I figured the explanation was obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension.
Sadly, that is not the target audience, as a review of his most recent post makes clear.
I figured the explanation was obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension.
Why DOC? Why?http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633 and post 7667.Wow! Your delusions know no bounds, huh?
Your posts are funny as in peculiar, not humour
They're fantastical, not historical
Prove me wrong and post something that is both historically accurate/credible AND relevant to this thread
Go on! I double dare ya!
SighWell here is some of the evidence I've brought into the thread.My only real grievance is with the OP. After 1300+ posts on a thread promising "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.", he has steadfastly refused to deliver ANYTHING other than a steaming pile of bovine excrement
Is it that you just don't get it?
Or are you being wilfully stupid?
Either way... this is truly sad
--------------
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist By Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh
How many times are you going to post this Geisler et al crap?
It has, as you know, been thoroughly, comprehensively debunked each and every time you have used it to spam this thread
--------------
Yes.Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell
For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?
You, DOC, know how it can be 'accounted for by any natural causes'. Please, stop pretending otherwise
--------------
» The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53
Enuff saidThread title is inaccurate. Should be The 25 Contrived Postdictions,... etc.
--------------
Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.Enuff saidAhh, the old 'numbers out his ass approach' ... impressive.
Tends to get easier when you can retrospectively determine what the prophecies actually said in order to fit them to events. Even then there's a bunch they just missed, Egypt is still habitable, for example.
--------------
Post #4107 of THIS threadBy now, even you know how it goes...Let me be the first to say
PFFFFFFFFFT!
All those points have been raised, addressed and eliminated from consideration. Now, the only thing left is ridicule.
Please, stop lying for your messiah
I prefer Nil carborundum illegitimis"Don't feed the trolls" is a useless admonition; we all do it, and probably enjoy it. How about, "Don't help the troll get his little rocks off."
Yeah, when people are prone to making up stories, they are often quite detailed. Read any fiction book to see this to be true.
This continued lie is most amusing.So unlike Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who thought Luke was a great historian, you theorize he was a novelist.
Funniest comeback ever: "You say he is a liar? How would a liar have gone on all of those adventures he said he did?"A novelist who risked his life almost daily traveling with Paul in order to evangelize his stories he knew were false.
A novelist who risked his life almost daily traveling with Paul in order to evangelize his stories he knew were false.
This:
[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/CoatofArmsSmall.jpg[/qimg]
If you read my 1400 posts maybe starting with post 7667 (pg. 192) you will find out. If you don't like the evidence then so be it.
I'm just basing my theories off of the analysis provided by the Catholic Jesuit scholar, Father Jerome Murphy O'Connor, who stated that Luke fabricated a story in order to explain why Jesus Birth story.So unlike Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who thought Luke was a great historian, you theorize he was a novelist. A novelist who risked his life almost daily traveling with Paul in order to evangelize his stories he knew were false.
[OFFTOPIC] I hope no Australians take this the wrong way, but that has to be the most adorable national seal ever.[/OFFTOPIC]
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay
or
Sir William
or
Sir William Ramsay
or
Ramsay
Not Sir Ramsay
I figured the explanation was obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension. I said as much in my post.
But since you insist...
<unnecessary explanation snipped>
So unlike Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who thought Luke was a great historian, you theorize he was a novelist. A novelist who risked his life almost daily traveling with Paul in order to evangelize his stories he knew were false.
I'm not good at teh math, but does anyone know how many discrete posts DOC has made and how many are simple repetitions of other posts that have been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted?
I'm just basing my theories off of the analysis provided by the Catholic Jesuit scholar, Father Jerome Murphy O'Connor, who stated that Luke fabricated a story in order to explain why Jesus Birth story.
And, of course, my statement doesn't disagree with Sir Ramsey, because even he believed you can't trust Luke on religious matters. I wonder why you don't reference that part of his quote? Does it have to do with your dishonesty?