Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Originally Posted by DOC
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...s&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false
Of course this is false, I can name at least 3 items off the top of my head that have not been debunked. I will give them at my leisure since I have already mentioned them before.
Any troll can come in here and make general statements that {DOC} your points have been thoroughly debunked. People will never let the posts just stand for themselves without continuously making these false generalized statements. But to continue to say things have been thoroughly debunked when they haven't will sooner or later seriously hurt your sides credibility.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...s&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false
Six7's said:
Of course this is false, I can name at least 3 items off the top of my head that have not been debunked. I will give them at my leisure since I have already mentioned them before.
Any troll can come in here and make general statements that {DOC} your points have been thoroughly debunked. People will never let the posts just stand for themselves without continuously making these false generalized statements. But to continue to say things have been thoroughly debunked when they haven't will sooner or later seriously hurt your sides credibility.
Last edited:
Another unexplained post.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
He called it "complete nonsense." and a guess. IT's a polite way of saying "Making crap up."
Ramsay said:
You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice
COnsidering religion is beyond the limits of science, it's clear he was excluding the magical parts of the bible in his assessment. I really do not know why you even bother lying DOC, when it's so easy to prove you wrong.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
The scene, we have Christopher Columbus in the Spanish court after getting back from the Far East.
Columbus speaks, “My majesties, I have just return from the great voyage to the Far East.”
The King, “What have you brought back with you to show us that you have found and been to the Far East?”
Columbus, “I have this log of the voyage my lord.”
The King, “Log, all you have is a log, didn’t you bring anything back, something new we haven’t seen of before or at least the spices that they have.”
Columbus has he shuffles his feet, “No my lord, but I was there, I’ve seen it in person, it is wondrous.”
The Queen now speaks, “But if you have no proof other than this log and you saying that you have been to the Far East, how are we to believe you.”
Columbus, “You have my word my lord, because I have had a personal experience in seeing the Far East.”
The King, getting very agitated, “This is not acceptable, we need more than a log that can be written by anyone and just your personal experience, how do we know you weren’t drunk or something. Anyone can have a personal experience, this is not proof.”
Columbus, “But how can you explain where I was for all this time, no one has seen me for months until I returned.”
The Queen, after almost getting off her throne in rage, “This is not how one proves that they had been somewhere new, it is not for us to prove this, it is on your head too prove it seeing that it is you that says this is true.”
Columbus, “But I seen it, it is there, it is the Far East that I saw, I know it is, I just know it, and I have my men too that have seen it.”
“Your men" snapped the King, “You paid these men, what else would they say, that is not proof. We can get many of my subjects to say anything we want them too, it still isn’t evidence that anyone should trust.”
Columbus screaming “You’re just against me, you have it in for me………………..”
Well in this parallel world it was on his head, which is no longer on his shoulders.
Paul
Yes yes, we know it was really the New World......... what do you want, Proof.
Columbus speaks, “My majesties, I have just return from the great voyage to the Far East.”
The King, “What have you brought back with you to show us that you have found and been to the Far East?”
Columbus, “I have this log of the voyage my lord.”
The King, “Log, all you have is a log, didn’t you bring anything back, something new we haven’t seen of before or at least the spices that they have.”
Columbus has he shuffles his feet, “No my lord, but I was there, I’ve seen it in person, it is wondrous.”
The Queen now speaks, “But if you have no proof other than this log and you saying that you have been to the Far East, how are we to believe you.”
Columbus, “You have my word my lord, because I have had a personal experience in seeing the Far East.”
The King, getting very agitated, “This is not acceptable, we need more than a log that can be written by anyone and just your personal experience, how do we know you weren’t drunk or something. Anyone can have a personal experience, this is not proof.”
Columbus, “But how can you explain where I was for all this time, no one has seen me for months until I returned.”
The Queen, after almost getting off her throne in rage, “This is not how one proves that they had been somewhere new, it is not for us to prove this, it is on your head too prove it seeing that it is you that says this is true.”
Columbus, “But I seen it, it is there, it is the Far East that I saw, I know it is, I just know it, and I have my men too that have seen it.”
“Your men" snapped the King, “You paid these men, what else would they say, that is not proof. We can get many of my subjects to say anything we want them too, it still isn’t evidence that anyone should trust.”
Columbus screaming “You’re just against me, you have it in for me………………..”
Well in this parallel world it was on his head, which is no longer on his shoulders.
Paul
Yes yes, we know it was really the New World......... what do you want, Proof.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Masterful. Thanks.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Perhaps DOC will have a New Year's resolution of not making fallacious arguments? This thread could then be put back on topic with some actual evidence.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Can I snitch this from another thread and start some talk about Qumran as it might pertain to the New Testament's truthiness?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
So you admit all other items presented were debunked. That's a funny way of defending Geisler...
Actually I can't think of anything that has been debunked. I've heard a lot of opinions and theories though. For example your theory Luke made up his account of the census and this theory was based on a opinion of someone else. Other scholars disagree.
If the worse you can say about Geisler's and Turek's book that is cited in post # 1 is that Frank Turek was incorrect about the origin of a non-religious word I'll be happy with that. But you still haven't proved to me he was wrong. To my memory all you did was cite when the word was first used not the actual root meaning of the word uni versity.
Last edited:
Because the others positions aren't being attacked or contested and they don't have to defend them. If your going to attack someone personally or a point they made you should at least explain your reasoning behind the attack rather then just make a short general derogatory statement with no explanation. People use this debating tactic on me all the time. But they should realize by now that I'm usually going to make them explain themselves.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Do you not see the reasons for this?
That's equivocation. Bzzzt!
Misspelled too. Double-Bzzzt!
As I already pointed out, there is only one poster requiring these explanations. A different point of view does nothing to explain this lack of comprehension.
What the devil are you talking about? Is saying things that you refuse to understand a debating tactic now? If so, what's wrong with it?
You're getting ambitions and capabilities mixed up now.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
That's a mighty big IF, DOC
Try reading the thread... you'll see that as far back as post #3, your nonsensical OP was thoroughly debunked... and you have posted NOTHING with any credibility that even begins to assert otherwise... instead, you have merely persisted with spamming lies
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
can't think of any or choose to ignore many?
Hokulele had identified a gem of a circular argument given in Geisler's text. I wonder if you consider circular reasoning an acceptable form of logic. Afterall, you did take a logic course.....
no, it's not the only one. But when a book can't even make a forward without making nonsense up in it, it doesn't bode well for the quality of research given in the text.
Oh DOC, obviously I can't prove anything to you. I can only provide evidence. What you do with that is your own business. Of course, given your penchant for ignoring reality, I know how seriously you take facts.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=university
- Status