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

[laca]

What? Next you are going to tell me that the black knight did not actually win the fight?
Inconceivable!

Actually, I call for the "Black Knight fallacy" to be renamed "DOC fallacy". The Black Knight was nothing compared to DOC...

 

[Hokulele]

Actually my cheap over 5 year old speakers aren't working for some reason so I can't listen to it again.

Excuses, excuses.

But even if he did say it -- as I said before -- it's just one opinion among many scholars, past and present. And an opinion of one who is still a priest. If he didn't think Christ was divine why is he still a priest after all his many years of research in Jerusalem.

As I said before, he relied on faith for his beliefs, not necessarily evidence.

Something, by the way, this thread is distinctly lacking.

Also for the record O'Connor gives the opinion that Matthew was right to write Christ was born in Bethlehem. So that would mean that the OT prophecy the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem came true.

The same Matthew who screwed up the prophecy that led to Rodeo Jesus? The same Matthew who got the name of the prophet wrong when trying to show how Judas fulfilled an OT prophecy?

Yeah, Matthew has a great track record of getting prophecy right...

 

[zooterkin]

But even if he did say it -- as I said before -- it's just one opinion among many scholars, past and present.

There you go again. The point is that you keep ignoring the corrections to your statements, and presenting inaccurate information. For example:

Actually his wording was that Luke guessed wrong.

Here you appear to be correcting joobz, when in fact joobz was correct. You are, once again, being dishonest. Either you don't remember what O'Connor said, in which case you should check first before offering a correction, or you are lying and hoping nobody notices.

 

[DOC]

Do you not have a single pair of headphones in your house?

Just little ones for a transistor radio. But even the transcript also said he thought Luke guessed wrong. He has the right to his opinion, other scholars have different opinions.

And we're basing this whole census thing on what Josephus said about the census. A man who was a traitor to the Jews and took the name of a Roman Emperor and who lived in Rome. I'm sure the Roman emperor or the Roman Senators wouldn't have minded if Josephus (a man who owed his life to the emperor) wrote something that might have contradicted Luke and those pesky Christians.

Skeptics want to believe Josephus on the census but not on Moses being in Egypt.

 

[Lothian]

DOC Quote:

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.




From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"
Written by Holly Hayes with reference to the following sources:

1. Jerome Murray O'Connor, Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land (1998), p. 47. Dan Bahat (1986). "Does the Holy Sepulchre church mark the burial of Jesus?"Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (1986), 26–45.

"Unlike many historical sacred sites, which often turn out to be based more on pious tradition than historical fact, most historians and archaeologists say the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ. The most important supporting evidence is as follows: [1]

1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)

Based on the above factors, the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes: "Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes."

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-sepulchre.htm

Who cares? Sir William Ramsay doesn't.

"The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence. "

We dont care about the locations, they are not evidence for the essential facts. Even if you find the tomb it does not mean that the person in it was a miracle zombie man. There is no evidence that the NT writers told the truth about the supernatural parts of the story.

As Ramsay said. "No man can make historical investigation and historical proof take the place of faith"

 

[DOC]

There you go again. The point is that you keep ignoring the corrections to your statements, and presenting inaccurate information. For example:

Here you appear to be correcting joobz, when in fact joobz was correct. You are, once again, being dishonest. Either you don't remember what O'Connor said, in which case you should check first before offering a correction, or you are lying and hoping nobody notices.

I wasn't being dishonest, O'Connor did say Luke guessed wrong:

Part of O'Connor's opinion:

"He {Luke} made a guess and he got it wrong."

 

[Lothian]

Just little ones for a transistor radio. But even the transcript also said he thought Luke guessed wrong. He has the right to his opinion, other scholars have different opinions.

Perhpas it is time to remind you that this thread is about evidence not opinion. To date opinion is the only thing Doc has brought.

 

[amb]

Some folk find it a little hard to differentiate between opinion and fact.

 

[zooterkin]

I wasn't being dishonest, O'Connor did say Luke guessed wrong:

There you go again.

You queried whether O'Connor used the word, "invented", and suggested that instead he had said, "guessed". As the transcript shows, and as has been pointed out more than once before, both words were used. You were dishonestly trying to suggest that joobz and others were wrong, when in fact they were completely correct. I've yet to see you apologise for that.

 

[paximperium]

I find DOC's regurgitation of his long debunked spam amusing.

For DOC's arguments to work, DOC has to assume that the lurkers reading this thread to be mentally retarded. I find his arrogant condescension of the lurkers and posters here to be insulting...in a very sad pathetic way.

 

[Elizabeth I]

He was most likely implying historians and archaeologists who study that area and time since that is what the article was talking about. But the wording from the Oxford Archaeological Guide stated most archaeologists and historians.

If I'm talking to a local sports reporter and he asks who is the best high school coach in the city? And I say most other coaches think Joe Smith is the best. Obviously I'm not talking about coaches from all over the world even though I didn't specify.

First, this is a dishonest attempt to rewrite what you said (or didn't say) after the fact. You didn't say "most biblical archaeologists" or "most Christian archaeologists" or anything of the sort. You said "most archaeologists" believe Jesus' grave was at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There was no reason to suppose you meant only "most" of a certain group of archaeologists.

Second, if you said "most coaches" believe XYZ, the reporter would certainly ask you by what authority you said "most coaches," whether you were referring to a city block or the entire population of Tanzania. I do not believe you personally have polled all biblical archaeologists to find out their opinions about the location of Jesus' grave, and I certainly don't believe you have read all the publications and studies about it to find out what "most archaeologists" think. I'm pretty sure you've been very careful not to read any that don't support your baseless assertion - or if you have, you carefully skipped over those parts (or, as is your dishonest custom, failed to report them.)

 

[zooterkin]

Just because you never admit to being wrong, doesn't mean you haven't been shown to be wrong...

This is false and Joobz would tell you that.

Which part is false? That you never admit you're wrong, or that you have not been shown to be wrong?

It is possible that you have admitted to being wrong once or twice, which makes Hokulele's statement hyperbole; a very slight exaggeration since almost every time you are corrected you seem to ignore the fact. Technically, you may be correct.

The second part is certainly true, you have been shown you are wrong many times, but rarely, if ever, have the good grace to admit it.

 

[Belz...]

He was most likely implying historians and archaeologists who study that area and time since that is what the article was talking about. But the wording from the Oxford Archaeological Guide stated most archaeologists and historians.

If I'm talking to a local sports reporter and he asks who is the best high school coach in the city? And I say most other coaches think Joe Smith is the best. Obviously I'm not talking about coaches from all over the world even though I didn't specify.

That's rather funny because the last time I read about that church, the consensus was that its site was arbitrary.

 

[joobz]

This is false and Joobz would tell you that.

No it's not. On all of those substantive points, you never admit to being wrong.

 

[carlitos]

If he laid down his life for that belief and Joe Smith gave us "the world's most moral and sublime teachings" according to the opinion of someone chiseled on Mt. Rushmore I might seriously consider he was telling the truth.

So, you believe in the divinity of Jesus, but not the physical laws of nature. Got it. I'm pretty sure that the Heaven's Gate cult members also laid down their life for their leader, and considered him divine.

This thread continues to depress me. I had to mumble through prayers at a funeral the other day, and I kept thinking of this liar on the internet.

 

[DOC]

There you go again.

You queried whether O'Connor used the word, "invented", and suggested that instead he had said, "guessed". As the transcript shows, and as has been pointed out more than once before, both words were used. You were dishonestly trying to suggest that joobz and others were wrong, when in fact they were completely correct. I've yet to see you apologise for that.

More attack the messenger. Who said both words were used, I must have missed that?

 

[DOC]

I said before, he relied on faith for his beliefs, not necessarily evidence.

Is this something you just assumed or do you have a source.

The same Matthew who screwed up the prophecy that led to Rodeo Jesus? The same Matthew who got the name of the prophet wrong when trying to show how Judas fulfilled an OT prophecy?

Yeah, Matthew has a great track record of getting prophecy right...

No source or what prophet or explanation of whatever Rodeo Jesus is! People on here aren't mind readers.

 

[Hokulele]

Is this something you just assumed or do you have a source.

It follows logically. You claim to have taken logic classes, yes?

No source or what prophet or explanation of whatever Rodeo Jesus is! People on here aren't mind readers.

Matthew claims the prophet "Jeremy" predicted Judas' death, the thirty pieces of silver, and some relation to potters. The problem is, the closest prophet to "Jeremy" would be Jeremiah, and there is nothing remotely like this in that book. It turns out, Matthew screwed up and was thinking of Zechariah. Basically, Matthew was inventing links between the OT and the NT again. See how the account in Acts differs in every particular from Matthew's account. Regarding Rodeo Jesus:

The best single example to use to demonstrate what the posters are talking about is the bit about riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. This is lifted directly from Zechariah (I don't have access to the exact passage at the moment, but can look it up later). In it, the prophet states that the messiah will be riding "an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass". Most of the Gospel riders correctly interpreted this to mean a single, young, male donkey, the repetition simply being a poetic device.

Matthew, however, reads the original prophecy literally and invents rodeo Jesus where he is supposedly riding both animals (although I doubt at the same time). Seeing this type of discrepency highlights how the Gospel writers deliberately included prophecy into their accounts, even though it might not have matched reality very well (being written decades after the original events).

 

[laca]

More attack the messenger. Who said both words were used, I must have missed that?

Nobody said both words were used. That's not the point and you know it. You denied that "invented" was used. It has been pointed out to you that you were wrong. It doesn't matter how many other words have been used: the point is "invented" was among them. End of case. You were wrong. It doesn't matter whether you admit it or not.

This is the type of dishonesty that makes me want to puke. And I'm not easily disgusted. I guess that's something you're good at, at least.

 

[laca]

It follows logically. You claim to have taken logic classes, yes?

Beat me to it...