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

[carlitos]

DOC - I have read this entire thread, but I haven't participated. I have to be honest - this thread has caused me to question my faith. Do you have any evidence for why we know the New Testement writers told the truth?" Thanks!

 

[joobz]

So then you believe if a teacher is awarded the national teacher of the year award it is not more likely that that teacher would be better for your child than some random teacher.

teacher of what?
Teacher of history, or of the supernatural?

 

[DOC]

DOC - I have read this entire thread, but I haven't participated. I have to be honest - this thread has caused me to question my faith. Do you have any evidence for why we know the New Testement writers told the truth?" Thanks!

I've already answered that same question many times. If people don't like my answer so be it.

 

[DOC]

teacher of what?
Teacher of history, or of the supernatural?

Let's say a teacher of history since this thread is in the history section and Ramsay said Luke was one of the world's greatest historians.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You've got the right to your opinion.

Actually, Doc, that's fact. Not opinion.

In fact, every bit of your "evidence" has been, actually, opinion. Apparently you know not the difference between these two.

 

[joobz]

Let's say a teacher of history since this thread is in the history section and Ramsay said Luke was one of the world's greatest historians.

Well then, I would let that teacher teach history. But the moment the teacher tried to teach things that are obviously fictional and defy logic (e.g., that resurrections are real, that godmen exist, and that unicorns have healing blood), I would through his butt out.

being a good teacher of history does not give one a pass on reason.

 

[DOC]

Well then, I would let that teacher teach history. But the moment the teacher tried to teach things that are obviously fictional and defy logic (e.g., that resurrections are real, that godmen exist, and that unicorns have healing blood), I would through his butt out.

being a good teacher of history does not give one a pass on reason.

So then you would rather have the teacher that received praise (like Luke did) teach your child history than some random history teacher?

 

[DOC]

Well then, I would let that teacher teach history. But the moment the teacher tried to teach things that are obviously fictional and defy logic (e.g., that resurrections are real, that godmen exist, and that unicorns have healing blood), I would through his butt out.

Would you throw the history teacher out if he/she taught the historical fact that Jesus suffered the supreme punishment under Pontious Pilate and the historical fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the world?

 

[joobz]

So then you would rather have the teacher that received praise like Luke did teach your child history than some random history teacher.

Asked and answered.
Your attempt to reframe my answer to mean something it doesn't is another deceitful tactic.


Being a good teacher of history doesn't mean that everything that person says is useful. If this was a thread about alchemy, and you brought in a quote about how newton* was one of the greatest scientists ever, it wouldn't mean that alchemy was real. it would actually be quite dishonest to attempt to support alchemy through that appeal.


*Newton was a known practicioner of alchemy. Even though he was the father of modern physics and highly important person, that doesn't mean he was right about alchemy.

 

[joobz]

Would you throw the history teacher out if he/she taught the historical fact that Jesus suffered the supreme punishment under Pontious Pilate and the historical fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the world?

No, I wouldn't.
Now, if that teacher tried to present those facts as if they supported the notion of Christianity being the "one true religion", then I most certainly would. Not because I wouldn't want my child to be exposed to religion, but because that teacher would clearly demonstrate terrible logic and rational skills. I wouldn't want to expose my children to someone who couldn't think logically and made such ridiculously stupid arguments.

 

[Elizabeth I]

The main focus of the parable is that God punishes sin {unless sincere forgiveness is asked}.

Christ probably used that parable because his audience (in that brutal era) could understand exactly what he was talking about. But the focus of the parable is not the economic institution of servitude or slavery, the main focus is that God punishes sin. Joobz and some others are concentrating on the servitude and slavery aspect but the focus of the parable is on punishment for sin not servitude or slavery.

Yes, and he illustrated that by speaking about beating subordinates. Why is this so hard for you to admit? Your Bible has an approving story in it about beating subordinates. Your savior illustrates man's relationship to God by telling a story in which he says it is acceptable to beat subordinates. It doesn't matter if the subordinate beat other subordinates first. The master beats the subordinates, and Jesus says this is the way it should be.

 

[DOC]

Asked and answered.

Well let me ask you this hypothetical question and see if you have the courage to answer it truthfully. If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.

And person A claimed he saw someone levitate in 2005 in Florida

And person B claimed he saw someone levitate in 2008 in New York.


And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.


Then you were asked, "which person A or B would choose as the one who was right"?. Who would you choose A or B?

 

[joobz]

Well let me ask you this hypothetical question and see if you have the courage to answer it truthfully. If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.

And person A claimed he saw someone levitate in 2005 in Florida

And person B claimed he saw someone levitate in 2008 in New York.


And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.


Then you were asked which person A or B would choose as your answer as being the one who was right. Who would you choose A or B?

Asked and answered. Stop being retarded.
Your attempt to reframe my answer to mean something it doesn't is another deceitful tactic.


Being a good teacher of history doesn't mean that everything that person says is useful. If this was a thread about alchemy, and you brought in a quote about how newton* was one of the greatest scientists ever, it wouldn't mean that alchemy was real. it would actually be quite dishonest to attempt to support alchemy through that appeal.


*Newton was a known practicioner of alchemy. Even though he was the father of modern physics and highly important person, that doesn't mean he was right about alchemy.


ETA: if you had courage you wouldn't need to play the games you are clearly playing now.
I've noticed you ignored my answer regarding slavery in the roman empire....

 

[DOC]

Well let me ask you this hypothetical question and see if you have the courage to answer it truthfully. If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.

And person A claimed he saw someone levitate in 2005 in Florida

And person B claimed he saw someone levitate in 2008 in New York.


And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.


Then you were asked, "which person A or B would you choose as the one who was right"?. Who would you choose A or B?

Asked and answered. Stop being retarded.
Your attempt to reframe my answer to mean something it doesn't is another deceitful tactic.


Being a good teacher of history doesn't mean that everything that person says is useful. If this was a thread about alchemy, and you brought in a quote about how newton* was one of the greatest scientists ever, it wouldn't mean that alchemy was real. it would actually be quite dishonest to attempt to support alchemy through that appeal.


*Newton was a known practicioner of alchemy. Even though he was the father of modern physics and highly important person, that doesn't mean he was right about alchemy.


ETA: if you had courage you wouldn't need to play the games you are clearly playing now.
I've noticed you ignored my answer regarding slavery in the roman empire....

You did not answer my hypothetical question. I'm going to keep asking it until you do.

 

[joobz]

You did not answer my hypothetical question. I'm going to keep asking it until you do.

You question is stupid and dishonest. I've explained why it is stupd and dishonest. If you keep asking it (without addressing the answer i've already given), will only make you look stupid and dishonest.

If your goal is to look stupid and dishonest, by all means keep asking the question.

 

[X]

So it is your logic that I am being fully dishonest and lying through my teeth by giving a truthful quote about the fact that Ramsay said Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians. These emotional shock words you use are empty fluff.

You are LYING when you say the quote is truthful.
You have been corrected on this many times, and shown that Ramsay did not intend the statement to provide credence for the supernatural aspects of the Bible story. Your refusal to post the full quote, thereby altering Ramsay's meaning, is called QUOTE MINING, and, since you have been repeatedly corrected on this point, is an intentional LIE on your part.

Therefore, once again, I call you a LAIR!

Skeptics lose credibility when they keep saying this over and over. Many skeptics hate what Ramsay said and simply can't accept it and move on. I never said Ramsay's quote was proof that Luke was right about the supernatural, but it certainly increases the likelihood he was right over some author who was never given such praise by a respected academic and we know nothing about. That should be obvious, but some skeptics just can't accept it, and I think that hurts those skeptics credibility as being unbiased.

hiliting mine


No. It does not increase the likelihood at all.

As I've explained before, Victor Hugo's mention of France, and cities, landmarks and historical events in France does not increase the certainty that Cosette lived, or that Jean Valjean lived, or indeed anyone mentioned in the book. Nor does it lend support to the claim that Jean Valjean was the mayor of a town and a factory owner, despite being a flawed character. Further, the fact that Hugo included embarrassing details about Valjean (i.e. prison sentence, probation dodging, stealing silverware) does not in any way lend validity to the story.




Question: Has anyone here (DOC included) ever read Cervantes' Don Quixote?
I only ask, because Sancho Panza's attempts to convince Don Quixote of his folly remind me very much of this thread...

 

[amb]

You're implying I said the authors of the NT could be right about some things and wrong about others which would be false.

And many of my 1500 posts answer your question about evidence.

That's right. The Bible can't possibly have mistakes. It is the word of the Lord after all. Including that Jesus walked on water, Noah's Flood, and all the rest of most of what even christian apologists now regard as metaphors.

So it is your logic that I am being fully dishonest and lying through my teeth by giving a truthful quote about the fact that Ramsay said Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians. These emotional shock words you use are empty fluff.

Skeptics lose credibility when they keep saying this over and over. Many skeptics hate what Ramsay said and simply can't accept it and move on. I never said Ramsay's quote was proof that Luke was right about the supernatural, but it certainly increases the likelihood he was right over some author who was never given such praise by a respected academic and we know nothing about. That should be obvious, but some skeptics just can't accept it, and I think that hurts those skeptics credibility as being unbiased.

DOC, you do know that Sir William Ramsey was an apologist don't you?

 

[DOC]

No. It does not increase the likelihood at all.

Joobz wouldn't answer person A or person B to my hypothetical question. I'll ask it of you.

 

[joobz]

Joobz wouldn't answer person A or person B to my hypothetical question. I'll ask it of you.

+1 stupid and dishonest modifier.



ETA:
I find your hypothetical story quite appropriate.
1.) Christianity asserts something illogical is true. (without evidence or rationality)
2.) Your god is JUST like the man holding a gun to another person's head.

 

[DOC]

DOC, you do know that Sir William {Mitchell} Ramsey was an apologist don't you?

Before or after his 15 years of digging and doing anthropological research in biblical lands? If before what is your source?