• 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:
...some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.
Click to expand...
For the third time:

DOC, do you have any references that might substantiate this vague claim?
 
DOC said:
Well I don't know what verse your talking about but Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem (or at the very least he was born in Palestine) and he couldn't self fulfill his own prophecy of surviving his death (crucifixion by the Romans -- Tacitus talks of Jesus being given the supreme punishment), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being whipped "by his stripes we are healed" (he was likely whipped by the Romans before his crucifixion.)

And read Isaiah Chapter 53 and you can make your own decision if you think that is talking about Jesus. In the "Middle Ages" a Jewish rabbi came up with the theory it was talking about the Jewish nation. But the rabbis in the Old Testament thought it referred to the Messiah, and that's what should matter.
Click to expand...


Bolding mine.

Rabbis in the Old Testament? What Rabbis in the Old Testament? What are you talking about? The rabbinical tradition didn't exist until after the destruction of the Temple.

Please explain this statement with supporting evidence. Who in the world thought in terms of the suffering servant as the Messiah in pre-Christian times?

And why do you persist in ignoring the three preceding songs of the suffering servant as you did before? Shouldn't anyone interested in understanding the truth look closely at all the evidence? If the fourth song is about Jesus, why aren't the other three? They all concern the suffering servant.
 
DOC said:
Well actually Ramsay has a chapter on that in his book -- The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament -- I haven't had time to read it but someone ought to download it and bring it in and let's see what Ramsay says about Bethlehem. If I ever get the time I'm going to have to read that book. I've been too busy with Geisler's book and Ralph Muncaster's book.
Click to expand...
How long are those books? If I get two books on a topic I am wildly interested in, within three days, unless they are both well over 350 pages each or a real emergency comes up that requires a lot of my free attention, they are read.:confused:

Data rules!!!
 
joobz said:
Funny thing about lying is that the liar often even convinces his/herself of the truth of the lie.
Click to expand...
I can always tell when I'm getting into some important information because the attack the messenger mode heats up.
 
Lothian said:
There is not a chapter on the trustworthiness of the 'Bethlehem' birth in "The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament" I would have thought someone who has quoted the book over 70 times would be familiar with its contents.

I suspect you are getting mixed up with Ramsay's seperate book "Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?"...
Click to expand...

Ramsay does talk about Bethlehem in the "The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament" book. You can download the book from the internet. It will take 30 minutes to do on my dial up, I don't have the time to do that and read the book now.


Lothian said:
So yet again, Ramsay concluded there is no evidence that the NT writers told the truth and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem,
Click to expand...

This is a false statement. He said there is "no proof" of the supreme facts "not no evidence".

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) page 235

"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I can always tell when I'm getting into some important information because the attack the messenger mode heats up.
Click to expand...
I notice that you ignored your complete contradiction about using the Ramsay quote. It is a lie to use it as support for supernatural events when Ramsay himself excluded it from his statement.

Your use of it is a pure and unadulterated example of lying for Jesus.
If you think it important to lie, than that says more about the quality of your beliefs than it does about about me or anyone else.
 
DOC said:
I can always tell when I'm getting into some important information because the attack the messenger mode heats up.
Click to expand...
I can always tell when you have been given questions that you can't answer because you ignore them and play the victim card.

So can you;

Tell Ichneumonwasp why you persist in ignoring the three preceding songs of the suffering servant and

Give six7s the references that show that the prophets predicted crucifixion before it was known.

Before you get back on your cross I will warn you that I will keep quoting them until you give an answer.
 
DOC said:
This is a false statement. He said there is "no proof" of the supreme facts "not no evidence".

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) page 235

"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."
Click to expand...

Just because you hide behind this retarded semantic distinction* doesn't mean Ramsay does.
 
DOC said:
Ramsay does talk about Bethlehem in the "The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament" book. You can download the book from the internet. It will take 30 minutes to do on my dial up, I don't have the time to do that and read the book now.
Click to expand...
I have the book. What is the title of the chapter on Bethlehem?

This is a false statement. He said there is "no proof" of the supreme facts "not no evidence".

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) page 235

"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."
Click to expand...
It is not a false statement. Page 236
"The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence."

I await your apology just as I wait for you to;

Tell Ichneumonwasp why you persist in ignoring the three preceding songs of the suffering servant and

Give six7s the references that show that the prophets predicted crucifixion before it was known.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Just because you hide behind this retarded semantic distinction* doesn't mean Ramsay does.
Click to expand...

So the record shows you think it is retarded to be specific about the differences between the wording evidence and proof?

And you will notice the title of this thread leads with the word Evidence, not Proof.
 
DOC said:
So the record shows you think it is retarded to be specific about the differences between the wording evidence and proof?
Click to expand...
Your use of proof/evidence distinction is retarded. Not the actual difference between proof/evidence. The word proof is flexible in the modern language. People use evidence to prove an argument. Ie., support an argument. That is the whole POINT behind evidence.

IF something doesn't "PROVE" something, it isn't evidence for it. Now is it????

DOC said:
And you will notice the title of this thread leads with the word Evidence, not Proof.
Click to expand...
And I notice that you haven't provided evidence for the bible writers told the truth. However, you have provided evidence that you lie.
 
DOC said:
So the record shows you think it is retarded to be specific about the differences between the wording evidence and proof?

And you will notice the title of this thread leads with the word Evidence, not Proof.
Click to expand...
The record shows you have persisted in ignoring the three preceding songs of the suffering servant.

And you will notice the title of this thread leads with the word Evidence and you have provide no evidence that the prophets predicted crucifixion before it was known.
 
Lothian said:
Give six7s the references that show that the prophets predicted crucifixion before it was known.
Click to expand...

Actually I said the prophecies seem to predict the crucifixion. I will answer this within 3 days.
 
DOC said:
Actually I said the prophecies seem to predict the crucifixion. I will answer this within 3 days.
Click to expand...
and the three preceding songs of the suffering servant?


Oh and an apology to me. You lied when you said I gave a false statement about Ramsay saying there is no evidence for the essential facts of the NT. See page 236 of The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom