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

[paximperium]

That's like saying if the Declaration of Independence was more effective, England would have never gone to war.

Another example of poor logic or purposeful dishonesty.

The Declaration of Independence rallied the population of the Colonies to rebel and unite under a new banner.

Your garbage filled nonsense is a great way to deconvert people away from Faith-Based Nonsense and your idiotic version of Christianity. A better analogy would be, your thread is like the tea tax that the British forced on the populace. Everyone is busy having a great Tea Party at the moment.

 

[wollery]

I say let the thread keep on going.

If it's closed DOC will claim that the truth was suppressed because he was winning the debate.

On the other hand, almost all of the posts DOC makes demonstrate his inadequacies in debate, research, logic, christianity, reading, honesty......

 

[joobz]

The first word in the title of this thread is Evidence.

Which hasn't helped you at all, given your inability to present any.

Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard Law School founder) was and expert on legal evidence and has been said to have written the definitive book on evidence. I believe his opinion on Legal evidence is relevant; if you and others don't you have the right to your opinion.

ANd waterman explained why his opinion is outdated. Failing to do so simply makes your argument lies. Do you like lie?

And like others in this thread you talk about modern advances but don't tell us what those modern advances are regarding the law.

Which is a lie.

 

[joobz]

That's like saying if the Declaration of Independence was more effective, England would have never gone to war.

Did you read the declaration of Independence?

 

[paximperium]

Except here, when you do it, you ask questions that were addressed in the parts you omitted.
It is either because,
1.) Have extremely poor reading skills.
2.) Have the attention span of a ferret on meth
or
3.) are dishonest.

Like I said. All of the above.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Did you read the declaration of Independence?

Don't be silly - you know there are no primary sources from the Revolutionary War era.

 

[paximperium]

Did you read the declaration of Independence?

Don't be silly-DOC does not do things like read.

 

[John Jones]

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?

Agreed.

 

[Lucian]

The first word in the title of this thread is Evidence. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard Law School founder) was and expert on legal evidence and has been said to have written the definitive book on evidence. I believe his opinion on Legal evidence is relevant; if you and others don't you have the right to your opinion.

And like others in this thread you talk about modern advances but don't tell us what those modern advances are regarding the law. You did tell us about some of the modern advances in Medieval Studies but not any advances in legal evidence that you say you are confident have occurred.

Well, let's see, since Greenleaf died, there have been over 150 years of court cases, appellate court decisions, state Supreme Court decisions and US Supreme Court decisions. He died 10 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. He died before black people or women won the right to vote, before the civil rights era.

As for evidence, we've had over 150 years of advances in forensic evidence and DNA evidence, for a start. So, yes, I'd say legal scholarship has advanced.

And the Bible doesn't constitute legal evidence--except for evidence that it exists. To understand why, I suggest you actually try reading Waterman's posts thoroughly and carefully.

 

[Simon39759]

Ok, I'm back. Let me finish my quick overview of Greenleaf's argument. So far, I am not impressed but, he, I started it, I might as well finish it.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

Here, we see, once again, a problem with Greenleaf's training.
The judicial system is not actually designed, to be fair. There is a built in bias in favour of the defense and the accused is not considered guilty unless there is overwhelming evidence against him. That's good for a judicial system, of course, because it is considered worse to emprison an innocent than release a guilty, but it is not the best way to achieve truth.

But the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true.

Right. Because, your honor, what the Christian writers describe contradicts the accepted laws of nature that in itself could be considered evidence against. If a accused in any of your tribunal was basing his defense on something supernatural, you'd also, in the absence of corroborative evidence, tend to reject his testimonial. By treating the outlandish claims of the Gospel writers as mundane testimony, you are actually applying special pleading.
Indeed, the gospel writers certainly are not singled out in this treatment, as many of Herodotus, for example, writing are rejected by academics as affabulation for just that reason...

The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.

Seems reasonable your honor, shall we proceed?

And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests.

Well, your honor, we don't really know who the writers were, we only have unreliable myths, so it is difficult to judge but, if you hadn't been a corpse for so long, you'd be aware that scholars have found the persecution you allude to to not actually be as wide spread and systematic than you seem to think. Nero apparently did persecute some heretics (later claimed without much evidence) to be Christians, but it was only in Rome for a short time. Most persecutions came later, after the gospels were written.

Also, you seem to me to underestimate how much the gospel writers would have to win. We know that Paul was able to make a trip from Greece to Jerusalem to bring the church there the donation he had collected, so there certainly was a significant amount of money to win.

You also underestimate, maybe your age, if you allow me your honor, speaking, the extent to which people would delude themselves to feel superior and right. It's a well known phenomenon, people in cults describe it often, staying and undergoing suffering and deprivation for a cause that, deep down, they realize is bogus...

It would also have been irreconcilable with the fact that they were good men. But it is impossible to read their writings, and not feel that we are conversing with men eminently holy, and of tender consciences, with men acting under an abiding sense of the presence and omniscience of God, and of their accountability to him, living in his fear, and walking in his ways.

So... They told the truth because you feel, reading a translation, that they were honest? That seems... very subjective your honor...

Matthew was trained, by his calling, to habits of severe investigation and suspicious scrutiny; and Luke's profession demanded an exactness of observation equally close and searching. The other two evangelists, it has been well remarked, were as much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master's Life, as these were too learned and acute to be deceived by any imposture.

So... Matthew and Luke were to smart to be mistaken, Mark and John to dumb to lie?
But, and bear with me your honor, what if Matthew and Luke lied? And Mark and John were mistaken?
Also, aren't you not, at least in the case of Matthew and Luke, arguing from authority? Also, of course, this analysis sort of hinge about the dubious identification of the gospel author, for which we have no evidence (and several good evidences against like the most likely date of their writing and the use of the third person).

The discrepancies between the narratives of the several evangelists, when carefully examined, will not be found sufficient to invalidate their testimony. Many seeming contradictions will prove, upon closer scrutiny, to be in substantial agreement;

Well, you argued earlier for an independent writing of the gospels, I don't think you prove your point, most scholars would also disagree. So, if the three synoptic did came from Matthew, the concordance would not mean anything. In fact, it could all come independently from a common tradition and still not mean anything about the actual veracity of the tradition...
Also, I'd disagree that the differences are minor. A earthquake is quite a major event. Doubling the number of angels is significant. The identity of the witnesses, is pretty significant...

The argument supposes that the creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put ut out of his own power to change them. the scheme of Mr. Hume is but another form of the same error.

Hum, your honor, it's a bit of a strawman, nobody is arguing that, if God existed, he would be unable to perform a miracle.
People argue that, in the absence of solid proof, a miraculous account is better presumed as a mistaken or affabulation. If I'd told you I came here from my house flying, by the sheer beating of my arms, you'd reject my story, same here, you are just a priori accepting the accounts of the gospels and, because you'd not similarly accept another miraculous account, using special pleading.

But the full discussion of the subject of miracles forms no part of the present design. Their credibility has been fully established, and the objections of skeptics most satisfactorily met and overthrown, by the ablest writers of our own day, whose works are easily accessible.

Why, yes, your honor, if you already decide that the points most in question are settle before even starting the discussion, it sure helps the demonstration a lot.

Thus much, however, may here be remarked; that in almost every miracle related by the evangelists, the facts, separately taken, were plain, intelligible, transpiring in public, and about which no person of ordinary observation would be like to mistake. Persons blind or cripple, who applied to Jesus for relief, were known to have been crippled or blind for many years; they came to be cured; he spake to them; they went away whole. Lazarus had been dead and buried four days; Jesus called him to come forth from the grave; he immediately came forth, and was seen alive for a long time afterwards.

Yes, your honor, most of the accounts of miracles are describing actual bona fide miracles. The question is not whereas the writers are describing a mundane or miraculous event but whereas the event took place as described or even took place at all in the first place.

Hence it is, that a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances, in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial.

And in which circumstance would an account written at four decades, at least, and thousand of miles away from the alleged facts, be "open to contradiction" (not to mention a gruesome war and the diaspora of many possible witnesses). Yeah... Right, they were pretty safe to lie.
Of course, that is disregarding the possibility for the accounts to be distorted by the decades of oral traditions without anybody actually purposely lying...

Thus where a house had been feloniously broken open with a knife, the blade of which was broken and left in the window, and the mutilated knife itself, the parts perfectly agreeing, was found in the pocket of the accused, who gave no satisfactory explanation of the fact, no reasonable doubt remained of his participation in the crime.

Unless, of course, the accused was to plaid the event miraculous. After all, you yourself asserted that we should not reject, even in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the account of the gospel writers just for going against the laws of nature.
You mean, you would not use the same standard in this case? Because that means you are admitting of special pleading in favour of the Gospel writers...

The writers allude, for example, to the existing manners and customs, and to the circumstances of the times and of their country, with the utmost minuteness of reference. And these references are never formally made, nor with preface and explanation, never multiplied and heaped on each other, nor brought together, as though introduced by design; but they are scattered broadcast and singly over every part of the story, and so connect themselves with every incident related, as to render the detection of falsehood inevitable.

Huh? As your honor ever read a book of fiction? I know that novels only came into fashion after your time but it is actually quite common to integrate details of the real world.
After all, not only is it easier and more believable for the reader, it is also much easier for the author to simply describe, unless there is an actual need for it, the world to which is surrounding.
If you were not so defunct, your honor, I would recommend to you the wonderful work of one 'Stan Lee' and particularly, the story about some 'Spider-man' character who live in the great city of New-York, more particularly in the very real district of Brooklyn, who attended the very real Empire State University, had a little job as a photograph (a real profession, your honor), visited many landscape of the metropole and, on occasion did travel in metro -an actual contraption present in the city- or attend session of moving pictures. Indeed this 'spider-man' allegedly meet several real historical figure, including one president of the United States... and yet, this 'spider-man' is, by all account, entirely fictitious...

Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good.

Unless, your honor, you happen to be a fig tree.

Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good. It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth.

And what? For this to be evidential, you'd have to prove that people would not be able to imagine a purely fictional character which would exhibit such perfection of character nor create myths, around a historical character, that'd give him such an aura of perfection (in which case, Mohamed must also have been perfect and, hence, Islam actually is true, or are we special pleading again? Your honor might want to invest in a little flag to wave when he is special pleading, for the sake of clarity...).

The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation

Of the God that left specific instruction about how to rape medionite girls?
'cause you describe Jesus has infinitely patient and kind and the God he is supposed to be in strict accordance with... he is not often very patient and kind.
Maybe, you know, it is less Jesus which is in accordance with God's attribute than your honor, being familiar with the Jesus narrative, modelling his expectation of God around him. After all, you certainly seem to use a bit of cognitive dissonance...

The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader's perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already stated.

The rules being, from what I see, to always assume that the Christian tradition is correct and that the writers were honest and incapable of mistakes...



So, yes, I finished reading it and am still not impressed, not at all. As apologetics go, it's really not good by any stretch:
Many doubtful assertions are accepted at face values, often on the pretense that others have already demonstrated them. Then, why not actually giving the reference of these guys and why didn't Doc not actually link to the guys that do the actual demonstration. Most probably Doc never actually read Greenleaf's assay, and so was unaware of this lack...
-Also, and it is a problem with such an ancient piece of work, Greenleaf did not have access to modern scholarship that shows some of these assertion, the identity of the gospel authors, for example, to be unlikely to be correct.
-There is also a lot of special pleading, accepting the miracles like he would any mundane testimony, for example.
-And quite a bit of weak, subjective stuff that'd be laughed out of court: 'They seem honest to me'; 'Nah; John wouldn't made that up, he's too dumb!'.
-And of course, Greenleaf decided to apply the principle of the judiciary system which, in effect, consist of strongly biasing the decision in favor of the defendant (here, the gospel writers).


All in all, it's pretty poor reasoning and certainly very inconclusive and even Doc would have realized that if he had taken the pain of actually reading the stuff he linked too but, heh, there you go... Ok, time to go to bed...

 

[Akhenaten]

You wouldn't believe how long that took to read, Simon. Excellent post though.

 

[Akhenaten]

Red Herring Alert: Anything to get off the important message of Simon Greenleaf, the man who was an expert on EVIDENCE and a founder of Harvard Law School and to get onto the messenger DOC.

It's not a red herring, DOC.

The travesty of your lies has become a key issue in this thread.

If it's reasonable for you to trot out the words of long-dead Presidents, academics, historians, and various christian propogandists in the course of attempting to prove your point, then it is equally valid for others here to use the garbage that you spew as evidence that not only did the writers of the New Testament lie through their teeth, but they succeeded in creating a massive and enduring cult of liars, a spokesman for which you are but one recent example.

You aren't the messenger DOC; you are the message.

And the message is that christian apologists of a certain stripe will utter any lie they are capable of fabricating in order to advance their filthy cause.

It's a message of the disgraceful depths of dishonesty that man is capable of in pursuit of of his own sick and twisted agenda, and it needs to be spread.

I, for one, find myself with both the time and inclination to spread this message, and take heart in the fact that I am far more capable of doing so than you are of spreading your message of despite and corruption.

Stay tuned DOC, because I will continue to show your pathetic excuse of a religion up for what it is - a lie created by the writers of the New Testament to further their own selfish and abhorrent ends, and perpetuated to this day by people who lack the ability to discern truth from turkey droppings.

And I will continue to talk about portions of people quotes in the future for the reasons I have already mentioned, just as I have done probably hundreds of times in the past 3 years.

And I will continue to demonstrate that your words are of less value than the scum which forms on the shores of El Fayoum in the wake of the Haboob, just as I have done hundreds of times in the last three years.

If you or anyone else doesn't like it stay out of my threads.

I have some tragic and hopefully devastating news for you DOC.

You own not one word which appears on this forum. Not a single pixel. Your arrogant and baseless claim to ownership of an entire thread typifies the paucity of understanding that has underscored every attempt at discussion that you have made here.

A total lack of comprehension of the nature of this Forum is but one of myriad examples of the twisted and fallacious thought that passes for reason in your microscopic world view.

And I find this all ironic coming from a man like yourself who conveniently omitted 9 translations and concentrated on 2.

Irony, thy name is DOC. Don't believe me? Then listen to the fish. His name is Nimrod, and he speaks the truth in many tongues.

<please imagine a picture of a red herring in ths space>​

 

[amb]

Once again another skeptic wants this thread to end. That encourages me, that tells me it is an effective thread for presenting the truths of the New Testament and some skeptics don't want it up. If this thread hurt the case for Christianity in any way I have to believe skeptics would want it to stay up as long as possible.

And nobody is forcing anybody to come into this thread. If you don't like it, block it and then you don't have to worry about it.

And this site below I just "recently" brought in has important information and things to consider regarding the authors of the New Testament. Since the article is older if you feel any info is not accurate you can always look it up. But it is not logical not to consider 30 new pieces of info because 2 or 3 might be outdated.

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

But it's from Greenleaf. This guy has very little credibility in the wider biblical scholarship.

 

[Belz...]

This thread has degenerated into a "liar liar" match. Can we get back on topic ?

 

[Lothian]

This thread has degenerated into a "liar liar" match. Can we get back on topic ?

I agree. Anyone got evidence the NT writers told the truth?

 

[amb]

I agree. Anyone got evidence the NT writers told the truth?

Nag, nag, nag. You remind me of the curse of my life, my wife.

I don't have the evidence you seek. A gentleman who calls himself DOC has though. He has quoted some believer named Greenleaf, or Green tea or something as his evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Once again another skeptic wants this thread to end.

Once again, as is your wont and habit, you are completely and utterly wrong.

What is generally wanted here is an end to your lies. The thread itself is mostly harmless.

That encourages me, that tells me it is an effective thread for presenting the truths of the New Testament and some skeptics don't want it up.

It may or may not be an effective thread for such a purpose.

The problem is, however, that you are such a completely ineffectual poster.

If this thread hurt the case for Christianity in any way I have to believe skeptics would want it to stay up as long as possible.

It's unlikely that this thread will affect the case for Christianity one way or the other, since you are in no wise a spokesman for that particular sect.

You represent yourself and your own sick, twisted theology, and nobody else's.

And nobody is forcing anybody to come into this thread. If you don't like it, block it and then you don't have to worry about it.

As a matter of fact, it appears to be well within Pharaoh's power to do this thing. Be careful what you wish for, DOC.

<ads redacted, with glee>

Wanna see my fish, DOC?

 

[Waterman]

Quotes are from the Website cited by DOC above. I will focus on the Ancient Documents Rule because that appears to be the crux of his arguement. If that is invalid then the rest of his reasoning begins to crumble.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them.

So there is no change in the basic legal theory from then to now. This agrees with the wiki entry. Interesting how does he reconcile questions that Biblical Scholars have regarding the origins of the preBible texts. How widely known was it in his day that the Gospels were originally un-named except by tradition. It is my understanding that we now understand that there are edits / transcription / translation errors that have accumulated over time. Case in point the previous discussion regarding pieced hand and feet where some of the earliest available text it says one thing but in the modern translation it says another because it fits better with the of the desired interpretation of the transcriber.

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine.

Now here is a bit of a quibble. Previously the term used was authentic, here they are saying genuine. Both are referring to the document itself and not necessarily whether or not the document is true. To refer to the contents of a deed book or survey plat to follow the transfer of real estate. It was the intent of the authors to record the boundary of the plot of land. It is reasonable to assume that the book was accurately representing the situation as it was at that time.

Note the bold this is where I think he start to go awry and enters into special pleading. We can accept that the new testament copies that are found with in the musty archives of tucked away monasteries are just that. The original documents that they received on such and such a date from Pope so and so. No dispute, I would agree that it is the genuine book from that era. However, that it is a genuine book received on that date form that person is not validations that it contains truth or is consistent with other copies of that book. Multiple copies of the bible exist so you must compare then to see if they differ. If they don’t great. If they do then there is a dilemma. Now lets return to our survey plat. Lets say there are 3 hand written copies of the original book which has since been lost in a fire. For the property in question on the date there are none of the maps agree completely. There seems to be sufficient cause to dig into the matter more deeply and not just declare the ‘oldest’ the most right.

Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for they come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statues of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith.

I will grant that the ancient bibles held in ancient churches are in fact genuine authentic ancient bibles. However there are many such ancient text important to other religions that have been faithfully passed down. Are they not also be given the benefit of the doubt? Does Beowulf become the record of a battle between a real live monster. What about the Torah and its failure to include Jesus as the Messiah, or the Koran which demotes him to merely a prophet. If it is good enough for the bible it is good enough for the other Sacred Texts as well. To exclude them from this reasoning is special pleading.

Hmmm, Greenleaf seem to agree with my statement earlier, the Bible is ‘the standard of their faith.’ Which is to say the foundation of the Church Teachings. DOC seemed to disagree with me on that point.

There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by angels;

Irrelevant to the point of discussion. This is special pleading, and a direct jab at the Mormons.

but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear,

Red alert, bold part is irrelevant and bordering on hyperbole. Based on what hasw been posted and documented by others that in modern biblical scholarship the current thinking regarding the authorship of the gospels is at least some of the Gospels were not written by those they are attributed to.

made public at the time they were written;

Really! The Bible didn’t even exist until the CoN determined the contents that were ‘canon’. This was long after the events and no record of when the original documents were written. Could the biblical scholars help me out here. Is not the ‘public’ availability of the bible a relatively recent invention? It was my understanding that prior to the protestant movement no one but the members of the clergy has access to the actual texts and then presented their sermons to the public. So the availability of the document was solely in the hands of those whose vested interest was to see to it that the document was unquestioned. Perhaps I am bordering on hyperbole now.

and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no pretense that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced,

I am trying to parse this and it is coming out as so much word salad. There are discrepancies. We knew that but he appears to dismissed them as irrelevant. This is special pleading, from my survey plat example, the discrepancies are relevant. The bolded text above is clearly special pleading, the originals ARE lost. We don’t have them, Greenleaf himself admits that the copies are imperfect. Have any of the CoN Documents survive, how does the KJV stack up against that copy.

the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an interest; and it is a rule of law, that,

Ok I see what he has done here, this is to support the idea that even though there are multiple imperfect copies of the bible they can’t be called forgeries (and note be subject to the exclusions cited above) because they were done with full knowledge of the all participants. After the CoN that may be true. However, prior to the CoN the ‘chain of custody’ so to speak is murky if not downright impenetrable. It is here where I think that Greenleaf made and error in his thinking regarding the applicability of the Ancient Document Rule, the path of those original documents has been lost and is of unknown authorship in many cases. If we can apply the Ancient Document Rule to the bible we must be able to apply it to the source material. If that source material does not meet the tests required for the Ancient Document Rule then it should not also be applied to the derivative material.

Also this borders on more special pleading, why does it matter that it was the Christian community, couldn’t this be also applied to others as well? Any other religion can use this exact same argument to claim that their religious texts are ‘true’ as they all meet these very same tests (even the Mormons which he expressly dings). Therefore this point is rendered irrelevant as it does not distinguish the Bible as any more or less valid than the Koran, Torah or hundreds of other texts including the apocryphal early Christian texts some of which I hear some are quite interesting.

So there is my analysis. It is my conclusion that Greenleaf’s is of the Ancient Document Rule as it applies to the Bible is one big special pleading wrapped up on another special pleading and then tied up in a bow of more special pleading. This combined with Simon’s report shows that when it comes to the bible Greenleaf’s reasoning was flawed and he committed several logical fallacies in arriving at his conclusion. Based on this we can dismiss Greenleaf’s essay as provided by DOC as relevant to this discussion outline in the OP.

So DOC you have been presented with the analyses of both Simon and myself regarding Greenleaf's essay. we have pointed out numerous logical fallacies primarily Special Pleading. All the analysis is there, where have we erred in our reasoning, further writings, quotes or credentials of Greenleaf do not identify in what way we have erred. Please enlighten us in this manner.

 

[joobz]

Matthew was trained, by his calling, to habits of severe investigation and suspicious scrutiny; and Luke's profession demanded an exactness of observation equally close and searching. The other two evangelists, it has been well remarked, were as much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master's Life, as these were too learned and acute to be deceived by any imposture.

So... Matthew and Luke were to smart to be mistaken, Mark and John to dumb to lie?

This is Brilliant and best exposes the type of logic Greenleaf used.

 

[Toke]

Waterman,
Your interpretation of the Ancient Document Rule means that the Sagas and Saxo's history of Denmark is no longer to be taken as completely accurate.

Are you saying that Thor does not exist?
And that the Danish flag did not fall from the sky during a crusade in Estonia.?