• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


Wait, if scholars disagree on something, you just get to choose which set you will believe?

That sounds ... convenient.

This entire thread just became completely useless.
 
Hokulele said:
This entire thread just became completely useless.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is a source of amusement and a really great read for newbies coming to this site on the mindset of a certain kind of theist. It's especially great since DOC keeps bumping this thread despite having nothing to say.
 
Hokulele said:
Wait, if scholars disagree on something, you just get to choose which set you will believe?

That sounds ... convenient.

This entire thread just became completely useless.
Click to expand...

Why limit it to this thread? The entire Scientific community (including, roughly applied, this forum) just became useless.
 
DOC said:
Actually I can't think of anything that has been debunked.
Click to expand...
You can't, really? Well you tell us what evidence you think you have brought forward that can be considered evidence for why we know the the NT writiers told the truth and we will tell you where you have been told that what you have provided is
a) Not Evidence (95%)
b) Evidence that the writers were familiar with the region and customs.(5%)
c) Evidence of the supernatural parts of the bibile. (0%)
 
Hey DOC, you have failed to answer my question. I repeat. What proof have you that Luke was the author of the gospel titled ''Luke''.
 
amb said:
Hey DOC, you have failed to answer my question. I repeat. What proof have you that Luke was the author of the gospel titled ''Luke''.
Click to expand...

This thread is more about evidence than proof. Read the title of it.

Regarding the Gospel of Luke, here is evidence:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#IX

And joobz might want to read the segment at the bottom entitled:

The census of Quirinius
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
This thread is more about evidence than proof. Read the title of it.

Regarding the Gospel of Luke, here is evidence:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#IX

And joobz might want to read the segment at the bottom entitled:

The census of Quirinius
Click to expand...
Just curious. Did you actually read the link you provided since it provides NO EVIDENCE that this Luke fella wrote his little story.
 
DOC said:
And joobz might want to read the segment at the bottom entitled:

The census of Quirinius
Click to expand...
I did. No where does it show that there was a census in the independent Jewish kingdom? It can't even claim that Judea wasn't independent.

I did notice that the text said:"The head of the household gave his name and age, the name and age of his wife, children, and slaves."

Not servants, but slaves. The kind of people that jesus said it is completely ok to beat, even if they didn't know they broke a rule.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


But that's what everyone has been doing, and we're all of the same opinion - no evidence.


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


And links from a certain poster who doesn't read them first, to make sure they're not actually evidence for counter-arguments to his claims of evidence of NT truthiness, although unlike death and taxes, those are pretty funny.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Another unexplained post.
Click to expand...

I was referring to this post, which you don't seem to have acknowledged yet, let alone replied to.

It points out that in an earlier response, you completely misunderstood the passage from the bible which you quoted. Are you going to have the honesty to admit that, and have another go at responding to my earlier post?
 
zooterkin said:
I was referring to this post, which you don't seem to have acknowledged yet, let alone replied to.

It points out that in an earlier response, you completely misunderstood the passage from the bible which you quoted. Are you going to have the honesty to admit that, and have another go at responding to my earlier post?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you reminded me about that post because you are the one who misunderstood the verse when you said the following in post 8717:

zooterkin said:
I realise I had better spell it out. The 3000 speaking in tongues were Galileans. The people of various nations were the people hearing them speak. So, I return to my point. 3000 Galileans is a sizeable community. What happened to these people who experienced, apparently, the holy spirit at first hand?
Click to expand...


There was no 3000 Galileans speaking in tongues. The people there who spoke in tongues were already saved and didn't need to accept Christ again. If you read Acts Chapter 2

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2&version=ESV


you will see that the 3000 were not those speaking in tongues but those that accepted Christ (that day) from the large multitude (which included many foreigners) who were in Jerusalem for Penecost (and not strictly Galileans). I have a feeling that some of you skeptics who claim to know the bible so well picked up on that misunderstanding by zooterkin and yet you said nothing. That tells me you're either more interested in winning an argument than letting the truth come out or you don't know the bible as well as you think.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
Just curious. Did you actually read the link you provided since it provides NO EVIDENCE that this Luke fella wrote his little story.
Click to expand...

You have to either be kidding or you mistakenly wrote "NO EVIDENCE" when you meant "no proof".
 
DOC said:
You have to either be kidding or you mistakenly wrote "NO EVIDENCE" when you meant "no proof".
Click to expand...
It's not an either/or, DOC...

This thread is on a site that promotes critical thinking, which is something you might want to try... you have nothing to lose but everything you desperately cling to
 
DOC said:
You have to either be kidding or you mistakenly wrote "NO EVIDENCE" when you meant "no proof".
Click to expand...


By "NO EVIDENCE", I am sure pax is using the normal definition of the word. Not your special version.

You see DOC, you have the whole definition of evidence completely backwards. Although you will spill out something along the lines of evidence leading you to conclude something is more or less true, you are finding evidence that you believe supports something you have already decided is true. If it doesn't do that, you twist it until you can convince yourself it supports your conclusion. There is no "fact leading to a conclusion", but a poor fact being chained and dragged, kicking and screaming, off in what is vaguely the general direction of your conclusion.

The fact that your "evidence" doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion is evidence (hah!) that yours isn't.
 
Hokulele said:
By "NO EVIDENCE", I am sure pax is using the normal definition of the word. Not your special version.

You see DOC, you have the whole definition of evidence completely backwards. Although you will spill out something along the lines of evidence leading you to conclude something is more or less true, you are finding evidence that you believe supports something you have already decided is true. If it doesn't do that, you twist it until you can convince yourself it supports your conclusion. There is no "fact leading to a conclusion", but a poor fact being chained and dragged, kicking and screaming, off in what is vaguely the general direction of your conclusion.

The fact that your "evidence" doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion is evidence (hah!) that yours isn't.
Click to expand...

Regarding the sentence I bolded above. It is not my definition of evidence. Its is the first definition of evidence given by answers.com. Here is their first definition of evidence again:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

So you should have said:

"You see, DOC, Answers.com has their first definition of evidence completely backward.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Regarding the sentence I bolded above. It is not my definition the definition of evidence. Its is the first definition of evidence given by answers.com. Here it is again:


So you should have said:

"You see, DOC, Answers.com has their first definition of evidence completely backward.
Click to expand...


No, the dictionary definition is fine. It is your actions that demonstrate you aren't using the dictionary definition.

ETA: Read the sentence in my post right after the one you bolded.
 
Hokulele said:
No, the dictionary definition is fine. It is your actions that demonstrate you aren't using the dictionary definition.
Click to expand...

OK, if you don't like the first definition of answers.com, here is the first definition evidence according to Merriem Webster online:

An outward sign: an indication.

So all the information provided in my website on Luke is an outward sign or points to the conclusion (indicates) that Luke more likely than not wrote his Gospel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom