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

[Hokulele]

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.

Do have any idea what abiogenesis entails? Do you understand how it differs from evolution, by any definition at all? Do you even know the true definition of the word "evolution" and why Darwin originally rejected it as a name for his theory?

Methinks your grasp of the concepts involved with the life sciences is as keen as your grasp of what constitutes "evidence".



ETA: It wasn't the concept I called "silly".

 

[paximperium]

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.

So no non-religious scientist claimed that "life evolved from non-life". Am I correct?

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.

Yup. Many scientist claim this. What about it?

 

[zooterkin]

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:




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.

Fair enough, looks like I made a mistake, though I have a suspicion I know what misled me. I'll review the point and get back to you when I have some more time.

 

[Akhenaten]

You know what I mean. And you hurt your credibility to imply the concept is silly.

How do you rate your own credibility DOC? How many people do you think have accepted that there is evidence of OT truthiness?

You know darn well that many scientists believe life came about by unintelligent random forces.

What do your fantasies about scientists have to do with the New Testament?

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.

It doesn't matter what you call it because:

1. You don't understand the concept, and

2. It's got nothing to do with the topic.

Evolve has other definitions besides the one associated with one species changing to another species.

Yup. Here's one:

Scientists have shown for the first time that "lifeless" prion proteins, devoid of all genetic material, can evolve just like higher forms of life.

The Scripps Research Institute in the US says the prions can change to suit their environment and go on to develop drug resistance.

BBC News


But of course, you know all about evolution, so I doubt that story is a surprise to you.

 

[amb]

All I could find on whether Luke wrote Luke was "It is not lawful to doubt of the inspiration and canonicity of the narratives of Luke"

So I guess that is that.

Very little is known of all the gospelers. Luke may have been a Syrian, pehaps a physician, a non-Jew who if correct wrote his gospel to the gentiles. At the same time he seems to posses a vast knowledge of the scriptures. Of course he also would have had the gospel of Mark in front of him as he wrote his version of the tale.

 

[amb]

Is DOC hinting here that he believes evolution? What's that do to his credibility as a bible thumper?
DOC, evolution is random. No god is required. The bible states that god created all. So that is wrong someone is wrong and methinks it's you.

 

[paximperium]

Very little is known of all the gospelers. Luke may have been a Syrian, pehaps a physician, a non-Jew who if correct wrote his gospel to the gentiles. At the same time he seems to posses a vast knowledge of the scriptures. Of course he also would have had the gospel of Mark in front of him as he wrote his version of the tale.

Using DOC's standard of evidence, Luke was a young nerfherded who lived in a desert under the care of his adopted aunt and uncle but is actually the son of the evil overlord.

 

[zooterkin]

Ok, let's try this again.

First, I'll concede the 3000 mentioned in Acts are not those speaking in tongues. That was my mistake for misreading your post.

Luke writing in Acts 2:4 about the day of Pentecost where 3000 were converted (From the Gateway website)

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

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

People from many countries were there on Pentecost. It would certainly make sense they went back to their country when there was civil war in the city for several years and then the Romans almost totally destroyed the city in 70 ad.

However, there is nothing which says that those converted were the foreigners who would have gone home; quite the opposite:

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

So, the alleged 3000 (remember this is the bible, which is what you are supposed to be providing supporting evidence for) stayed together as a group, and went to the temple daily, and grew in number.

And yet, there is no independent contemporary record of this daily throng of people gathering at the temple, or any record of any of this growing number of people after the destruction of the temple. Where did thousands of people who'd witnessed the holy spirit at first hand vanish to?

As an aside, regarding the explanation that the speaking in tongues was prophesied:

15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Even if you happen to believe in prophecies, how does this match? In what way was 2000 years ago, "the last days"?

A totally destroyed city is not conducive to a vibrant church community. And is also not conducive to leaving behind records of any community.

Sadly, for you, that means the only "record" of this 3000 is the bible; since that's what you're trying to prove, I'm afraid you can't use it as evidence...

Remember we don't even have Julius Caesar's signature.

How could we forget, the number of times you mention this? Do you think it has some significance?

And notice the attention to detail given by Luke when he names many of the different nationalities present at Pentecost.

Yes, because that must make it true. So, if I list, "Arnor · Arthedain · Bree-land · Cardolan · Dale · Dol Amroth · Dunland · Éothéod · Esgaroth · Gondor · Harad · Khand · Rhovanion · Rhudaur · Rhûn · Rohan · Umbar", that means The Lord of the Rings is true too?

 

[six7s]

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.

The human what?

Please DOC, at least try to refrain from going off on tangents, especially those that concern pure, unadulterated, delusion-reinforcing woo

Oh... and by the way... one question...

Are you ever going to even try to furnish us with some 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth'?

 

[Niggle]

*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!

Nominated!

 

[amb]

Using DOC's standard of evidence, Luke was a young nerfherded who lived in a desert under the care of his adopted aunt and uncle but is actually the son of the evil overlord.

Is this the same Luke who according to DOC was the greatest historian who ever lived?

 

[Akhenaten]

Nominated!

Why thank you! I'm glad I didn't quit the thread, since it's such a goldmine.

I blame six7s, mostly.

 

[DOC]

Do have any idea what abiogenesis entails? Do you understand how it differs from evolution, by any definition at all? Do you even know the true definition of the word "evolution" and why Darwin originally rejected it as a name for his theory?

Methinks your grasp of the concepts involved with the life sciences is as keen as your grasp of what constitutes "evidence"...

Another post where you say nothing but ask questions, explain nothing, and is a total waste of time. Your whole purpose in these type of useless posts is to try to demean me in some way and we learn nothing. You might fool some people but putting useless posts like this up will sooner or later destroy any credibility you might have.

 

[zooterkin]

Another post where you say nothing but ask questions, explain nothing, and is a total waste of time. Your whole purpose in these type of useless posts is to try to demean me in some way and we learn nothing.

It's a shame you think that way. The only way you would be demeaned by answering the questions is if you exposed the fact that you did not understand the concepts involved, yet persisted in pontificating about them.

Conversely, if you took time to answer the questions, you might actually learn something, and not make yourself look like an idiot.

You might fool some people but putting useless posts like this up will sooner or later destroy any credibility you might have.

 

[Lothian]

Another post where you say nothing but ask questions, explain nothing, and is a total waste of time. Your whole purpose in these type of useless posts is to try to demean me in some way and we learn nothing. You might fool some people but putting useless posts like this up will sooner or later destroy any credibility you might have.

It is not a waste of time. Your inability to answer the questions teaches us something. It explains why your claims lack credibility and why you make so many useless posts which do not give any evidence that the NT authors told the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

<I snippeth>

You might fool some people but putting useless posts like this up will sooner or later destroy any credibility you might have.

Answer me these questions three . . .


Care to list the posters who aren't included in your 'some people' above?

Care to see a poll of your own credibility vs the poster you are so blatantly attempting to malign with this personal attack?

Care to post some evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

 

[DOC]

...So, the alleged 3000 (remember this is the bible, which is what you are supposed to be providing supporting evidence for) stayed together as a group, and went to the temple daily, and grew in number.

And yet, there is no independent contemporary record of this daily throng of people gathering at the temple, or any record of any of this growing number of people after the destruction of the temple. Where did thousands of people who'd witnessed the holy spirit at first hand vanish to?...

From the article:The Destruction of the Second Temple by Lambert Dolphin

"Jerusalem was totally destroyed and as Jesus had predicted - not one stone was left upon another. When the Temple was set on fire the Roman soldiers tore apart the stone to get the melted gold. The Menorah and vessels were carried to Rome and the treasury was robbed."

http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html

Having a city totally destroyed would have a way of destroying any written records if in fact they did keep written records. I mean I've been to church hundreds of times and I've never kept one record or written down anything or seen any record of those hundreds of church services by anyone else. And we even have paper which they didn't have then.

And where did the people vanish to. Well if they weren't killed in the several year civil war that happened before 70 ad or killed by the Romans when they destroyed the city in 70 ad. they could have died from famine:

From the article above:

"The struggles between the Zealots and the Roman soldiers from Syria destroyed the food stocks of the Zealots who then robbed the homes of the local Jewish population. The inhabitants of Jerusalem died in great numbers by famine as had happened when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem centuries earlier (Jer. 52:6,7)"

As all of the above demonstrates conditions were not exactly ripe to maintain the once flourishing church in Jerusalem.

 

[Paulhoff]

Funny, quoting parts of the bible that seem to be written after the fact has proof that Jesus said something about the future, how convenient for getting it right.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

From the article:The Destruction of the Second Temple by Lambert Dolphin

Did Mister Dolphin not like the architecture?

Having a city totally destroyed would have a way of destroying any written records if in fact they did keep written records.

Not the Roman records. And they do exist.

I mean I've been to church hundreds of times and I've never kept one record or written down anything or seen any record of those hundreds of church services by anyone else.

Sheep don't keep records, but farmers do.

And we even have paper which they didn't have then.

What comes up for you when you Google 'papyrus', DOC?

And where did the people vanish to. Well if they weren't killed in the several year civil war that happened before 70 ad or killed by the Romans when they destroyed the city in 70 ad. they could have died from famine:

Hittites.

 

[DOC]

Funny, quoting parts of the bible that seem to be written after the fact has proof that Jesus said something about the future, how convenient for getting it right.

Paul

What do you mean by seem to be written after the fact. They in fact seem to be written before the fact since none of the gospels mention the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. That seems odd since it was such a huge event.