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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
If you agree to apologize for making me look it up I'll do it.
Click to expand...

Why should he have to apologize for making you respond to a question which you have, as of yet, to actually respond to?

And, Doc, for the record... while if I ask:

"How old are you?"

and you answer:

"Yesterday was a fun day."

you have technically presented a response...that does not mean it's an appropriate response. So, what say you shoot for that appropriate response, k? Thx.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Why should he have to apologize for making you respond to a question which you have, as of yet, to actually respond to?
.
Click to expand...
Actually, DOC did respond to it. Check my post earlier up this page. That long quoted response was my response to DOC on the first time he brought up the Psalm 22 passage.
 
DOC said:
Sure there is when your talking about something that happened over a day ago. Someone like Luke who has proven he is highly accurate in details is not likely to to be loosey goosey with the facts like some random person off the street.

Answer me this Joobz if your life was on the line if you answered wrong who would you say was the one who is most likely to be right about the sandwich. And they both claimed to eat the sandwich 3 days ago.

A Famous historian who was called one of the world's greatest.

B Some random person off the street.

C Either one because its a 50 50 propositon.
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey said:
I'm going with "C"...mostly because even the most famous person in the world can be (and often is) wrong. The data presented is what carries the weight, not the credentials of the person presenting the data. This, in fact, is what Ramsey is saying in the passage you, yourself, posted in this very thread. Ramsey says that while Luke was a first rate historian, that is not enough to prove the supernatural events of the bible are true because the data does not support this assertion. Ironic fail (again) resulting from a poorly executed quote mine...
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are skeptics who would disagree with you and pick A. I will ask them to come in and say so.
 
DOC said:
Answer me this Joobz if your life was on the line if you answered wrong who would you say was the one who is most likely to be right about the sandwich. And they both claimed to eat the sandwich 3 days ago.

A Famous historian who was called one of the world's greatest.

B Some random person off the street.

C Either one because its a 50 50 propositon.
Click to expand...


What evidence do they have to back up their claims?

And what's this "if your life was on the line" stuff about? I know that your imaginary friend likes to use threats to keep you in line, but they aren't really necessary here. And hypothetical threats aren't really worth much.
 
joobz said:
there is no reason to assume someone on the street is loosey goosey with facts. Again, my hypothetical only dealt with eating a ham sandwich. Nothing more nothing less.



I would say there is no way to know without knowing more. That is the plain and simple truth.

This is my honest opinion.
If you were to tell me that person B was a secretary, or highschool student, or farmer, or a famous novelist, I would still say there isn't enough information to give an answer.
Click to expand...

So then you imply your answer is C. As I said, I am sure there are skeptics who disagree and would pick A. I ask them to come in and say so.

How about Hokulele and Pax coming in and picking A B or C.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I'm not even going to dignify this trollish question with a response.
Click to expand...
Good, so you will fully understand why we won't answer your silly question.

My question gave two answers. You did not feel able to chose either. We felt the exact same way about yours. However we also realised that you were trying to use your example to support the argument that because Ramsay said Luke was a good historian that we should believe that every word in Luke is true.

We can not support this for a number of reasons.

Despite Ramsay's comment about Luke being a good historian he also said that there is no historical evidence for the essential parts of the Jesus story. So Ramsay accepts there is no evidence for the resurection etc. See countless posts above where this has been explained to you

It is an appeal to authority - see countless posts above where this has been explained to you.

You are using the bible to try to prove the bible is true. See countless posts above where this has been explained to you.
 
DOC said:
So then you imply your answer is C. As I said, I am sure there are skeptics who disagree and would pick A. I ask them to come in and say so.
Click to expand...
I welcome anyone's opinion. However, I have yet to see anyone give A as an answer except for you.


Please note, that if you had said "would I trust a famous historian on his area of expertise more than a random guy off the street", I would say yes. But that isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing the very specific situation where we trust a famous historian or someone else to tell the truth about eating a ham sandwich.
 
DOC said:
So then you imply your answer is C. As I said, I am sure there are skeptics who disagree and would pick A. I ask them to come in and say so.
Click to expand...
Even if you get people to agree what does it prove? That we are more likely to believe than someone famous once saw a flying elephant that some one not famous seeing the same thing.

Even if that was the case it does not mean that we believe they actually saw a flying elephant or that their claim to have seen a flying elephant is evidence to support their claim to have seen a flying elephant.

Why don't you tell us what you are trying to prove by this silly question and we can tell you why it is a silly question and not relevant to whether the NT authors told the truth.
 
Last edited:
Word4.jpg
 
Lothian said:
Even if you get people to agree what does it prove? That we are more likely to believe than someone famous once saw a flying elephant that some one not famous seeing the same thing.

Even if that was the case it does not mean that we believe they actually saw a flying elephant or that their claim to have seen a flying elephant is evidence to support their claim to have seen a flying elephant.

Why don't you tell us what you are trying to prove by this silly question and we can tell you why it is a silly question and not relevant to whether the NT authors told the truth.
Click to expand...

Which would you choose A, B, or C?
 
DOC said:
Which would you choose A, B, or C?
Click to expand...

DOC, I play ball.

State your question as precise as possible (as I will try to weasel, evade, feint, find loopholes and enjoy the challenge) and I will promise you I *will* choose an answer from just the options you provide me with.

Can not say fairer than that.
 
DOC said:
Which would you choose A, B, or C?
Click to expand...
D

I would want independent evidence that one and only one of them had eaten a ham sandwich before accepting the bald claim that one of them told the truth. Until that point I would consider that either neither or both of them could have eaten a ham sandwich were reasonable alternatives. Once I had been given that evidence I would use my magic 8 ball to choose.

Now I have answered. Why don't you tell us what you are trying to prove by this silly question and we can tell you why it is a silly question and not relevant to whether the NT authors told the truth.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Is "turkey ham" classified as "ham"? What is "turkey ham" anyway?
Click to expand...


Genesis 9:24-26 (amended edition)

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,

25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”

26 And Noah callest unto Ham, saying "Thou art surely a turkey."
Click to expand...


Ooh! Slaves!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom