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

[pakeha]

Give it another 10 pages and I'm willing to predict that Mr. Josh McDowell and his 23.000 manuscripts can't be wrong argument will resurface.

You're on.
Loser pays for the first round of drinks on the rumoured possible Amazing Adventure Nile River expedition.
rumoured, possible

 

[Elizabeth I]

New information, as in over 100 years old?

What exactly do you think "new" means?

He means "new to him".

It's new if you never read the Harvard Law School founder before. Remember what the "Wizzard of Westwood" John Wooden said, "the problem with new books is that people don't read the old ones".

w00t! I was right! I swear I thought of my answer above before I saw this post!

I made a prediction that came true! I'm a prophet! Bring on the MDC!!!

 

[joobz]

Why are you putting this in here for the umpteenth time when a moderator specifically assigned another thread to this topic. That can be argued to be disrespectful to the viewers of this thread, not to mention hurting your image in the process.

If you are going to repeat rhetorical arguments, I can as well.
Besides, I had never asked that question before.

Finally, you didn't link the post to which I wrote that question, thereby taking it out of context. (something you complained about someone else doing to you.)

 

[pakeha]

[QUOTEOriginally Posted by pakeha
Could it have to do with...inerrancy?

With Luke or with Josephus. We know Josephus was close to a Roman Emperor and most likely owed his life to the emperor. Josephus also lived in Rome. The motivation would certainly be there to make Christian writings look wrong since the Christians were causing so many problems for the empire.

Also Josephus says Moses was in Egypt and even won a battle for Egypt against the Ethiopians (this battle won by Moses was not in the Bible). But some in the threads have said Moses didn't even exist. They want to say Josephus was wrong about Moses but right about the census. But even if Josephus was right about the census, that doesn't mean Luke wasn't taking about another census, the one Sir William M. Ramsay talked about. We've already talked a lot about this, so I'm about done with this whole area. People complain about me repeating myself but then bring up the same topics so I have to repeat myself.[/QUOTE]

That was hilarious, DOC.
Really, you made me laugh aloud and on a grimly grey mizzling windy Tuesday afternoon, that's not easy.
Why do I laugh aloud?
Because I'm the one who posted up a reader friendly version of Greenleaf's introduction to his bible concordance. Remember? My opinion was that it was a quaint period piece and, as another poster pointed derived from some other theologian's work. Foley, as I recall. (the theologian, not the poster)

Moses? It seems you've forgotten the most interesting argument as to why Josephus may be sound on the events of his times, and little more than a purveyor of unsubstantiated heresay when it came to ancient Egypt.

And as for Josephus. 'Twas I who traced the man's relation to the Emperor. Rather than the tender friendship you postulate, Josesphus, he of the Josephus dilemna, was lucky enough to have a 'hit' on a prediction he made about Vespasian's ascencion to the purple, and as a result, on Titus' request, acompanied the Imperial suite to Alexandria, where, curiously enough, it was claimed he (Vespasian) cured several people.
In all this tangle, don't forget Vespasian's heir, Titus, who accompanied Vespasian, was passionately in love with Herod Agrippa's daughter, a Jewess.

Anyway.
When there's evidence found of the Exodus and when it happened, we can talk of Moses. What was the name of the Pharoah who was drowned with all his army?

So. Looking forward to the new evidence, DOC.

 

[pakeha]

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.../QUOTE]

By an extraordinary coincidence, this appeared in the Telgraph today:

Quote:
Amnesty International has appealed to the state to commute the sentence on Khristian Oliver, 32, who is due to die on November 5.

He was sentenced to death in 1999 for murdering a man whose home Oliver was burgling. The victim was shot in the face and beaten with his own rifle.


It later emerged that while deciding whether he should be given the death penalty, jurors consulted the Bible. Four jury members admitted that several copies had been in the jury room and that highlighted passages were passed around.

At one point, a juror reportedly read aloud from a copy, including the passage: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...cide-fate.html

The article goes on in more detail.

added- leftout of my last post was this

But even if Josephus was right about the census, that doesn't mean Luke wasn't taking about another census, the one Sir William M. Ramsay talked about. We've already talked a lot about this,

Indeed we have, that 'other' Census was completely debunked a long time back.

 

[pakeha]

One last post.
It seems to me as we wait for DOC's announced evidence that I'd post up
some evidence as well, as convincing as any you'll see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1-bbz3crjw

It's Mitchell and Webb, of course.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

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.

They do speak for themselves, most eloquently. And they show that you have presented no compelling evidence whatsoever that 'we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'

You keep referring to people reading the thread but not posting as though they are somehow agreeing with you - even though you cannot possibly know this.

So, for once and for all, could the many 'silent' readers please speak up and post to say if they have been convinced or not by DOC's 'evidence'?

 

[Akhenaten]

You must have missed this website:

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

<snippy>

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.

<snippy>

At first I wondered how you could know this, without nicking out of the States for a minnie to check,. Then I realised that of course, as usual, you are wrong.

You aren't having a very good run, are ya mate?

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.

Blah, blah, blah.

Trust me Doc, there are people out here who not only read all of your posts, but I they actually scrutinize every single comma. I have evidence.

Anyone new to the thread probably the best place to start is the first listed website in post 6567.

Physician, heal thyself.

My question was obviously rhetorical, if you read the post I was responding to. This is why it is dangerous in here to use rhetorical questions because people can post it out of context. You should have also posted the quote I was responding to (in this case).

Your arguments have always avoided the rhetorical, haven't they?

What's this quoting out of context you're on about. You got busted pretty badly fiddling about with quotes, so I think your advice might be a little dodgy.

<rantsnip>

But new info sometimes comes out when I respond to a post, an example of new important info coming out in this thread was one of Harvard Law School founders Simon Greenleaf's book on the strength of the NT evidence... Other evidence that has come out is that many archaeologists say that the {empty} tomb of Jesus is most likely under the Church of the Holy Sepluchre.

Evidence?

 

[six7s]

I have just jumped four pages of b*ckl*g... have I missed anything that could be, even uber-generously - described as evidence as promised in the OP?

 

[pakeha]

...But new info sometimes comes out when I respond to a post, an example of new important info coming out in this thread was one of Harvard Law School founders Simon Greenleaf's book on the strength of the NT evidence... Other evidence that has come out is that many archaeologists say that the {empty} tomb of Jesus is most likely under the Church of the Holy Sepluchre.

DOC, Greenleaf's opinions weren't expressed in a book 'on the strength of the NT evidence', but rather in the introduction to a concordance of the 4 gospels.
Big difference, don't you think?

The idea of the tumb under the the Church of the Holy Sephulcher (sp) being that of Jesus is hardly new. I've no idea why you even mention it as new evidence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have just jumped four pages of b*ckl*g... have I missed anything that could be, even uber-generously - described as evidence as promised in the OP?

I posted a bit of mathematical evidence that Doc doesn't pay attention to what he's actually claiming to be on his side.

A few other people posted evidence that Doc fiddles with his posts after the errors have been called out/corrected by others.


That's really about it.

 

[Akhenaten]

I have just jumped four pages of b*ckl*g... have I missed anything that could be, even uber-generously - described as evidence as promised in the OP?

There was a beaut picture of the Phantom outside the Skull Cave.

Some people could see that as evidence for the Well of Souls Tower of Babel Noah's Ark empty tomb of Jesus beneath Golgotha Bag End The Dome of the Rock.

Depends on one's viewpoint, I suppose. Some people seem to be viewing from a yard up a chimney.

 

[zooterkin]

At first I wondered how you could know this, without nicking out of the States for a minnie to check,. Then I realised that of course, as usual, you are wrong.

Actually, it's because we've pointed it out to him when he's quoted that link before, and it's finally got through to him. At least previously that link has not worked in the UK, for one place.

ETA: It doesn't work for you, either. In the US, the link lets you read the book, or at least a selection of pages from it. Elsewhere, you just see the reviews and overview.

 

[paximperium]

I posted a bit of mathematical evidence that Doc doesn't pay attention to what he's actually claiming to be on his side.

A few other people posted evidence that Doc fiddles with his posts after the errors have been called out/corrected by others.


That's really about it.

And I continue to poke him with a stick to increase my post count. 7000 post, here I come.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, it's because we've pointed it out to him when he's quoted that link before, and it's finally got through to him. At least previously that link has not worked in the UK, for one place.

Aah. My mistake then. It wasn't an incorrect statement so much as it was an uncharacteristically unresearched and rash over-generalisation.

My apologies, Doc.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

With Luke or with Josephus. We know Josephus was close to a Roman Emperor and most likely owed his life to the emperor. Josephus also lived in Rome. The motivation would certainly be there to make Christian writings look wrong since the Christians were causing so many problems for the empire.

Oh, yes. If it agrees with Luke AND your doctrine then this is a great confirmation. And if it doesn't then it must be because Josephus might have wanted to make Luke look bad. You cannot possibly lose. (But it is not exactly a convincing line of argumentation.)

Also Josephus says Moses was in Egypt and even won a battle for Egypt against the Ethiopians (this battle won by Moses was not in the Bible).

The texts in the Bible are not the only source of stories. (In any case, I hope it is understood that by whatever means Josephus came by the story of Moses and the Ethiopians, it was not by being an eyewitness.)

But some in the threads have said Moses didn't even exist. They want to say Josephus was wrong about Moses but right about the census.

It has probably been pointed out a million times by now, but the time between Josephus writing and Moses defeating the Ethiopians would be greater many, many times than the time between Josephus writing and the census being taken.

But even if Josephus was right about the census, that doesn't mean Luke wasn't taking about another census,

No, it doesn't mean that. You are right here.

But what with likelyhood, parsimonity and so on?

Taking this approach of just multiplying entities beyond necessity and applying it elsewhere means that we could simply assert that there is the possibility that the Moses that Josephus was talking about is not the same Moses as the one that lead Israel out of Egypt and is mentioned throughout the Bible, but a different one. It permits you to say that the Jesus that shows up in Josephus might not be the same one that is in Luke; that Luke's Jesus in turn is not the same as Matthew's, or John's.

I hope you do see that using Occam's Razor instead is a good thing. And that concluding, that the entitiy in Luke (Census, Quirinius, Govenor, Syria etc) is the same as the entity in Josephus (Census, Quirinius, Governor, Syria etc.) is the only sane course of action.

the one Sir William M. Ramsay talked about.

Remind me here someone. What census was that? And based on what historical evidence was Ramsay ... sorry ... SIR William M. Ramsay talking this census?

We've already talked a lot about this, so I'm about done with this whole area. People complain about me repeating myself but then bring up the same topics so I have to repeat myself.

 

[joobz]

Oh, yes. If it agrees with Luke AND your doctrine then this is a great confirmation. And if it doesn't then it must be because Josephus might have wanted to make Luke look bad. You cannot possibly lose. (But it is not exactly a convincing line of argumentation.)

but it is exactly what DOC thinks is acceptable. It's entirely a "Heads I win, tail you lose" style of argument. Something that may fool a 3rd grader, but doesn't actually hold up to any honest scrutiny.

 

[dafydd]

Looking forward to the new evidence, DOC.

New evidence? We haven't seen any evidence from Doc yet.

 

[pakeha]

I have just jumped four pages of b*ckl*g... have I missed anything that could be, even uber-generously - described as evidence as promised in the OP?

Well, no, not as such, though I've posted up a Mitchell and Webb video on the subject of proving the existence of God.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, it's because we've pointed it out to him when he's quoted that link before, and it's finally got through to him. At least previously that link has not worked in the UK, for one place.

ETA: It doesn't work for you, either. In the US, the link lets you read the book, or at least a selection of pages from it. Elsewhere, you just see the reviews and overview.

I just caught your ETA.

Yep, I take your point, although it DOES depend on whether Google Books knows where I'm calling from. I might be being tricksy on them