84 and 59 facts they presented in their NT writings.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

No I didn't miss it.
I'm sorry did you have some evidence to present?

 

[DOC]

No I didn't miss it.
I'm sorry did you have some evidence to present?

Any troll could continue to make this statement. My 1100 posts and the 2 websites in post #6567 speak for themselves. Your tactic might work in a live verbal debate but in this format with all my posts out there it's not going to work except with those who are maybe too lazy to read my posts. Anyone new to the thread probably the best place to start is the first listed website in post 6567.

 

[paximperium]

Any troll could continue to make this statement. My 1100 posts and the 2 websites in post #6567 speak for themselves. Your tactic might work in a live verbal debate but in this format with all my posts out there it's not going to work except with those who are maybe too lazy to read my posts. Anyone new to the thread probably the best place to start is the first listed website in post 6567.

Still waiting for evidence. Any? Any at all?

 

[Akhenaten]

It scares me that there are probably people like you on jury duty. I guess that's why so many people get convicted wrongly. All this new DNA technology is freeing a lot of people wrongly convicted. Some have even been put to death wrongly.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

I've been through this same thing several times in my 2 and a half years on the line. It's the ol' "you took this much time and you took that much time" before you edited. Some people are desperate to find anything on me. And when they think they found one thing on me they jump on it like a pack of wolves. I'm not even going to spend one second looking at the times of my edit, because I've been through this all before. I know I just made a simple mistake on a name that I have used many times in here and corrected it when I noticed it upon rereading my post. I know this same thing will happen again in the future, but it's just part of the territory.

I've seen it all too Doc, in my THIRTY years online. I largely agree with you. It's a tough Universe, but contend with it we must.

However, that's leading off topic.

Do you have any evidence to provide?

And your continued presence and responses in this thread will blow to pieces your statement that you find the thread nauseating.

Nah. I described the apologetics as nauseating, not the thread. As threads go, this one has enough entertaining and informative moments to make hanging around worthwhile.

Also, I'm keen to see some evidence.

I'll have something to calm my stomach, and continue bravely onwards. Thank you for your concern.

I did not lie and if you don't believe me stay out of the thread but I have a feeling that won't happen.

Your feeling is quite correct.


Now, about that evidence?

 

[AWPrime]

Any troll could continue to make this statement. My 1100 posts and the 2 websites in post #6567 speak for themselves. Your tactic might work in a live verbal debate but in this format with all my posts out there it's not going to work except with those who are maybe too lazy to read my posts. Anyone new to the thread probably the best place to start is the first listed website in post 6567.

DOC, I am not new to this thread and in my view your continuous pounding of your evidence empty posts is behavior worthy of a troll.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You must have missed this website:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...efox-a#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

And also my other 1100 posts.

Those outside of the US will not be able to get info from the above website so you might try the following site by one of the authors of the book cited in post #1. If you want to see how highly detailed the Gospel writers Luke and John were scroll down to the 84 and 59 facts they presented in their NT writings.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Let's go with Luke: 1151 verses. 84 facts (I'm guessing that 84 in your post pertains to Luke). That's approx 7.2% factual, opposed to your claim that every verse is factual, Doc. Let's throw Acts in there as well. That brings us to a grand total of 2158 verses, 84 facts. 3.9% factual.

Maybe John will do better...: 879 verses. 59 facts. Approx 6.7% factual (that's before we throw in John I, II, & III along with Revelation - another 105, 13, 14, & 404 respectively. That brings the grand total for "John" to 1416 verses, 59 facts. 4.2% factual).


So, about that evidence?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There is historical evidence. Do you think all this has just been made up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Where is the historical evidence? If I am not mistaken, then the basis for statements as such-and-such was an eyewitness, or even an author of a canonical gospel, and was killed for his beliefs mainly is non-canonical Christian literature, with a little also coming from canonical Christian literature.

Hrmph ... While this may be great for some sort of *Tradition* ... that is it.

Considering the vast amount of garbage that is in the canonical and non-canonical Christian literature, it would absolutely not surprise me if the martyrdoms or even the eyewitness have indeed been made up.

(And of course, when it comes to canonical Christian literature, such as the Gospels, or Acts, then these are the very things whose historical reliability you are trying to establish. Implicitly relying on them for this task is known as circular reasoning.)


Or can you demonstrate the historicity of martyrdom and eyewitness aside from *tradition*? For example how about this one from the list of Christian martyrs:

Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd in 60 A.D.​

Huh?

 

[pakeha]

That's a cop out, you call something stupid and irrational but don't explain why. Any troll who never read one word of the thread could do the exact same thing.

DOC, this thread has over 160 pages, at 40 posts a page. You've been repeatedly asked to show the evidence why the NT writers told the truth. Your latest rather enigmatic argument actually takes the discussion back 100 pages, over 400 posts.
Those of us who are genuinely interested in the subject are left wondering just how serious you are in your claims if you need to backtrack so far.

I believe people don't explain themselves for 2 reasons.

1) It takes no work; in other words its the lazy man's debating method.

2) You guard yourself against me being able to respond to specific points of your argument since you don't give any.

I disagree.
1) This discussion has run over 160 pages and posters have been callling you on your reiterated claim to have new evidence for most of it.
And let's face it, this isn't the only thread where this has happened, is it.
2) This is most unfair, DOC. Go back over those 160+ pages and see how you are the one who ignores arguments and simply repeats what is seen here as rubbish. Over and over again.

How can anyone take 'if it's established humans have souls, then the NT is more likely to be true' as a serious argument? What kind of a reaction did you expect?

You might fool some of the people with this lazy man's debating method, but I have to feel most people will eventually see through it.

This is cheap pulpit-speak at its finest, DOC.
But it leaves us asking all the same-
Any chance of you presenting new evidence?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Those outside of the US will not be able to get info from the above website so you might try the following site by one of the authors of the book cited in post #1. If you want to see how highly detailed the Gospel writers Luke and John were scroll down to the 84 and 59 facts they presented in their NT writings.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Awww, still missing the census, where Luke is in nearly perfect agreement with Josephus?

There does not seem to be a similar problem to have Luke be backed by Josephus in factlet #59:

59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
​

however.

Why are we all of a sudden so hung-up when it comes to the census that was held by Qurinius?

 

[pakeha]

Let's go with Luke: 1151 verses. 84 facts (I'm guessing that 84 in your post pertains to Luke). That's approx 7.2% factual, opposed to your claim that every verse is factual, Doc. Let's throw Acts in there as well. That brings us to a grand total of 2158 verses, 84 facts. 3.9% factual.

Maybe John will do better...: 879 verses. 59 facts. Approx 6.7% factual (that's before we throw in John I, II, & III along with Revelation - another 105, 13, 14, & 404 respectively. That brings the grand total for "John" to 1416 verses, 59 facts. 4.2% factual).


So, about that evidence?

Nice one, BobTheDonkey.

 

[pakeha]

Awww, still missing the census, where Luke is in nearly perfect agreement with Josephus?

There does not seem to be a similar problem to have Luke be backed by Josephus in factlet #59:

59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
​

however.

Why are we all of a sudden so hung-up when it comes to the census that was held by Qurinius?

Could it have to do with...inerrancy?

 

[pakeha]

...I've been through this same thing several times in my 2 and a half years on the system. It's the ol' "you took this much time and you took that much time" before you edited. Some people are desperate to find anything on me. And when they think they found one thing on me they jump on it like a pack of wolves. I'm not even going to spend one second looking at the times of my edit, because I've been through this all before. I know I just made a simple mistake on a name that I have used many times in here and corrected it when I noticed it upon rereading my post. I know this same thing will happen again in the future, but it's just part of the territory.

And your continued presence and responses in this thread will blow to pieces your statement that you find the thread nauseating.

I did not lie and if you don't believe me stay out of the thread but I have a feeling that won't happen.

That's an odd sort of line to take on this, DOC.
It's safe to admit you've corrected a post; unlike the NT, you don't have to be inerrant.
To tell the truth, we're awaiting the new evidence you've spoken of and so perhaps it's possible you feel 'targeted' because we're interested in what you have to offer.
Still, to be calling us 'like a pack of wolves' is going a bit far, don't you think?
It's a while until the full moon, after all.

 

[zooterkin]

I've been through this same thing several times in my 2 and a half years on the system. It's the ol' "you took this much time and you took that much time" before you edited.

Well, perhaps then you shouldn't have made an unsupportable claim.