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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
That's your opinion -- I've already given evidence that two (Matthew and John) did write their gospels.
Click to expand...

No, you sodding well haven't.

I've shown that your "evidence" has already been dismembered by the Lothian/Hokulele tag team. And we get no response from you other than to repeat the same defeated arguments.

And for the record, bringing up "Expelled" gave me a good laugh. See my sig for an idea of my opinion of that movie.
 
DOC said:
Well, when I wrote the 1st post it was a spur of the moment thing.
Click to expand...


Intellectually lazy sums up all of your posts DOC, and we hardly need you to point it out for us.


DOC said:
If I would have known this thread was going to become what it has I would have spent much more time on it.
Click to expand...


Pathetic DOC, absolutely pathetic.

Words fail me, and that in itself says heaps.


DOC said:
And remember I was trying to condense a 22 page chapter into 1 post.
Click to expand...


Driffle


DOC said:
Geisler gives much more detail than I did concerning the 5 reasons I mentioned in the 1st post.
Click to expand...


Shovel.jpg
 
DOC said:
I disagree, nowhere does it divide the word up, not once. You can't show me where it says uni + (versus or diversity). There is no proof he was wrong.
Click to expand...


[Picture of red fish]


DOC said:
The first reason is not claiming to provide proof that jesus was resurected. It is only claiming that it leads to the likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth to write embarrassing things about themselves when they didn't have to.
Click to expand...


[Picture of shovel]


DOC said:
Well then joobz should have said there is no evidence to support it and not that it is wrong -- Not finding any evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.
Click to expand...


[Picture of red fish]


DOC said:
Although not exactly what Turek said, it is similar. I interpret that as many being turned into one. From taking many diverse subjects you become one well rounded educated person.
Click to expand...


[Picture of shovel]


DOC said:
That's your opinion -- I've already given evidence that two (Matthew and John) did write their gospels.
Click to expand...


[Picture of Pinocchio with 12-foot-long nose]


DOC said:
And the other 2 (Mark and Luke) were companions of the apostles (Paul and Peter).
Click to expand...


Evidence?

[Picture of circular reasoning] in anticipation of your usual pathetic responce to calls for evidence.


Do you know the Greek myth of Echo, DOC?

Maybe you should go and have oread of it, instead of flaunting your narcissism.
 
Just what would a graphical represntation of circular reasoning look like? I don't mean a pictographic example, I mean actual tautology? It's not like we know what DOC looks like....
 
Cleon said:
Circular? DOC's "logic" can be best represented by a Mobius Strip.
Click to expand...
Or a Klein bottle.


ETA:
RELIGION
Click to expand...
, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.

"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."

"Then why do you not become an atheist?"

"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."

"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."
Click to expand...

-Ambrose Beirce, The Devil's Dictionary
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
[Picture of circular reasoning] in anticipation of your usual pathetic responce to calls for evidence.
Click to expand...
I just assumed that you were saying that he was prostituting himself for Geisler.

It is interesting to note that "responce" is a compound word.

Res = a nominative singular Latin noun for a substantive or concrete thing (e.g., res publicas - see Cicero)
Ponce = a pimp, especially one who dresses outlandishly (UK slang)

Therefore, a 'responce' is the substantive thing owned by the Ponce, or a type of whoring out on behalf of the source of your argument.

The whole "university" thing is uncanny in its similarly to rorylee's recent holding forth on "poster" notes as being slang for "post-it" notes. These guys absolutely can not admit error about anything. I actually raised a child like this for a few years, and found out (through counseling) that this trait is present in a lot of different conditions. It makes it tough to discuss anything, when the other party is never wrong.

ETA - you have to scan a couple of pages to appreciate the 'poster note' thing.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I just assumed that you were saying that he was prostituting himself for Geisler.

It is interesting to note that "responce" is a compound word.

Res = a nominative singular Latin noun for a substantive or concrete thing (e.g., res publicas - see Cicero)
Ponce = a pimp, especially one who dresses outlandishly (UK slang)

Therefore, a 'responce' is the substantive thing owned by the Ponce, or a type of whoring out on behalf of the source of your argument.
Click to expand...


:)

Thanks. I feel much better now


carlitos said:
The whole "university" thing is uncanny in its similarly to rorylee's recent holding forth on "poster" notes as being slang for "post-it" notes. These guys absolutely can not admit error about anything. I actually raised a child like this for a few years, and found out (through counseling) that this trait is present in a lot of different conditions. It makes it tough to discuss anything, when the other party is never wrong.

ETA - you have to scan a couple of pages to appreciate the 'poster note' thing.
Click to expand...


Trust me, I'm only too aware of that particular steaming pile.

Who would have guessed that vegetables were becoming sentient enough to get online?
 
DOC said:
That's your opinion -- I've already given evidence that two (Matthew and John) did write their gospels.

And the other 2 (Mark and Luke) were companions of the apostles (Paul and Peter).
Click to expand...

You have abandoned the discussion regarding the Greenleaf. What is your opinion regarding our discussion (some would say dismemberment) of his position. Since you have provided no responce to the discussion we will take that as a concession that you are unable to refute the points presented. If so we can turn our critical eye to other topics. If you still claim that Greenleafs essay is sound please provide the faults in my and Simons review. As always furhter credentials of Greenleaf do not count as refutations of our positions.
 
DOC said:
Well, when I wrote the 1st post it was a spur of the moment thing. If I would have known this thread was going to become what it has I would have spent much more time on it. And remember I was trying to condense a 22 page chapter into 1 post. Geisler gives much more detail than I did concerning the 5 reasons I mentioned in the 1st post.
Click to expand...

Are you agreeing that the creation of this thread was rash and ill-considered?

After all of your posts, and all the number of pages in all of the books you cite, you haven't presented evidence that we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

It's not in your 1700+ posts. It's not on this thread.

Cheers.
 
I did once as a priest in the family if jesus could not simply have been literary licence, as in a combination of lots of preachers.
She did not cite any evidence, but claimed that assorted theological analysis made that highly unlikely as in not at all.

If a graduate of theology who is supposed to have an interest in the subject cannot find hard evidence it is rather preposterous for DOC to claim it.
(Ok, it is easy to say at page 270)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom