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

[DOC]

* Safe-Keeper;5752236 peeks in

May I ask you guys a question?

Why, knowing DOC, do you persist in this manner? You know he's not going to stop, you know he's going to convince no one, and you know that he's probably laughing his butt off in his dark basement under the bridge at the fact that you keep replying to his drivel so he can post it all over again and start the cycle anew.

Actually I'm stone cold serious about this thread.

And important new information keeps coming out every once in awhile. For example the info about the high importance of the oral tradition as a way to transfer information in that paperless society, and how one rabbi even stated the oral tradition of the time was actually more important then the written information.

And the new information where I show that Isaiah 53 can't be referring to the nation of the Jews because it talks of "Deceit not being in his mouth" and how he acted in "intercession for the transgressors" which can't be talking about the nation of the Jews.

If people don't like this thread then stay out or block it, it's a very easy thing to do.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Sorry, even that's wrong. Bwahahaha!

Damn, you are right. Took me some time to spot it. I was never really good at French grammar.

 

[dafydd]

Actually I'm stone cold serious about this thread.

And important new information keeps coming out every once in awhile. For example the info about the high importance of the oral tradition as a way to transfer information in that paperless society, and how one rabbi even stated the oral tradition of the time was actually more important then the written information.

And the new information where I show that Isaiah 53 can't be referring to the nation of the Jews because it talks of "Deceit not being in his mouth" and how he acted in "intercession for the transgressors" which can't be talking about the nation of the Jews.

If people don't like this thread then stay out or block it, it's a very easy thing to do.

Stay out or block it? No way,it's just too funny.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Actually I'm stone cold serious about this thread.

Evidence?

 

[amb]

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.

That may be so in your case. But have you both eyes open when you read your bible/s?
The whole thing is one contradiction after another.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

What they didn't count on was (most of) the hoi polloi getting an education and seeing the discrepancies for themselves. That's why they find themselves stuck, in these latter days, with a congregation almost entirely composed of the wilfully ignorant.

If they didn't want any apparent differences in the gospels all they had to do was choose one official gospel.

What a typical apologist answer.

The obvious and honest answer, DOC, is that if you want a story that isn't going to be full of discepancies, the best bet is to pick the true story.

The fact that the founders of your cult weren't smart enough to figure this out is indeed a problem for you, and one wonders why you bring it up. Is this one of those 'include the embarrassing details' moments?

People need think about that for a minute.

No, DOC, you do, since it's you, not us, that faces the dilemma of following a cult which couldn't even manage to get it's own canon straight, despite the fact that much cleverer people than them had already written it all out thousands of years earlier.

From memory actually there was a movement to have one gospel that was a compilation of the other gospels but it was voted down.

Apart from the fact that your memory is an incredibly poor servant, the whole idea that your cult was founded by some goat-herders voting on what is the truth is pretty embarrassing. Another one of 'those' moments?

Four gospels give us a much more informative and better picture of the life of Christ and his teachings.

This is why Harry Potter is more true than Jeebus.

And as I have said before.

You consistently fail to realise it DOC, but that counts as points against a proposition, not for it.

I have not seen one seeming contradiction in the 4 gospels that can't be explained with some logical explanation.

Yet again, allow me to point out that your inability to see simple truths is not, in any way, shape or form, evidence for the NT writers having told the truth.

It's just evidence that you don't know stuff, which is kinda redundant at this stage of the game.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Hello, I have been reading this discussion from the begining; I am around page 60 right now.

O.- M. - G.! You are TEH MAN (or WOMAN)! I don't know if I could face the whole thing starting from the beginning until now. I hope you have a really good native guide and enough supplies for the trip.

Four gospels give us a much more informative and better picture of the life of Christ and his teachings.

In that case, why didn't they include ALL the gospels, including the Gnostic ones, and get an even more nearly complete picture?

 

[joobz]

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.

And yet there are other gospels which weren't included. Ones that typically didn't support the idea of a centralized church. Go figure.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually I'm stone cold serious about this thread.

Therein lies the humour for most of the rest of us.

And important new information keeps coming out every once in awhile.

Indeed it does, and all but one person have learned something here. Wouldn't want to be him, eh?

For example the info about the high importance of the oral tradition as a way to transfer information in that paperless society, and how one rabbi even stated the oral tradition of the time was actually more important then the written information.

That's an example of important information, is it? Do you realise that if this is an example of 'important' then you've relegated everything else you've 'brought in' to the status of 'totally worthless'?

And the new information where I show that Isaiah 53 can't be referring to the nation of the Jews because it talks of "Deceit not being in his mouth" and how he acted in "intercession for the transgressors" which can't be talking about the nation of the Jews.

That's not new information DOC. It's a bit of apologetic speculation. So bloody what?

If people don't like this thread then stay out or block it, it's a very easy thing to do.

DOC, this thread is a lot of things to a lot of people, but mainly it's entertaining. Why would we ignore it when we can have so much more fun, and learn some stuff as well, by simply shaping it to our own needs.

You don't think for a second that you're controlling whither it wanders, do you?

 

[joobz]

For example the info about the high importance of the oral tradition as a way to transfer information in that paperless society, and how one rabbi even stated the oral tradition of the time was actually more important then the written information.

Yes, because it is easier to change the story with the times when it isn't written down. Otherwise your forced to have moral anachronisms like
Jesus condoning beating slaves (or bond servants)...

And the new information where I show that Isaiah 53 can't be referring to the nation of the Jews because it talks of "Deceit not being in his mouth" and how he acted in "intercession for the transgressors" which can't be talking about the nation of the Jews.

And the important information that I gave showing that Isaiah can't be Jesus because the Bible shows him being Deceitful from his mouth.

 

[zooterkin]

You don't think for a second that you're controlling whither it wanders, do you?

I can think of only one way he might do that, but, after eleven and a half thousand posts, I'm not expecting him to produce any evidence now.

 

[kmortis]

I can think of only one way he might do that, but, after eleven and a half thousand posts, I'm not expecting him to produce any evidence now.

Mebbe he's saving it for a variant of the October Suprise?

I've no idea when the election day would be in this scenario, but it's an idea.

 

[carlitos]

DOC - this isn't going to go away, so you may as well answer

Hi DOC,
Do you remember this? I know that you are extremely busy, and probably are out comparison shopping for speakers, but some of us would appreciate your response to the following:

In my first post re: Greenleaf, I had identified him and what appeared to be his argument from the Ancient DOcuments Rule (per wikipedia) and speculated where he may have erred.

You then challenged me to accrualy read his words and see if I still held that position (you however did not provide any logical counter argument).

I did read his words as did Simon. We pointed out numerous areas were he made a number of logical fallacies as well as pointed out that the same arguement could be made to validate ANY religion that has a long standing written tradition.

You have yet to respond to this second set of posts by myself (who focused on the Ancient Document Rule) and Simon (who gave an overview of the most glaring issues he observed). Greenleafs argument goes undefended. As always for you to defend his argument you need to counter the argument made by Simon and myself not post additional quotes by Greenleaf, academic or legal credential or support of others.

A truly logical argument stands on its own. It is not need the props of famous people, quotations, degrees or ancient traditions.

 

[Simon39759]

Hi DOC,
Do you remember this? I know that you are extremely busy, and probably are out comparison shopping for speakers, but some of us would appreciate your response to the following:

Well; he apparently does not remember my answer to the Isaiah 53 crap as he ignored it a second time.


The whole red herring about the "paperless society" was similarly found to be inaccurate and irrelevant:
-The Roman civilization was, at this time, at its apogee, calling it "primitive" as Doc did is a gross mis characterization.
-This Roman society kept extensive records. They are referenced to many times and Tacitus, for example, made a heavy use of the Acta senatus (other records include the famous [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Diurna] Acta diurna and there is a rumoured Acta pilati that's supposed to have existed and have mentioned).
-So what? The whole point is, as mentioned, a red herring. The fact is that the Gospels are the transcription of decades of oral tradition (hearsay) and that oral tradition is notoriously inaccurate. How prevalent it was in the first century Roman society is irrelevant to these facts.


Sticking your fingers in your hear and not mentioning that your arguments have been previously shot down hardly is a legitimate debating technique...
I have half a mind to stop actually answering to Doc's posts when they have already been shot down. Just post a link to the previous answers and not comment further, after all, Doc does not have the decency to even acknowledge the answers posted, why do any effort on his behalf...

 

[kmortis]

Well; he apparently does not remember my answer to the Isaiah 53 crap as he ignored it a second time.


The whole red herring about the "paperless society" was similarly found to be inaccurate and irrelevant:
-The Roman civilization was, at this time, at its apogee, calling it "primitive" as Doc did is a gross mis characterization.
-This Roman society kept extensive records. They are referenced to many times and Tacitus, for example, made a heavy use of the Acta senatus (other records include the famous [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Diurna] Acta diurna and there is a rumoured Acta pilati that's supposed to have existed and have mentioned).
-So what? The whole point is, as mentioned, a red herring. The fact is that the Gospels are the transcription of decades of oral tradition (hearsay) and that oral tradition is notoriously inaccurate. How prevalent it was in the first century Roman society is irrelevant to these facts.


Sticking your fingers in your hear and not mentioning that your arguments have been previously shot down hardly is a legitimate debating technique...
I have half a mind to stop actually answering to Doc's posts when they have already been shot down. Just post a link to the previous answers and not comment further, after all, Doc does not have the decency to even acknowledge the answers posted, why do any effort on his behalf...

Does this mean we can get back to the poetry?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippeth>

Sticking your fingers in your hear and not mentioning that your arguments have been previously shot down hardly is a legitimate debating technique...
I have half a mind to stop actually answering to Doc's posts when they have already been shot down. Just post a link to the previous answers and not comment further, after all, Doc does not have the decency to even acknowledge the answers posted, why do any effort on his behalf...

Gee, what's kept me from thinking like this?

Oh, wait . . .

 

[Lucian]

And yet there are other gospels which weren't included. Ones that typically didn't support the idea of a centralized church. Go figure.

Because those other ones weren't true. Duh. See, they very carefully chose only the genuinely true ones that didn't really contradict each other if you make stuff up look at it logically. Oh, plus John, of course.

 

[Hokulele]

Because those other ones weren't true. Duh. See, they very carefully chose only the genuinely true ones that didn't really contradict each other if you make stuff up look at it logically. Oh, plus John, of course.

And added bits to the ones they did select to make them match up with church doctrine (see the various posts on the ending of Mark).

 

[Lucian]

And added bits to the ones they did select to make them match up with church doctrine (see the various posts on the ending of Mark).

That too. But otherwise the canonical gospels are completely true and consistent. And if they were inconsistent, which they really aren't if you look at them the right way (drunk, perhaps), that would just show that they're true.

 

[zooterkin]

The whole red herring about the "paperless society" was similarly found to be inaccurate and irrelevant:
-The Roman civilization was, at this time, at its apogee, calling it "primitive" as Doc did is a gross mis characterization.
-This Roman society kept extensive records. They are referenced to many times and Tacitus, for example, made a heavy use of the Acta senatus (other records include the famous [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Diurna] Acta diurna and there is a rumoured Acta pilati that's supposed to have existed and have mentioned).

Ah, yes, but those records are clearly not extensive enough, since unaccountably there's no mention of any census requiring people to return to their ancestral homes to be counted...