• 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:
You have to either be kidding or you mistakenly wrote "NO EVIDENCE" when you meant "no proof".
Click to expand...
No. I'm using as it is meant to be used not your special pleading, cherry picking, confirmation biased loaded pile of nonsense.

So, I'm asking again. Did you read your little linky? Where in your little linky does it specifically support your claim that some fella named Luke wrote Luke?
 
DOC said:
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 that Luke more likely than not wrote his Gospel.
Click to expand...
Really? Where?
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


Both definitions are fine. It is your refusal to actually conform to them that is the problem.

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.
Click to expand...


See?
 
Doc, The bible is not evidence in the context of this thread.

If the subject was the descendants of Jesus Christ then "The da Vinci code" could be considered evidence.

If the subject was whether Dan Brown told the truth in "The da Vinci code" then The da Vinci code is not evidence in that context.

It follows that you can not in this thread point to the bible and say 'evidence'. If you want to start a thread called "Things the New Testament authors claimed are true events" go ahead; but in this thread please try to stick to the plot.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that you have linked to a credible web site?

If so, please DO re-post the link

Otherwise, please STFU

TYIA :)
 
six7s said:
Huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that you have linked to a credible web site?

If so, please DO re-post the link

Otherwise, please STFU

TYIA :)
Click to expand...

Very serious, the Catholic Church has been there since the beginning. They have made mistakes (which they have admitted to) along the way (since they are human like St. Peter and King David) but they do know a thing or two about historical evidence having been there for 2000 years.

And here is their site on Luke:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#IX
 
DOC said:
The plethora of information in this site speaks for itself:

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

I'm not going to repeat the huge amount of info in it.
Click to expand...
Another unexplained post.
If you or anyone else doesn't believe (after reading this site) it is more likely than not that Luke wrote the Gospel attributed to him for 2000 years then that is certainly your right.
Click to expand...
Using your "standards", this post is evidence/an indication that you have no evidence.
 
DOC said:
Very serious, the Catholic Church has been there since the beginning. They have made mistakes (which they have admitted to) along the way (since they are human like St. Peter and King David) but they do know a thing or two about historical evidence having been there for 2000 years.

And here is their site on Luke:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#IX
Click to expand...
Using your "standards"; this is "evidence" that you don't know anything about history.
 
Hokulele said:
Mistakes such as denying that the theory of evolution is true? I will give them full credit for admitting this was an error and accepting the modern theory as stated.
Click to expand...

Well you're the one who brought up science but they don't believe life evolved from non-life by chance as many non-religious scientists do.

ETA: Of course they believe it was God who created the first living things. And they don't believe evolution created the human soul.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well you're the one who brought up science but they don't believe life evolved from non-life by chance as many non-religious scientist do.
Click to expand...
So? Where is this evidence that this Luke fella wrote Luke again?
 
Hokulele said:
Silly person, no one believes that. Please provide a link to a non-religious scientist claiming that "life evolved from non-life".
Click to expand...
You know what I mean. And you hurt your credibility to imply the concept is silly. You know darn well that many scientists believe life came about by unintelligent random forces. If you want me to use the term abiogenesis instead of life evolving from non-life as I choose to use because it is easier for some to understand then I'll use abiogenesis. Evolve has other definitions besides the one associated with one species changing to another species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom