Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
It seems that now we have official confirmation - if any were needed - that not only does doc not read other posters' posts, he doesn't even read his own.
[p.s. Akhenaten - added that pesky comma for you...]
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
I have a hunch that DOC doesn't write his own posts... This might explain why he routinely ignores even the simplest, most straightforward questions... such as:
Please DOC, do at least try to answer
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
It's a miracle!
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Six7s! You're back!
I know that this thread is about DOC Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth, but if any of you smart guys would indulge me, I'd appreciate it.
I remember the story of the fishermen, and hearing a reference to Simon "whom he (Jesus) called Peter," or something like that. Why would he call "Simon" Peter?
I remember hearing the Charlie Brown Christmas special, where someone read the prophecy that "He shall be called Emmanuel." He was called Yeheshua, right? Or Jesus?
Is Paul like an updated version of Saul?
Just wondering.
I remember the story of the fishermen, and hearing a reference to Simon "whom he (Jesus) called Peter," or something like that. Why would he call "Simon" Peter?
I remember hearing the Charlie Brown Christmas special, where someone read the prophecy that "He shall be called Emmanuel." He was called Yeheshua, right? Or Jesus?
Is Paul like an updated version of Saul?
Just wondering.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Peter is a form of "petros" or "petra", both meaning rock. Basically, it's supposed to signify that Simon was to be counted on. The Catholics take it to mean that Simon was the first pope, but as you can imagine, everyone else disagrees.
Emmanuel = "god is with us". Jesus's Aramaic name would have been more like Yeshua, which gets Hellenized to Jesus. Basically, the Gospel writer needed to tie Isiah into his birth, so he used the "He shall be called Emmanuel" line. Although, if you notice, Jesus is never called Emmanuel again.
Kind of. He's Saul 2.0.
In many middle eastern cultures, what you call something/someone would be a reflection of its purpose or their personality or their fate. So, it's not uncommon for people in those cultures to change names when they felt they had a changing purpose. So Simon (a schlub of a fisherman) becomes Peter when he's to be the First Apolstle (by correctly identifying Jesus) and Saul (the Christian persecutor) becomes Paul when he converts.
This same idea (that words have power) are the reason that the gospel of John sounds so trippy in its first chapter. "The Word was with God and the Word was God" and all that. Also, "God said, 'Let there Be Light!'"...God had to speak the universe into existance, because words have power. This is also why the Jews were/are forbidden to speak the name of God; speak his True Nametm and you can control him. And so on...
Does that answer you question?
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
We know they told the truth because their stories contradict each other. Wait. Oh, sorry, my bad. That is how we know they did NOT tell the truth.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Last edited:
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
(atheist poster)
Paul
That just means God does not care.
And, honestly, why should He?
We are not worth it.
Thanks guys. I had a vigorous workout while you were answering, which makes me feel a little guilty. Next time I'll do the googling myself.
ETA - yes, I noticed the Emmanuel thing, which is why I asked. I don't see Emmanuel referenced in the etymology of Yeshua. If Emmanuel means "God is with us" and they called Jesus God, but no one really ever called him Emmanuel, then it is sort of post-hoc self-fulfilling then, no?
ETA - yes, I noticed the Emmanuel thing, which is why I asked. I don't see Emmanuel referenced in the etymology of Yeshua. If Emmanuel means "God is with us" and they called Jesus God, but no one really ever called him Emmanuel, then it is sort of post-hoc self-fulfilling then, no?
Last edited:
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,181
By the by, I see you still have that nonsensical pseudo-French title under your username.
See how true it is. Je ne suis pas une des vos élèves, moihahahaha!
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Of course I will, although explaning humour tends to defeat the purpose. Don't you think there are any funny posts in this thread, by the way?
To begin with, I did already mention Akhenaten's picture of the Heidelberg Uncertainty principle, you did see that, didn't you? I found it incredibly funny and well thought ut, didn't you? it's funny because there is indeed a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which someone got a bit wrong, changing Heisenberg to Heidelberg, which is a town in Germany. Akhenaten posted a picture of the signpost for Heidelberg, with arrows pointing in four different directions. Well, that would make anyone uncertain, wouldn't it?
See, one simple explanation takes the funny away! But not to worry, forget the clumsy explanation, and the funny comes right back. I actually still think it is incredibly funny, sheer genius.
Another funny post? Well, Lothian. Oh, no particular post, all of his posts would do, I sometimes feel. But if you press me for one in particular, it would perhaps have to be post 11415. I think I would have to give that post 10 for content, 10 for looks, and 10 for execution.
No, I won't explain. If you don't find it funny, my explanation won't help. Funny is in the eye of the beholder. As are indeed most things in this world.
JimBrown257
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 53
Hello, I have been reading this discussion from the begining; I am around page 60 right now.
The OP was one of the most egregious assaults on logic and reason that I have ever seen. I wanted to thank many of you for your very informative responses; I have learned a great deal from you defenders of reason. I think this entire thread (what I have read, at least) is an excellent example of logical fallacies (the offender of reason who started this thread has commited every single one). Most of all, however, this is an excellent thread because of how many of you have properly dealt with these fallacies; it is good to know you people are out there.
Right now, I am reading the section that deals with the evidence for Mormonism vs. that (or lack of) for Christianity. One big fallacy I have seen there is what I have been thinking of as the "Mama told me there'd be days like this" fallacy (as I don't know what the real name for it is). This is where the OP, DOC, keeps pointing out that the Bible said there would be people who questioned it's reliability and suggest it might not be all that infallible. This is a Woo staple if ever there were one, where the Woo-pitcher includes a prediction that he would be accused as a fraud amongst his other predictions. That way when he is accused of fraud, the victim thinks he has gotten a prediction right instead of realizing that he really is a fraud. Be it the Bible or John Edward, it's BS.
Btw, I'm left wondering if the OP has considered using Thomas Jefferson to help support his belief that the Bible is true...Lol, I'm kidding; despite Jeffersons' well-documented skepticism towards Jesus' divinity, the OP has mentioned him about ten thousand times.
The OP was one of the most egregious assaults on logic and reason that I have ever seen. I wanted to thank many of you for your very informative responses; I have learned a great deal from you defenders of reason. I think this entire thread (what I have read, at least) is an excellent example of logical fallacies (the offender of reason who started this thread has commited every single one). Most of all, however, this is an excellent thread because of how many of you have properly dealt with these fallacies; it is good to know you people are out there.
Right now, I am reading the section that deals with the evidence for Mormonism vs. that (or lack of) for Christianity. One big fallacy I have seen there is what I have been thinking of as the "Mama told me there'd be days like this" fallacy (as I don't know what the real name for it is). This is where the OP, DOC, keeps pointing out that the Bible said there would be people who questioned it's reliability and suggest it might not be all that infallible. This is a Woo staple if ever there were one, where the Woo-pitcher includes a prediction that he would be accused as a fraud amongst his other predictions. That way when he is accused of fraud, the victim thinks he has gotten a prediction right instead of realizing that he really is a fraud. Be it the Bible or John Edward, it's BS.
Btw, I'm left wondering if the OP has considered using Thomas Jefferson to help support his belief that the Bible is true...Lol, I'm kidding; despite Jeffersons' well-documented skepticism towards Jesus' divinity, the OP has mentioned him about ten thousand times.
Belz...
Fiend God
Sorry, even that's wrong. Bwahahaha!
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Most of the posts in this thread are hidden from DOC. I have no idea what he sees in their place, but somehow they become completely invisible to him, despite still adding to the total number of posts that he seems to be aware of. It's quite a remarkable paradox.
It's a fair bet that your own post above, and this response to it, will also disappear into DOC's unplace.
On the bright side, the Unplace™ has spawned some really great material, so we ought perhaps to be grateful for its quasi-existence.
It gets better. Not the apologetics, which are constantly seeking a deeper abyss, but the responses. You'll enjoy DOC Bingo, I'd hazard to guess, and the Dice of Debatability are always winners. Avoid Heidelberg.
It's a textbook, isn't it? Relying on a single poster to provide all the fallacies required for a such a work may have seemed ambitious at the start, but I'm sure you'll agree that he's up to the task, even rising to the occasion by outsourcing fallacies from as many as two or three authors even more pathetic/dead than he is himself.
Argumentum ex shirellæ
That seems to be a hybrid of the Emperor's New Clothes and the Inclusion of Embarrassing Details fallacies.
DOC is a renowned breeder of exotic fallacies.
He never mentions this though . . .
Don't you think all the religious leaders who who devoted their lives to Christianity and were a part of the long canonization process over centuries (and had no TV or Radio or newspapers to distract them) didn't know there were some some apparent differences in the 4 gospels. If they didn't want any apparent differences in the gospels all they had to do was choose one official gospel. People need think about that for a minute. From memory actually there was a movement to have one gospel that was a compilation of the other gospels but it was voted down.
Four gospels give us a much more informative and better picture of the life of Christ and his teachings. And as I have said before. I have not seen one seeming contradiction in the 4 gospels that can't be explained with some logical explanation.
Last edited:
- Status