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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633 and post 7667.
Why DOC? Why?

Why is it that, when you know that we know that you know that you have NO evidence at all, you persist in spamming this thread with nonsense?

You are so hell bent on lying for your messiah that you post links to threads that you start

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome?

Even by your own, sad standards, that thread is pathetic...
Post 7667?

Are you serious?

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
Well here is some of the evidence I've brought into the thread.
Sigh

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

--------------

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?
Yes.

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
Thread title is inaccurate. Should be The 25 Contrived Postdictions,... etc.
Enuff said

--------------

Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Ahh, 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.
Enuff said

--------------


Post #4107 of THIS thread
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.
By now, even you know how it goes...

Please, stop lying for your messiah

Obviously not!
 
"Once more unto the breach,

dear friends!" said Henry IV. Augh. Okay, once more.

All along, I've been interested in Doc's psychology, certainly not in his, um, arguments. At least once, probably several times, Doc has said something like, "My words are out there."

I think that sentiment gives us a clue to what motivates him: He really, actually believes that posting on an obscure* internet forum is somehow establishing his legacy as a Chrrrristian! thinker; he imagines that he's writing a Third Testament; he air a-witnessin' afore the Gentiles. Perhaps he expects to be martyred.

"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."

Hank 4 also said, "Yet a little more, my few, and it is done!" My hopes do not, alas, rise that far.

* All forums are obscure, come to that.
 
Yeah, when people are prone to making up stories, they are often quite detailed. Read any fiction book to see this to be true.

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.
 
So unlike Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who thought Luke was a great historian, you theorize he was a novelist.
This continued lie is most amusing.
A novelist who risked his life almost daily traveling with Paul in order to evangelize his stories he knew were false.
Funniest comeback ever: "You say he is a liar? How would a liar have gone on all of those adventures he said he did?"
 
This:

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/CoatofArmsSmall.jpg[/qimg]​

[OFFTOPIC] I hope no Australians take this the wrong way, but that has to be the most adorable national seal ever.[/OFFTOPIC]
 
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 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?
 
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 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?
 
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay
or
Sir William
or
Sir William Ramsay
or
Ramsay

Not Sir Ramsay
 
*sigh* Getting out the old bingo card and dusting off the cobwebs (here I was thinking that I could throw it out).

# of posts : check
christian presidents : check
servant, not slave : check
the luke thing : check (still don't understand that one)
people believe it, must be true : check
massive feeling of deja vu : CHECK

This is an old dance that was definitely dealt with pages and pages ago. Do you have nothing original? Do we again need to quote the bits about selling your daughter as a "servant" or giving your "servant" a wife and kids so you can trick him into staying a "servant" since the wife and kids don't get to go free....
 
*fiddle music*

Swing your partner, do-si-do,
Slaves cross over and the Prezzes go slow.

Luke takes centre and spins a yarn,
Back to the start and go 'round the barn.


Yeehaw! It's the NT Hootenanny!
 
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.

What proof have you that there was an actual person named Luke who was the author of the gospel titled ''Luke.''
 
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?

Your opinion is noted, and my opinion is they have not been refuted. I guess if people want to form their own opinion they will have to read the posts.

Posts like yours add nothing to the thread, but they will continue. We should add them to death and taxes.
 
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.

Actually he didn't opinion he fabricated the story, he opinionated he guessed wrong. Other scholars opinion Luke was not wrong. And for the record Murphy O'Connor also opinionated that Christ's tomb is very likely under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

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?

Because that part of the quote doesn't exist. Ramsay never said you can't trust Luke on religious matters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom