• 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.
DOC said:
Name one lie, guess what you can't because there aren't any.
Click to expand...
Well,
That's easy. You Said Right before this post:
DOC said:
As I've said many times, the attack the messenger mode always heats up when I bring in some important posts. Must have been the Professor Thomas Arnold quote, or Professor the Simon Greenleaf quote.
Click to expand...
And Yet, Waterman Had already addressed Simon Greenleaf's argument.

Waterman said:
Simon Greenleaf has surfaced (resurfaced) in the discussion and I thought I would look into what I could learn.

All Quotes from Wikipedia
Re: Simon Green Leaf


There is more on him there than that but this was relevant to the point at hand. I had never heard of the ancient document rule and thought that this sounded interesting. This is sounding suspiciously like ‘because it is old it is true.’

Re: Ancient Document Rule


I could see where this would apply in certain legal documents where the signatories have all passed away.



Hmm... this is a head scratcher… it seems to be saying that because they couldn’t know how it was going to be used today they wouldn’t have written it to support the case. However I don’t know that the NT meets this test. When it was assembled it was with the expressed idea to be the foundation of the Church and is still being used for that today. This is not some new application it still being used as it was intended to by the drafters.

Also I note they use the word authentic not true. I don’t know the legal distinctions there.



Yea! There are some limitations based on the ‘AND’ it has to meet all three!
20 years old. CHECK
Free of Suspicion regarding authenticity. Ooh big problem there, questions exist regarding authorship as well as transcription errors / edits. This is one area that Greenleaf may have failed to consider.
Found in appropriate place. More problems, we have no clue as to where the disparate documents were found that were assembled into the Bible.

The use of this rule is often limited property transaction, deeds and wills. The Bible does not meet this criteria

Based on my understanding of this information is that the legal thinking has advanced some since Greenleaf arrived at his conclusion. The use of the Ancient Document Rule that he used as one of his founding principals does not appear to apply to the Bible with the current thinking.

Therefore his opinion on the matter doesn’t count as fact because it is opinion AND it is outdated.
Click to expand...

In other words, not only are people not engaging in "attack the messanger" over attacking the argument. But your claim that you brought in important quotes of Simon Greenleaf is simply a lie.


And let's not forget your American Revolution lie.
Or your "I've presented evidence" lie
Or your Luke was a great historian lie...
 
joobz said:
Or your Luke was a great historian lie...
Click to expand...
Maybe this is true though. Maybe it's just a transliteration error. If Luke wrote extensive, accurate and comprehensive treatises on sewer covers in the Roman Empire, then he'd be a grate historian, right?
 
DOC said:
As I've said many times, the attack the messenger mode always heats up when I bring in some important posts. Must have been the Professor Thomas Arnold quote, or Professor the Simon Greenleaf quote.
Click to expand...

What's the point of 'attacking the message'. We have already done that, multiple times, for each arguments. In fact, if you look back, I did a rather long, detailed about why Arnold was full of it just a bit before the post you quoted.

At this point, there is nothing to say about your arguments, citing Greenleaf is irrelevant:
a) It is an opinion and the logical fallacy 'appeal to authority'
b) It's old and, while I too suffer from the occasional gerontobibliophilia, it means that many more evidences have been found since. Scholarship is accretive (hence the expression 'dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants'); hence, modern scholarship will know more than anybody before them and modernscholarship disagrees.
c) It is demonstrably wrong, these Gospels would be rejected in a criminal trials and Arnold's quote is not even wrong, it's just plain ridiculous (as have been shown to you, including by me in several long posts).

We already dealt with that and yet, you wheel the 'argument' back again, what should be do? I am tired of repeating myself for somebody that has no interest in learning.



DOC said:
Name one lie, guess what you can't because there aren't any.
Click to expand...

You are repeating Ramsay's quote on a regular basis, even if this quote was shown to you to be truncated to mean something else that what it means. You are hence willfully misrepresenting what Ramsay meant, that's a lie.

You have been citing Josephus as if it was a reliable source, it is not as at been shown to you. Yet you keep on citing it to bolster your argument while omitting to mention how suspicious the quote is; that's a lie, by omission.

You have mentioned multiple times how there is more evidence for Jesus than Alexander or Tiberius, it was proven wrong, yet you keep on using this argument, knowing it is not accurate. That's a lie.

You pretend never having seen any contemporary eyewitness accounts evidencing the American Revolution, I know you live in the US so I am pretty certain you came into contact with, at least, a copy of the Declaration of Independence (unless you were raised by wild otters) which is a document about the American Revolution written by eyewitnesses and it's almost certain you read quotes and extracts from other documents.
So, you are almost certainly lying about that too...


You are complaining how I am 'attacking the messenger'. But, before that, I spend quite some time and efforts writing reasoned refuting of your 'arguments', sometime repeating myself from other posts I made refuting the same argument the last time you trotted them in.
You never addressed these reasoned posts by me or others, you never even acknowledged their existence before bringing your discredited argument once more.

Instead, you focus on a couple of snippy exasperated comments as if they were representative of my contribution to this thread. That's VERY dishonest, of course and that's also disrespectful of the time and effort put into answering the argument seriously.
Ironically, you are illustrating the point I was making to Waterman.
Despite your claims, you are not interested in us answering to your arguments, because these arguments are easily demolished as they have been multiple times and you can't answer these counter-arguments.

So, unless you can provide new arguments, you are not entitled to whining about us not taking time to repeat a critique of the old ones that is already available in multiple versions in this thread and, if your posting history is any indication, you are not planning on addressing anyway...

Now, shut up and go open a real book (history, logic or even sciences, I don't care, just something else from the Christianise masturbation from Geisler et al.).
 
kmortis said:
Maybe this is true though. Maybe it's just a transliteration error. If Luke wrote extensive, accurate and comprehensive treatises on sewer covers in the Roman Empire, then he'd be a grate historian, right?
Click to expand...
I was just about to contradict you and then realized what you did there.....
 
joobz said:
I thought it was Sunday still...
Click to expand...
Well, at least you were awake enough to apply the kmortis-in-a-doc-thread filter. You saw the post, looked to the left, saw my name and avatar and realized, even if at only a subconscience level, that I must have not been totally serious. I'm proud of you.
 
DOC said:
As I've said many times, the attack the messenger mode always heats up when I bring in some important posts. Must have been the Professor Thomas Arnold quote, or Professor the Simon Greenleaf quote.
Click to expand...

I did not attack the messenger in my responses to your decision to quote Prof. Greenleaf. I took 15-20 minutes on Wikipedia and presented what I observed and my conclusions based on those observations.

My claim is that the reasoning employed by Greenleaf as applied to the bible does not meet the criteria required by current legal interpretations of the Ancient Document Rule. Therefore his conclusion and opinion on the matter (even though it is strongly worded and embraced by apologists) does not support you opening post.

You are continuing to cite Greenleaf, do you disagree with my claim? Other quotes by Greenleaf or facts from his resume or other accomplishments in legal, apologetics, or anything else are not addressing my claim. Where did I err? Did he found his legal opinion on something other than applying Ancient Document Rule to the bible as is cited in Wikipedia?
 
kmortis said:
Waddya got against pigs?
Click to expand...
.
Nothing, actually.
They are intelligent animals, learning from experiences, unlike DOC.
So which animal would be a better scapegoat?
...
It would have to be something in the primate area, as these demonstrate an inability to learn from bad experiences.. a lot like DOC!
Most animals respond postively to "once bitten, twice shy", but humans.. "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" pretty much describes us.
Too many can't comprehend the shame.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Nothing, actually.
They are intelligent animals, learning from experiences, unlike DOC.
So which animal would be a better scapegoat?
...
It would have to be something in the primate area, as these demonstrate an inability to learn from bad experiences.. a lot like DOC!
Most animals respond postively to "once bitten, twice shy", but humans.. "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" pretty much describes us.
Too many can't comprehend the shame.
Click to expand...
Emu.
 
joobz said:
In other words, not only are people not engaging in "attack the messanger" over attacking the argument. But your claim that you brought in important quotes of Simon Greenleaf is simply a lie.


And let's not forget your American Revolution lie.
Or your "I've presented evidence" lie
Or your Luke was a great historian lie...
Click to expand...

This is wierd, Look up the definition of a lie.
 
Waterman said:
I did not attack the messenger in my responses to your decision to quote Prof. Greenleaf. I took 15-20 minutes on Wikipedia and presented what I observed and my conclusions based on those observations.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you attacked (me) the messenger but others certainly have, and it always seems to come after I make what I think is an effective post.

I think it portrays some skeptics in here as bitter people incapable of a civilized discussion on this topic without degenerating into personal attacks and shock language; and I think that hurts the image of skepticism.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I didn't say you attacked (me) the messenger but others certainly have, and it always seems to come after I make what I think is an effective post.

I think it portrays some skeptics in here as bitter people incapable of a civilized discussion on this topic, and I think that hurts the image of skepticism.
Click to expand...


And this type of posts portrays some as having no evidence to support their assertions, so they have to complain about irrelevant details rather than addressing Waterman's post regarding Simon Greenleaf.
 
DOC said:
I didn't say you attacked (me) the messenger but others certainly have, and it always seems to come after I make what I think is an effective post.

I think it portrays some skeptics in here as bitter people incapable of a civilized discussion on this topic without degenerating into personal attacks and shock language; and I think that hurts the image of skepticism.
Click to expand...
Wow...I like how over the years, what image/reputation is being hurt has morphed over the years. First, it was Randi, then it was the JREF then t was the particular poster, now it's skepticism as a whole.

And no, I don't attack you after an effective post. This is evidence by the fact that you've never had an effective post, or at least not one that has effectively furthered your cause. You've had many that's furthered our cause, but I don't think that's how you'd intended them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom