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

[paximperium]

Tacitus and Josephus didn't think Christ was fantasy.

Really? What did they think about it?

 

[DOC]

So his PhD is irrelevant.

I would think skeptics would be more impressed by a PhD in Philosophy rather than a PhD in Theology.

 

[joobz]

So you don't believe two PHds are scholars with one (Geisler) writing over 60 published books on the Bible.

Of course not. I've read his writings. His arguments are insultingly fallacious.

DOC, you do understand that MULTIPLE people on this forum have PhDs (myself included). Knowing what it takes to get an advanced degree and the variability in rigor between departments and universities, I do not instantly assume ability. Indeed, knowing a person has a PhD means that my expectations are higher.

In the case of Geisler, his having a PhD makes me respect him even less. His arguments are terrible for a highschool student. For a PhD, they are disgusting.
He's either a moron who simply got his degree through attrition*, or is a dishonest man who writes for an audience he considers morons.


*I tend to think option one, given his strange educational background listing...

"William Tyndale College, 1950-55 (diploma); University of Detroit, 1956-57; Wheaton College, 1958 (B.A. in philosophy); Wheaton Graduate School, 1960 (M.A. in theology); William Tyndale College, 1964 (Th.B.); Wayne State University Graduate School, 1964 (work in philosophy); University of Detroit Graduate School, 1965-66 (work on M.A. in philosophy); Northwestern University, Evanston, 1968 (work in philosophy); Loyola University, Chicago, 1967-70 (Ph.D. in philosophy)"


Does anyone else find this pedigree a bit....strange?

 

[paximperium]

I would think skeptics would be more impressed by a PhD in Philosophy rather than a PhD in Theology.

Your assumptions about everything has been wrong so far; why would you assume your continued delusions would be any less wrong?

 

[joobz]

I would think skeptics would be more impressed by a PhD in Philosophy rather than a PhD in Theology.

Nope.

We're impressed by critical thinking and sound reasoning. Considering Geisler displays neither of these, why would you think he would impress us?

 

[DOC]

"William Tyndale College, 1950-55 (diploma); University of Detroit, 1956-57; Wheaton College, 1958 (B.A. in philosophy); Wheaton Graduate School, 1960 (M.A. in theology); William Tyndale College, 1964 (Th.B.); Wayne State University Graduate School, 1964 (work in philosophy); University of Detroit Graduate School, 1965-66 (work on M.A. in philosophy); Northwestern University, Evanston, 1968 (work in philosophy); Loyola University, Chicago, 1967-70 (Ph.D. in philosophy)"


Does anyone else find this pedigree a bit....strange?

Actually I think the fact that he studied both theology and philosophy with a M.A. in theology and then a PhD. in philosophy gives him a lot of credibility over someone who just concentrated in theology.

So we know he's studied all the major philosophers.

 

[paximperium]

Actually I think the fact that he studied both theology and philosophy with a M.A. in theology and then a PhD. in philosophy gives him a lot of credibility over someone who just concentrated in theology.

No. He has the credibility of someone like Kent Hovind.

So we know he's studied all the major philosophers.

Which makes his illogical nonsense all the more disgusting. It makes it more likely that he is dishonest as opposed to just plain stupid.

 

[joobz]

Actually I think the fact that he studied both theology and philosophy with a M.A. in theology and then a PhD. in philosophy gives him a lot of credibility over someone who just concentrated in theology.

So we know he's studied all the major philosophers.

DOC, why did he visit so many schools before he got his final degree?
Does anyone else get the sense of degree shopping until finding a department who'd be willing to put up with nonsense?



Or is this a common practice of philosophy departments?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

DOC, why did he visit so many schools before he got his final degree?
Does anyone else get the sense of degree shopping until finding a department who'd be willing to put up with nonsense?



Or is this a common practice of philosophy departments?

Well, in all fairness...my Associates transcript has 3 different colleges...And I've since attended (and dropped out of) another University. There was a 5th college sandwiched in the associates schools...but I dropped out to join the AF so it didn't count toward my degree.

But, then again...when we're talking about the higher levels, I would imagine (and my experience with friends working on their masters) that one would find a program and follow it through till the end rather than jump around.

 

[carlitos]

Of course not. I've read his writings. His arguments are insultingly fallacious.

DOC, you do understand that MULTIPLE people on this forum have PhDs (myself included). Knowing what it takes to get an advanced degree and the variability in rigor between departments and universities, I do not instantly assume ability. Indeed, knowing a person has a PhD means that my expectations are higher.

In the case of Geisler, his having a PhD makes me respect him even less. His arguments are terrible for a highschool student. For a PhD, they are disgusting.
He's either a moron who simply got his degree through attrition*, or is a dishonest man who writes for an audience he considers morons.


*I tend to think option one, given his strange educational background listing...

"William Tyndale College, 1950-55 (diploma); University of Detroit, 1956-57; Wheaton College, 1958 (B.A. in philosophy); Wheaton Graduate School, 1960 (M.A. in theology); William Tyndale College, 1964 (Th.B.); Wayne State University Graduate School, 1964 (work in philosophy); University of Detroit Graduate School, 1965-66 (work on M.A. in philosophy); Northwestern University, Evanston, 1968 (work in philosophy); Loyola University, Chicago, 1967-70 (Ph.D. in philosophy)"


Does anyone else find this pedigree a bit....strange?

I forget who says it, but it's one of the (Christian or Jewish) right-wing radio hosts. "Only someone that educated could be so stupid." 20 years kicking around philosophy and theology departments is not much of an education, I don't think. Wow. 20 years! This guy wouldn't know reality if it bit him.

Your post is confusing can you give the Url so we can read it in context.

DOC, this post strikes me as quite dishonest. There is nothing unclear in what is written. It's not "confusing" to me. What specifically is "confusing" to you in what Kapyong wrote about the Gospel?

 

[zooterkin]

He received a PhD in Philosophy from Loyola University (1970) and excuse me he's written closer to 70 books.

Oh, so he's only a tenth as reliable as Barbara Cartland?

 

[kmortis]

So what is Geisler's PhD in and where did he buy it from?

Edit: And the answer to your question is YES.

From The Keeper of All Knowledge

He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from JesuitLoyola University.

 

[tsig]

Actually I think the fact that he studied both theology and philosophy with a M.A. in theology and then a PhD. in philosophy gives him a lot of credibility over someone who just concentrated in theology.

So we know he's studied all the major philosophers.

So have I and so may any man, the question is: did he understand them?

 

[paximperium]

Oh, so he's only a tenth as reliable as Barbara Cartland?

Stephen King has around 70 books, many international top sellers. One Stephen King book probably sells more than all of Geisler's combined.

King must therefore be more reliable

 

[kmortis]

Tacitus and Josephus didn't think Christ was fantasy.

No...they didn't think that the existance of Christians were fantasy. They only reported...strike that, Tacitus only reported what he heard Christians say about Jesus. The passage in Josephus may well have been added centuries later, as has been discussed here time and time and time and time again.

 

[kmortis]

So have I and so may any man, the question is: did he understand them?

Hell, I've FOLLOWED the majority of the world's theologies, before rejecting them all. I guess that makes be the biggest authority of them all, huh?

 

[kmortis]

I would think skeptics would be more impressed by a PhD in Philosophy rather than a PhD in Theology.

No, that would be the path that leads to an Appeal to Authority. While we may give credit to someone for the hard work that it takes to get a PhD*, having one does not, in itself, give one more credibility.






*Progression of degrees:
BS - Bull****
MS - More ****
PhD - Piled higher and Deeper.

 

[joobz]

Well, in all fairness...my Associates transcript has 3 different colleges...And I've since attended (and dropped out of) another University. There was a 5th college sandwiched in the associates schools...but I dropped out to join the AF so it didn't count toward my degree.

But, then again...when we're talking about the higher levels, I would imagine (and my experience with friends working on their masters) that one would find a program and follow it through till the end rather than jump around.

Of Course, by all means I recognize the situations are each unique. But to me, this is a rather large red flag.

Why spend 4 years at three separate universities before spending another 3 years to get your PhD?

 

[Akhenaten]

And others disagree like the modern scholars Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, and Dr. Hugh Ross.

Well they're wrong.

And a site I saw said the estimate among conservative scholars is between 50 - 70 ad.

Well I saw a site that said even more conservative scholars estimate around 1923-26, so you're wrong about that too. Also, the site I saw used a much nicer font that the one you saw, so I double-win.

The fact that there is nothing about the huge event of the destruction of the temple in 70 ad by the Romans (in Matthew) hurts your estimated times.

I'd say it hurts young Matty's estimated times more.

So you don't believe two PHds are scholars with one (Geisler) writing over 60 published books on the Bible.

You don't understand equivocation and straw man arguments and stuff at all, do you DOC?

Your post is confusing can you give the Url so we can read it in context.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

He received a PhD in Philosophy from Loyola University (1970) and excuse me he's written closer to 70 books.

I received a Maze Master medal at the Royal Easter Show very year from 1959-65 and excuse me but I've written closer to fifty-three billion post-it notes.

I win more.

Tacitus and Josephus didn't think Christ was fantasy.

Ramesses the Great didn't think Anubis was a fantasy.

I would think skeptics would be more impressed by a PhD in Philosophy rather than a PhD in Theology.

Would you? Why don't you then? It's a free Internet.

Actually I think the fact that he studied both theology and philosophy with a M.A. in theology and then a PhD. in philosophy gives him a lot of credibility over someone who just concentrated in theology.

I think the fact that an 'Appeal to Authority' is a logical fallacy is beyond your grasp forever.

So we know he's studied all the major philosophers.

Whaddya mean 'we' white man?


I read that somewhere just yesterday. Pretty funny, eh?

 

[kmortis]

How do you know the authors were unknown to those of the first century. And even if we dug up the original Gospel of Matthew and it had the name Matthew on it what does that prove -- nothing. It doesn't mean the apostle Matthew actually wrote it, anybody can write any name they want on a book. The important thing is that the early church accepted that Gospel and the other 3 as being authentic. And they did this long before those 4 gospels were officially canonized. There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

Early churches. And, no there were other competing gospels that didn't survive to this day because once there was an orthodxy, they went on a campaign to destroy all the heretical writings. We know this because some did survive and people wrote about them, including some quotes.