• 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.
kmortis said:
Eraly 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.
Click to expand...
I wonder if DOC is going to take up my offer to enlighten us about the early christian church. Afterall, he seems so well versed on it.. ..:D
 
joobz said:
I wonder if DOC is going to take up my offer to enlighten us about the early christian church. Afterall, he seems so well versed on it.. ..:D
Click to expand...
Oh sure, quote the one where I mispell "early". Thanks. That kind of post really hurts my credability, you know.
 
carlitos said:
No problem, just list your degrees and how many books you wrote.
Click to expand...
BSEE and none.

I have, however, written numerous role playing adventures. I think that should account for something. None were published, mind you, just played by a local gaming group.
 
kmortis said:
BSEE and none.

I have, however, written numerous role playing adventures. I think that should account for something.
Click to expand...
In this thread, that should count for a lot.

Imagine if you told your role playing adventures to your English-speaking friends, and they told their Spanish-speaking friends, and so on, for about 150 years. And then someone wrote them down. I wonder whether the adventures would change?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
In this thread, that should count for a lot.

Imagine if you told your role playing adventures to your English-speaking friends, and they told their Spanish-speaking friends, and so on, for about 150 years. And then someone wrote them down. I wonder whether the adventures would change?
Click to expand...
Maybe something like this?

Original English Text:
Imagine if you told your role playing adventures to your English-speaking friends, and they told their Spanish-speaking friends, and so on, for about 150 years. And then someone wrote them down. I wonder whether the adventures would change?

Translated to French:
Imaginez si vous disiez votre rôle jouant des aventures à vos amis qui parlent anglais, et elles a dit leurs amis de langue espagnole, et ainsi de suite, pendant environ 150 années. Et alors quelqu'un les a écrites avalent. Je me demande si les aventures changeraient ?

Translated back to English:
Imagine if you say your playing role of the adventures to your friends who speak English, and they said their friends of Spanish language, and so on, during approximately 150 years. And then somebody wrote them avalent. Do I wonder whether the adventures would change?

Translated to German:
Stellen Sie vor sich, wenn Sie Ihre spielende Rolle der Abenteuer zu Ihren Freunden sagen, die Englisch sprechen, und sie sagten ihre Freunde der spanischen Sprache und so weiter während ungefähr 150 Jahre. Und dann schrieb jemand sie avalent. Wundere ich mich, ob die Abenteuer ändern würden?

Translated back to English:
Place before itself, if you say your playing role of the adventures to your friends, who speak English, and their friends of the Spanish language said them and so on during approximately 150 years. And then someone wrote it avalent. Am I surprised whether the adventures would modify?

Translated to Italian:
Il posto prima se stesso, se dite il vostro ruolo di gioco delle avventure ai vostri amici, che parlano inglese e dei loro amici della lingua spagnola li ha detti ecc durante i circa 150 anni. E poi qualcuno lo ha scritto avalente. Sono sorpreso se le avventure modificherebbero?

Translated back to English:
If the before same place, if you say your role of game of the adventures to your friends, that they speak English and of their friends of the Spanish language has said etc to them during i approximately 150 years. And then someone has written it avalente. They are surprised if the adventures would modify?

Translated to Portuguese:
Se antes do mesmo lugar, se você diz seu papel do jogo das aventuras a seus amigos, que falam o inglês e de seus amigos da língua espanhola disse-lhes etc. durante i aproximadamente 150 anos. E alguém tem-lhe escrito então o avalente. São surpreendidos se as aventuras modificariam?

Translated back to English:
If before the same place, if you say its paper of the game of the adventures its friends, who say the English and of its friends of the Spanish language aproximadamente he aproximadamente said etc. during i 150 years to them. E somebody to it has written then avalente. They are surprised if the adventures would modify?

Translated to Spanish:
Si antes del mismo lugar, si usted dice su papel del juego de las aventuras sus amigos, que dicen el inglés y de sus amigos del aproximadamente del lenguaje español él aproximadamente dijeron el etc. durante i 150 años a ellos. E alguien a ella entonces ha escrito el avalente. ¿Se sorprenden si las aventuras se modificarían?
Translated back to English:
If before the same place, if you say to his paper of the game of the adventures his friendly, that say the English and of their friendly of approximately of the Spanish language he approximately said to the etc. during i 150 years to them. And somebody to her then has written the avalente. They are surprised if the adventures would modify?
Click to expand...
 
And I learned about multi-babel. Here's Matthew 18-19:

The birth of the Jesus Christ maintains the era this one intelligent one: When first its/of Maria in estêve of the wedding promised to Jose, before it comes with, is with the alcohol of santo of the boy. And Jose their husband, a correct one of the certain man and having to return fill it to a general of the example arrives, the end put far around confidential
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correction: we do NOT know he studied all the major philosophers. Graduate schools may have different emphases on different scholarly career paths. He may not have studied any more philosphers than the ones that were in favor at Loyola when he was getting his degree.

tsig said:
So have I and so may any man, the question is: did he understand them?
Click to expand...

And there's the crux of the matter.
 
DOC said:
And a site I saw said the estimate among conservative scholars is between 50 - 70 ad.
Click to expand...

Yes, faithful believers faithfully believe that faithful belief.
The consensus of scholars is somewhat later - no real scholar thinks it was written c.50AD

But IF it was written that early -
WHY did no CHRISTIAN show knowledge of it until mid 2nd century?

Consider these Christian books with approx. dates :

60s - Hebrews - NO mention of Gospel(s)

80s - 1 John - NO mention of Gospel(s)
80s - James - NO mention of Gospel(s)

90s - Ephesians - NO mention of Gospel(s)
90s - 2 Thess. - NO mention of Gospel(s)
90s - 1 Peter - NO mention of Gospel(s)
90s - 1 Clement - NO mention of Gospel(s)
90s - Revelation - NO mention of Gospel(s)

100s - Didakhe - NO mention of Gospel(s)
100s - Jude - NO mention of Gospel(s)

110s - Barnabas - NO mention of Gospel(s)
120s - 2,3 John - NO mention of Gospel(s)
120s - Apoc.Peter - NO mention of Gospel(s)
120s - SecretJames - NO mention of Gospel(s)
120s - Preaching.Peter - NO mention of Gospel(s)

130s - 2 Peter - NO mention of Gospel(s)
130s - Pastorals - NO mention of Gospel(s)
130s - Hermas - NO mention of Gospel(s)
130s - Polycarp - NO mention of Gospel(s)


The first 2 DOZEN books of Christianity say NOTHING about the Gospels.

Finally in mid 2nd century they become known, as Aristrides told us, which you ignored.

The evidence is clear - the Gospels were UNKNOWN, even to Christians, until about mid 2nd century.



K.
 
Gday,

DOC said:
Your post is confusing
Click to expand...

My post is crystal clear -
It lists early references to the Gospels showing they were UN-NAMED.

DOC said:
can you give the Url
Click to expand...

What URL?
I READ those Christian books and WROTE that post myself.
The idea of actually doing research is completely foreign to you, isn't it DOC? Everything you post is just a copy from someone's else URL. Will you ever do any thinking for yourself?


DOC said:
so we can read it in context.
Click to expand...

What context ?

I listed examples of references to UN-NAMED Gospels from CHRISTIAN books - but that concept was too complex for you it seems.

Will you address this FACT?

That all the early references to the written Gospels were as UN-NAMED books.

What is your answer, DOC ?


K.
 
Kapyong said:
What URL?
I READ those Christian books and WROTE that post myself.
The idea of actually doing research is completely foreign to you, isn't it DOC? Everything you post is just a copy from someone's else URL. Will you ever do any thinking for yourself?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
I seriously do not know why he thought your post was unclear.
You made the claim:
"The Gospels were unnamed before 200AD"
You then presented several early christian sources which reference gospels but did not include names.

If DOC wishes to challenge your statement, He could
1.)Present christian writings PRIOR to 200AD which named the gospels.
2.)Read your listed sources and see if indeed they do not name the gospels.
 
DOC said:
I would think skeptics would be more impressed by a PhD in Philosophy rather than a PhD in Theology.
Click to expand...



After all the time you've spent on the JREf forums, DOC, how can you still think such a thing? After all, you did claim to have studied logic...



Please write the following out by hand, DOC:

Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy.


and continue to do so until it sinks in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom