• 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.
I have a message from the goal for DOC, it finds the constant doings and goings with its goalposts highly offensive.
 
Biggest problem is with all the talk and all the time, the only response for the thread title Evidence.....truth is : NONE, NADA, NOT A SCINTILLA of evidence that they told/wrote/described/knew any truths at all. Ot that the supposed writers even existed as described. Valient try though and thanks for playing!!
 
DOC said:
I have never said Ramsay's praising of Luke as being one of the world's greatest historians proves the miracle elements of the bible.
Click to expand...

DOC said:
And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
DOC said:
... some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.
Click to expand...
Seem to? Really?

If this isn't merely another dodge on your part (i.e. there is some relevance to the thread) then, please, do cite references to such prophecies

Otherwise, please, do STFU

TYIA :)
 
Talking about something you believe in does not make it true, no matter how much so-called logic you use in your arguments. Saying that people believe in something does not make it true as in the earth is not flat and the center of the universe. Science, in the end, does not try to prove anything, it only tries to find out what the universe is, not what someone wants it to be because of their needs.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
Do you have the faintest whiff of some clue as to indications of what might constitute a reliable source?

Hint: Not your memory.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who originated an argument if it's logical. I just said that to say I didn't invent the argument This is a perfect example of how any speck of opportunity to say something derogatory about me is fully pounced on. And I think that behavior hurts the image of many skeptics.
 
DOC said:
It doesn't matter who originated an argument if it's logical.
Click to expand...


Probably. What's that got to do with your arguments though?


DOC said:
I just said that to say I didn't invent the argument.
Click to expand...


What the Dickens are you talking about?


DOC said:
This is a perfect example of how any speck of opportunity to say something derogatory about me is fully pounced on.
Click to expand...


And this pathetic response of yours is a perfect example of you being asked 20 legitimate questions and then answering a question that wasn't asked because you know that answering the others will embarrass you.

It's transparently dishonest and you started doing it on page one. By now, I'd be amazed to find that you're capable of responding in any other way.


DOC said:
And I think that behavior hurts the image of many skeptics.
Click to expand...


Your opinion on the image of skeptics is as irrelevant as your opinion on everything else.

Why don't you try presenting evidence instead of opinion, and see if that works out any better?
 
Lothian said:
But Ramsay found no evidence for the supernatural facts. Geisler's huge leap in logic was expressly denied by Ramsey who expressly said that the only way to believe the essential parts of the story is through faith.
Click to expand...
Actually he said faith, intuition, and the inner parts of your being. Others scholars like Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Ralph Muncaster think the known historical and logical evidence is important to their belief in the supernatural aspects of the bible.
 
joobz said:
​
True. But,since when have you presented a logical agruement?
Click to expand...
So you like to hang out in threads where you believe the thread creator is illogical; and then you leave over 900 posts. I think you have too much time on your hands.
 
Last edited:
What's with all the post counting? It adds nothing to your arguments.

I have well over 10,000 posts on another forum. What can you make of that?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
So you like to hang out in threads where you believe the thread creator is illogical; and then you leave over 900 posts. I think you have too much time on your hands.
Click to expand...
your threads are like fox reality shows. In this case, it's "the world's most illogical arguments."
not all entertainment is high brow.
 
DOC said:
Actually he said faith, intuition, and the inner parts of your being. Others scholars like Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Ralph Muncaster think the known historical and logical evidence is important to their belief in the supernatural aspects of the bible.
Click to expand...
i'm sure they do. but, all the worse for them....
 
DOC said:
So you like to hang out in threads where you believe the thread creator is illogical; and then you leave over 900 posts. I think you have too much time on your hands.
Click to expand...


In what way are you qualified to comment on the posting habits of others? Which other threads have you contributed to recently, DOC?
 
John Jones said:
What's with all the post counting? It adds nothing to your arguments.

I have well over 10,000 posts on another forum. What can you make of that?
Click to expand...


Another no explanation post just attacking me because it's easier than reading my 38 gajillion posts which are out there for all to see and to speak for themselves.

/DOC


;)
 
DOC said:
It doesn't matter who originated an argument if it's logical. I just said that to say I didn't invent the argument This is a perfect example of how any speck of opportunity to say something derogatory about me is fully pounced on. And I think that behavior hurts the image of many skeptics.
Click to expand...
For the nth time, DOC... this thread is NOT about you...

The WHO is NOT relevant

The WHAT is relevant

What you post is bollocks

If you have a problem with the continual reminders, then that's your problem... deal with it

In the meantime...

Got any evidence?







Oh... yeah... and any cites for your most(?) recent claim of "some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets"?
 
Akhenaten said:
Probably. What's that got to do with your arguments though?





What the Dickens are you talking about?





And this pathetic response of yours is a perfect example of you being asked 20 legitimate questions and then answering a question that wasn't asked because you know that answering the others will embarrass you.

It's transparently dishonest and you started doing it on page one. By now, I'd be amazed to find that you're capable of responding in any other way.
.................(removed lines, fuelair)
Click to expand...

That's from page one of every thread he started, not just this one. Unbelievable but obvious even to the most casual observer. And quite annoying but very xtian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom