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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
No it isn't. The existence of Rael is attested by his goddamed birth certificate.[/url]

But, the birth certificate is in the name of Claude Vorilhon...

No, seriously, both are evidences of Raël/Vorilhon's existence.


It's compatible but not necessaril...evidence we have... which is not to say much.
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
So you believe some stranger off the internet you have never met, but you don't believe someone called one of the world's greatest historians (gospel writer Luke) by Sir William M. Ramsay?
Click to expand...

hiliting mine




DOC, you are a LIAR!
 
DOC said:
So you believe some stranger off the internet you have never met, but you don't believe someone called one of the world's greatest historians (gospel writer Luke) by Sir William M. Ramsay?
Click to expand...

DOC, you are directly challenging the honesty of a poster here. One who has made it quite clear that he was willing to verify the truthfulness of his post.
Put your "money where your mouth is"(so to speak) and verify with Carlitos the veracity of his post.

carlitos said:
DOC, I know that this might make you feel bad, but I think that you should know. This thread, more than anything else, caused me to lose my faith in God. I'm not kidding, and I'm not lying. If you PM me, I can point you to a years-long history of posts elsewhere where I self-identify as Christian. I'm going to stop doing that now, mostly because of you. I just thought that you should know.
Click to expand...

Are you confident enough to do this, or was your attempt at casting doubt on Carlitos nothing more then empty rhetoric meant to distract from his point?


DOC said:
And even if what this single person says is true, that's just his opinion and doesn't prove Geisler and others are wrong.
Click to expand...
"This single Person" is Carlitos. You know this, it is right next to his post. Why do you deny naming him? Is it because it will make the insults of your accusations more obvious?

And, no, it doesn't "Prove" Geisler wrong. Geisler was proven wrong by his use of horrible logical fallacies. You are proven wrong by using Geisler's horrible logical fallacies.
 
x 1600, which are outstanding to all their see for to speak themselves.

Or something.


ETA: Hi Carlitos. You rock.


I was just thinking, my reaction to the jeebus freaks of the world is not entirely unlike yours, although I came at it from the another direction.

I've always been an atheist, and it's people like DOC who have kept me remain confident that I was on the right track. It's just too ovious when I see what religion can do to a perfectly good brain that I DO NOT WANT.

If all theists were nice, reasonable people like some of the fine Christians I've met here, I might have considered looking at what they were on about, but seeing the kind of thinking that the troo bleevers engage in is a total disincentive.
 
Last edited:
I'm in a hotel, so I grabbed a bible. Let me just get this straight about the ladies going to see the sepulchre:
  • Matthew - Great earthquake, angel of the Lord descends from heaven and "rolled away the stone" at the door. Angel has "countenance like lightning, rainment as snow." See, Jesus is gone. Jesus meets them later, says "Go tell everyone the good news. Follow my commandments, baptize all the nations." End.
  • Mark (this one was written first, right?) - Young man in long white garment inside, stone being already rolled away, Jesus is not here, he is risen. He appears later "in different form," etc.
  • Luke (great historian that he is, badump-ching) - Now, the ladies have some "others" with them to witness events. Stone again already rolled away. No Jesus. TWO men in shiny garments tell them the good news and confirm the prophecy (crucified, died, rose on 3rd day).
  • John - Mary Magdalene goes early, it's still dark. Stone is rolled away already. She runs to go get Simon Peter and another disciple. They see the linen clothes and napkin from his head. They don't go in. The disciples leave and Mary Magdalene sees 2 angels in white. They tell her "they" have taken him to the Lord, and she knows not where they laid him. She turns around and who is there? Jesus, who tells her to go tell everybody the good news. Now we get another Chapter and a half of stuff that wasn't in Matthew, if I'm reading this right.

I'm just curious, how do those books that DOC has explain this, given the different authors and the timing of when they were written? In Mark, there is a guy there, they leave, have visions of seeing Jesus "in different form" and then he appears later and gives them the stump speech.

I apologize for stretching out the thread. Maybe the explanations will be bingo friendly.
 
carlitos said:
I'm just curious, how do those books that DOC has explain this, given the different authors and the timing of when they were written? In Mark, there is a guy there, they leave, have visions of seeing Jesus "in different form" and then he appears later and gives them the stump speech.
Click to expand...


DOC would say (in fact he has said, more than once) that there are discrepancies between eyewitness accounts in any situation, therefore these discrepancies are evidence that they were not made up.
I should note that somewhere in his past, DOC concluded/was told the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, namely the disciples whose names they bear.



carlitos said:
I apologize for stretching out the thread. Maybe the explanations will be bingo friendly.
Click to expand...


No problem. It's the questions asked by posters honestly seeking answers, the answers to those questions, and the explanations given of where DOC's knowledge of theology, history, science, et al are wrong that have made this thread educational.

I do wonder, though, if it has occurred to DOC that your questioning of your faith based on his use (and ad-nauseum repetition) of the arguments of Geisler, Turek, Muncaster and Mcdowell is evidence of just how bad those apologetics are to anyone who is not so blinkered by their faith that the thinking portions of their brain get bypassed by anything supporting their cherished notions. Wow, that's a long sentence.
 
X said:
DOC would say (in fact he has said, more than once) that there are discrepancies between eyewitness accounts in any situation, therefore these discrepancies are evidence that they were not made up..
Click to expand...
The writers of the Gospels weren't eyewitnesses, so that argument falls flat.

Given all of the inconsistencies, it really makes me wonder - why the hell I had to stand up and affirm that this was "the word of the Lord."

Eta - to answer X's question, I have to think about the various leaps of logic that all people of faith make. Leviticus re:shrimp for instance.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
The writers of the Gospels weren't eyewitnesses, so that argument falls flat.
Click to expand...

But Doc has previously argued that they were...


Given all of the inconsistencies, it really makes me wonder - why the hell I had to stand up and affirm that this was "the word of the Lord."
Click to expand...

Societal pressure? Or you didn't read the book that closely? Nothing to be ashamed of either way, albeit the reverse is not true and you should be proud to have the courage and intellectual honesty to follow where your brain lead you, not everybody would have done it.
 
Originally Posted by DOC
Name one person killed by a Christian in the first 300 years of its spread and growth from 12 cowardly apostles cowering in an upper room.
Click to expand...
How about Hypaitia of Alexandria?
 
The Luke who you mention DOC could be any number of people. Most scholars don't think that the Luke who wrote that gospel bearing his name is the Luke the apostle.

All the gospels were written anonymously, only much later were names given them as the authors. Usually they were communities, they each could have more than one author as the gospel called Mark appears to have.
 
carlitos said:
I'm in a hotel, so I grabbed a bible. Let me just get this straight about the ladies going to see the sepulchre:
  • Matthew - Great earthquake, angel of the Lord descends from heaven and "rolled away the stone" at the door. Angel has "countenance like lightning, rainment as snow." See, Jesus is gone. Jesus meets them later, says "Go tell everyone the good news. Follow my commandments, baptize all the nations." End.
  • Mark (this one was written first, right?) - Young man in long white garment inside, stone being already rolled away, Jesus is not here, he is risen. He appears later "in different form," etc.
  • Luke (great historian that he is, badump-ching) - Now, the ladies have some "others" with them to witness events. Stone again already rolled away. No Jesus. TWO men in shiny garments tell them the good news and confirm the prophecy (crucified, died, rose on 3rd day).
  • John - Mary Magdalene goes early, it's still dark. Stone is rolled away already. She runs to go get Simon Peter and another disciple. They see the linen clothes and napkin from his head. They don't go in. The disciples leave and Mary Magdalene sees 2 angels in white. They tell her "they" have taken him to the Lord, and she knows not where they laid him. She turns around and who is there? Jesus, who tells her to go tell everybody the good news. Now we get another Chapter and a half of stuff that wasn't in Matthew, if I'm reading this right.

I'm just curious, how do those books that DOC has explain this, given the different authors and the timing of when they were written? In Mark, there is a guy there, they leave, have visions of seeing Jesus "in different form" and then he appears later and gives them the stump speech.
Click to expand...
He was asked this at least once before, but dodged the questions, unsurprisingly.
I apologize for stretching out the thread. Maybe the explanations will be bingo friendly.
Click to expand...

No apologies needed; the more posts against DOC, the more wrong he is, or something...
 
X said:
DOC would say (in fact he has said, more than once) that there are discrepancies between eyewitness accounts in any situation, therefore these discrepancies are evidence that they were not made up.
Click to expand...
He also has argued that the cave play is a traditional farce. First one group arrive see an angels rolling away the stone, they run off to get others. While they exit stage left in from the right comes another group, who only see one angel because the other has gone to relieve himself at the back of the cave. Jesus's 'young man' turns up and the angels leave out of respect when some of the first group come back.
 
Lothian said:
He also has argued that the cave play is a traditional farce. First one group arrive see an angels rolling away the stone, they run off to get others. While they exit stage left in from the right comes another group, who only see one angel because the other has gone to relieve himself at the back of the cave. Jesus's 'young man' turns up and the angels leave out of respect when some of the first group come back.
Click to expand...

Has JREF ever tried to scientifically prove by reenacting the ''tomb opening'' whether it's possible to have ALL the four gosples witnesses being exactly correct?
 
Lothian said:
He also has argued that the cave play is a traditional farce. First one group arrive see an angels rolling away the stone, they run off to get others. While they exit stage left in from the right comes another group, who only see one angel because the other has gone to relieve himself at the back of the cave. Jesus's 'young man' turns up and the angels leave out of respect when some of the first group come back.
Click to expand...

Wait on! Are you insinuating that the ''young man'' and Jesus had a thing going? :eek:
 
Lothian said:
He also has argued that the cave play is a traditional farce. First one group arrive see an angels rolling away the stone, they run off to get others. While they exit stage left in from the right comes another group, who only see one angel because the other has gone to relieve himself at the back of the cave. Jesus's 'young man' turns up and the angels leave out of respect when some of the first group come back.
Click to expand...

It's only a traditional farce if Derek Nimmo, dressed as a vicar, is sitting in a chintz sofa eating scones and drinking tea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom