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

[Akhenaten]

Actually I haven't even read Waterman's post yet, I'll try when I get the time.

Everything you've posted since Waterman's questions make the above statement of intention a lie. Everything you post from now on which isn't a response to them is simply expanding and compounding the lie.

Every single word, DOC.

And they're all out there for everyone to see.

Every single, lying word. Out there, speaking for itself.

How do you reckon you're looking, DOC?

Well, this explains a lot.

Confirms, at least.

I had no doubt that he hadn't even bothered. He never bothers to read anything.

What's the point when his responses are just made-up drivel anyway?

If he's just going to post lies and assorted other garbage, there's little point in even pretending that it's in response to anything.

 

[joobz]

It is "never" dishonest to talk about US history.

ETA: And I cannot remember reading any eyewitnesses to the American Revolution that specifically talked about the American Revolution. I doubt if any of the history books I've read that talked about the Amer. Rev. were written by eyewitnesses to it.

Funny how, 2 year later, you can prove an old post of your's a lie.

 

[zooterkin]

Funny how, 2 year later, you can prove an old post of your's a lie.

(Follows link). Gosh, haven't we been doing this a long time!

 

[joobz]

(Follows link). Gosh, haven't we been doing this a long time!

funny that. In that time, I've published 10 more peer-reviewed articles, 3 book chapters, graduated my first PhD, been awarded 3 grants.... I've learned and contributed to our body of knowledge.

And yet DOC hasn't changed.

 

[kmortis]

funny that. In that time, I've published 10 more peer-reviewed articles, 3 book chapters, graduated my first PhD, been awarded 3 grants.... I've learned and contributed to our body of knowledge.

And yet DOC hasn't changed.

Kinda makes me want to petition TPTB to close this thread. No information is forthcoming and really all we've been doing for the last 20+ pages or so is BSing, Waterman excluded .

What say ye?

 

[Akhenaten]

Aye.

 

[Simon39759]

funny that. In that time, I've published 10 more peer-reviewed articles, 3 book chapters, graduated my first PhD, been awarded 3 grants.... I've learned and contributed to our body of knowledge.

And yet DOC hasn't changed.

10 articles in 18 months? You sir have my impressed congratulations...

 

[kmortis]

10 articles in 18 months? You sir have my impressed congratulations...

He said peer-reviewed. Think about it, joobz is peer-less so how hard could THAT have been?


actually, that IS impressive.

 

[Simon39759]

Couldn't he have used apples instead then?

No, seriously, that some street lab creds right there.
3 grants is also very impressive, especially if we are talking about big national grants.


Wonder what his field of study is...

 

[Simon39759]

And when did you graduate, last semester?

 

[joobz]

And when did you graduate, last semester?

It was a zephyr of good events.

And some of those pubs were things that were hold outs from my postdoc work. Only 3 of the pubs came from my faculty position.

Thank you, though.

PS: I work in drug/delivery and biomaterials.

 

[DOC]

When it {New Testament} 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.

What is your source that the 4 Gospels were assembled, and that it was with the express idea to be the foundation of the Church?

For one we know that the Gospel of Luke was a letter written to a friend of his in order to inform him of his research into this Jesus phenomenon that was going on.

...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.

boldness added

The opinion of a man {Simon Greenleaf} who has wrote what some call the definitive book on evidence and a founder of Harvard Law school should be considered when you talk about evidence.

And you talk about the advancement of legal thinking but don't explain what that advancement is. This is similar to Pax and Hoku who often talk about recent findings of modern scholars but rarely say what those new findings are.

And rather than mainly relying on Wiki we should look at the words of Greenleaf himself.

In the following article there might be a few things outdated but the article gives important information to consider with regard to the topic of this thread.

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

 

[Simon39759]

It's still a very good start of career.

 

[DOC]

Funny how, 2 year later, you can prove an old post of your's a lie.

Another unexplained post.

 

[paximperium]

For one we know that the Gospel of Luke was a letter written to a friend of his in order to inform him of his research into this Jesus phenomenon that was going on.

Ahhhh, hearsay. Great work DOC.

And you talk about the advancement of legal thinking but don't explain what that advancement is. This is similar to Pax and Hoku who often talk about recent findings of modern scholars but rarely say what those new findings are.

Still lying DOC?

In the following article there might be a few things outdated but the article gives important information to consider with regard to the topic of this thread.

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

Isn't that funny? "A few things" except for the stuff that DOC agrees with. Yes it does. It shows that Greenleaf's opinion is outdated and wrong. He believed, falsely, that the writer's of the gospels were eyewitnesses when YOU yourself have shown that it is nothing more than hearsay.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Funny how, 2 year later, you can prove an old post of your's a lie.

Another unexplained post.

Did you read it? If you actually read it, you might understand it.

 

[joobz]

Another unexplained post.

another lie.

 

[Akhenaten]

Funny how, 2 year later, you can prove an old post of your's a lie.

Another unexplained post.

No it isn't, DOC. It just appears that way at first glance because you, in the blatantly dishonest fashion that we've all come to expect from you, removed the explanation from the post and then replied to it. If that isn't outright lying, then what exactly do you call it?

It is "never" dishonest to talk about US history.

ETA: And I cannot remember reading any eyewitnesses to the American Revolution that specifically talked about the American Revolution. I doubt if any of the history books I've read that talked about the Amer. Rev. were written by eyewitnesses to it.

Funny how, 2 year later, you can prove an old post of your's a lie.

Is this how your crummy little god expects you to act, DOC, or do you just make this garbage up as you go, and call it christianity in the hope that it adds some respectability to your inveterate lying?

It's a disgrace, and you ought to be able to see for yourself that no decent Christian has come to your aid in theis debacle of a thread because, let's face it, you simply aren't one of them. You're just an independent and malicious liar, serving no worthwhile purpose whatsoever.

 

[paximperium]

Notice all the parts that DOC left out?
His lie by omission quoting is open for all to see:

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.

 

[Lothian]

Another unexplained post.

That reminds me I'll catch up with the bingo later tonight.