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

[welshdean]

It's worse than that; think of all the things DOC considers "fiction", and it should become obvious that not only is he not likely to have done any reading beyond Christian apologetics, but that he is also a profoundly dishonest person, because he tries to lay claim to the benefits of such a personal quality as a wider education, when he thinks it will help him lie for Christ.

Remember that "Logic Course" he refers too? We can all work out that it was actually a course in Theological Logic; after all, any logic that doesn't lead to Christ must be fiction, and he "doesn't like" to read such. But he dare not confirm this, coward that he is. So he tries to take the credit from the more respectable parent skill, and claims to have studied "Logic" instead. Another lie for Christ.

Remember how he claimed to have read about Evolution, but that the whole concept is a fiction too? It's obvious in turn that he's only read religious tracts on Evolution in reality, because they tell him the religious "truth". But Doc, you objectively lie to us no matter what you personally believe when you claim to have read the original material. We can all see you clearly haven't.

He's not even read Geisler, but a summary of Geislar in another text book; because someone earlier went back and found the pages the quotes are cherry picked from, and it bears no relations to the claims made. And how deceptive a debater do you have to be to try and steal the honour from a long dead man who, even though he mostly agreed with you, you still have to force words into his mouth to pretend he was exactly like you? DOC, you are not Geisler and don't deserve even the credit he may have earned during his life... because it, and his voice, is his alone.

Heck, DOC can't even manage the basic honesty of a simple statement without weasel-holes to hide in; "never liked that much"? Are you so terrified of the posts that will follow, and indeed did follow pointing out that you are obviously a deliberately self-inflicted ignoramus that you reflexively had to leave an "out" for yourself, and ensure you could say that the statement wasn't absolute, oh you have read some fiction. Maybe you'll even lie to, or just not respond to anyone who asks if you've read some relevant fiction...

Honestly DOC, your behaviour is shameful. There are Christians on these boards... and they don't have to hide in deception and sophistry, even when cruelly cudgelled by the more strident atheists on these boards. Their beliefs can survive in a competitive world... why are yours so weak that you have to ignore even the true influence of Harry Potter?!

Oh Man! You are so on his ignore list when he returns from Sunday School.

 

[Mojo]

Here's a comment from Donald R. Prothero's Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters (p. 47):

What startles you most about the creationist debaters is that they never learn anything new or come up with different arguments. They repeat the same old, tired lines over and over again like a mantra, seemingly unaware or unwilling to admit that their argument has long been discredited.

 

[Rincewind]

DOC, I have a very sincere question for you: Who do you think you may convince with what you present here as evidence?

You must have realised by now that there is a number of people here who are very well versed in the Bible, and in theology. You can't be hoping to convince them, I am sure. Since you mostly refer to the Bible itself as evidence, or to different apologetics, that would be naive.

There are also people like me here. I am an atheist, but have never read all that deeply about the subject of religion. I have read the Bible, parts of it a couple of times, as I have an interest in mythology, but did not find it as enthralling as some of the stories about gods - the Greek have always been my favourites. But even if I lack knowledge, I'm not going to be convinced by someone like you, when you keep referring to the NT to give evidence for the NT. If that had worked, I would have been convinced already when I read it myself. And that, I imagine, would be true for others such as myself.

The above argument should be true for people of different faiths as well, don't you think? If they were trying to convince you, they wouldn't succeed by just referring to their sacred texts and scholars, would they?

So who are you trying to convince? All that seems to remain are people who already believe as you do.

I agree 100%!

The Greek Myths are great stories - as are the Arabian ones.

They're far more interesting than the Bible.


And - DOC - I'm still waiting for your promised data regarding the Martyrs.

Thank you in advance......

 

[Mojo]

Mathew was an unpopular tax collector. If you made up a religion would you assign an IRS agent as the author when you are trying to attract the masses.

According to the NT he left his job as a tax collector to follow Jesus. And it is really not so unlikely that someone who formerly had an unpopular occupation would be used as an example. If you don't get this you really don't understand one of the main messages of your own religion.

"They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." - Luke 5:31-2

Using people who have previously done something unpopular as an example of what their religion can achieve is to this day a fairly common ploy by religions - reformed criminals, whatever.

 

[tsig]

The Lord Aberhaten truly does move in mysterious ways.

Especially after all that beer.

 

[tsig]

I never liked to read fiction that much

So that's why you haven't read the whole Bible?

 

[A Lurker]

Some great points, but I think you might be confusing Geisler with the sainted Sir William Ramsay.

Oh arse... so I am. I shan't edit the original post, because I'm not afraid to admit I can make mistakes. There it is look still, entirely the wrong name!

Or... is it?! Wait! I know! This embarrassing evidence is actually proof of my own superior witnessing. Plus, we don't have either Geisler's or Ramsay's signatures, so my claim has suddenly become true after all! And why would any one ascribe Ramsay's words to Geisler? Thus Ramsay must have really been the Gospel of Geisler all along. And as I've made 1 post since I first provided this evidence, it's become 1 post truer a claim now. My next post shall repeat this evidence and make it even truer still.

In fact, I think we should all do this. We should all replace "Ramsay" with "Geisler" and see how much of an alte... I mean true, historical record we can come up with through mass repetition! And it absolutely won't be a way for me to cover my own arse, because who could possibly think of such a thing?!

Signed,

A Geisler.

 

[Lothian]

Time to check those calendars and celebrate how much we have learnt in the last two years. Shame none of it was Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth but that disappointment aside I have learnt lots from this thread.

 

[Mojo]

I agree 100%!

The Greek Myths are great stories - as are the Arabian ones.

And the Viking ones.

 

[amb]

And the Viking ones.

And the Italian war heroes ones are great fiction as well.

 

[amb]

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable"
-H. L. Mencken-

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Time to check those calendars and celebrate how much we have learnt in the last two years. Shame none of it was Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth but that disappointment aside I have learnt lots from this thread.

To celebrate Disappointment Thursday I baked a cake, but it didn't work very well. More like a biscuitty/cow pat dealie. It'll still taste, er, quite, er...

As you were. I'll try again next year.

 

[Mojo]

 

[amb]

This is from the catholic Encyclopedia.
" In the words of the Athanasian Creed: " the father is god, the son is god, and the holy spirit is god, and yet there are not three gods but one god.
in this trinity of persons the son is begotten of the father by an eternal generation, and the holy spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the father and the son.
Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent......
The vatican council has explained.....that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from divine revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness." End of quote.........above is an explanation of the trinity according to Catholicism.

Could DOC please tell us if he actually believes this balderdash!

 

[Wolrab]

Has DOC used the Apocrypha books as non-New Testament sources yet? At least it would change things up a bit and I would learn a lot (or alot to tick off the gramstapo!) without having to do any of my own googling.

 

[Rincewind]

This is from the catholic Encyclopedia.
" In the words of the Athanasian Creed: " the father is god, the son is god, and the holy spirit is god, and yet there are not three gods but one god.
in this trinity of persons the son is begotten of the father by an eternal generation, and the holy spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the father and the son.
Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent......
The vatican council has explained.....that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from divine revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness." End of quote.........above is an explanation of the trinity according to Catholicism.

Could DOC please tell us if he actually believes this balderdash!

Actually I found this in Wikipedia:
In the early days of Christianity, science was at best seen as a waste of time. The church father Athanasius, for example, celebrated the fact that the early church leaders were "men of little intellect." Similarly, the church father John Chrysostom instructed people to "empty your minds of secular knowledge."

Way to go DOC, eh! Following in "illustrious" footsteps, are you?

This probably explains how Christian mathematics can give you:
1+1+1 = 1.

 

[DOC]

This is a dishonest lie. I have provided a link to recent scholarship on the bible which clearly shows that modern biblical scholars do NOT believe the bible to be a reliable source of history.

Huh, what link are you talking about?

 

[Fiona]

DOC, it is usual to try to hide the fact that you do not read other people's posts. Not compulsory or anything....but the kind of polite that sums to "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue"

 

[DOC]

As if anyone would quote mine Ramsay.
BTW anyone read his THE BEARING OF RECENT DISCOVERY ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT recently?

He makes some interesting arguments.

Preface vii
"No one can comprehend Luke"

page 231
"Luke was all wrong about Herod, and about Quirinius"

page 235
"Luke, while desiring to be true, was guilty of an astonishing series of blunders in fact"

Page 253
"the idea of every person going to his own home to be enrolled was a pure fiction, and could not possibly have been true : it was a mere device to explain how Jesus could be born in Bethlehem of parents who lived in Nazareth : it was a false explanation of an invented occurrence: Jesus, if born at all, was born in the home of his parents."

page 273
"Luke was an incapable and untrustworthy historian"

Then why did Sir William Mitchell Ramsay call Luke one of the world's greatest historians {regarding facts that can be verified by historical and archaeological means}. Why don't you include the whole paragraph of each of the above. I doubt you will.

 

[Fiona]

Why don't you, if it helps your case?