Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
It's even worse than that.
DOC has previously quoted the full version of the statement and even attempted to dismiss the "propaganda" part as "supernatural bias".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5002497#post5002497
In other words, DOC must have known full well that he did not provide the full quote.
Rincewind
Philosopher
And I thought that DOC stood for "Devoid of Content."
Just goes to show what a wonderfully educational experience the JREF is!
Just goes to show what a wonderfully educational experience the JREF is!
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
"Vanity of vanities...there is nothing new under the sun."
I had completely forgotten we have been over this in detail before. Meh, I am getting as bad as DOC...
Lothian
should be banned
I am not sure why DOC lies so much.
Say I don’t believe in Jesus because there is not any historical evidence for any of the miracles.
DOC comes along with his dishonest quote mining and amending of passages.
I don’t realise this so now I believe there is evidence and I call myself a Christian.
Can the omniscient God not see that my belief is founded on a lie? That my free will choice is based on a misrepresentation of Ramsay’s and Sherwin-White’s words.
Would he not know that presented with the true texts I would not be a believer and would he not deny me salvation? How would he feel about the person who did not tell me the truth?
Say I don’t believe in Jesus because there is not any historical evidence for any of the miracles.
DOC comes along with his dishonest quote mining and amending of passages.
I don’t realise this so now I believe there is evidence and I call myself a Christian.
Can the omniscient God not see that my belief is founded on a lie? That my free will choice is based on a misrepresentation of Ramsay’s and Sherwin-White’s words.
Would he not know that presented with the true texts I would not be a believer and would he not deny me salvation? How would he feel about the person who did not tell me the truth?
GrandMasterFox
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,391
You are assuming that a person who does such a thing (anyone, not just DOC) is a "true believer". There are plenty of people who lie and cheat for religion not because they care about your salvation but because they want you to keep putting money in the collection plate and give them your vote when it counts. Not to mention spread the word and get them more minions.
The problem I don't get with DOC, is the fact that he clrealy is lying for christ and hopes to get people to follow him, however, he is doing it in a public forum outside of his control. You would expect him by now to realize that every single time he would do that, dozens of posters would expose him.
If it was his own blog where he can delete comments maybe, but here?!?
He has no power of editing. And it has been going on for years now.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Lrrr
Stealth Hug Ninja
Add me to the "DOC is wrong" list.
Last edited:
Nice find. The adulterated version appears on several apologetic sites I found. It's not even DowdifiedTM with the ... ellipsis.
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
.
To be scrupulously fair, I have never said DOC was wrong.
Only that zie's never been right
But sweet FSM, zie's a lot of fun to poke at with a stick sometimes...
.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,789
Basically this
. Though I assume the 'Roman historians' referred to are modern historians of Rome and not first century Romans.DOC deliberately (I assume) highlighted the statement about Roman historians considering 'Luke' highly as a historian. DOC has repeatedly failed to support this claim (other than the quote from Sherwin-White's doctoral thesis) either directly with his own work or indirectly from Sherwin-White's work. While Sherwin-White was convinced of "the essential historicity of the narratives in the New Testament" he did not support this well in his major work (The Roman Citizenship) nor is it a generally held view in the community of historians of Rome as far as I can determine.
I assume DOC hasn't even read the published version of Sherwin-White's thesis; though as it was published in 1939 he may be forgiven for this.
I have repeatedly challenged him to support this claim; while this may seem a minor point it emphasises the sloppy and biased nature of DOC's statements and his unwillingness to adhere to proper scholarly procedure, something I'm rather keen on as I'm in the process of finalising my own thesis for a doctorate in history.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,789
I assume that is what is referred to; Sherman-White's work was principally in Roman law and administration.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,789
However you'll need to support this belief by demonstrating it is commonly held amongst historians. I suggest you either (finally) do so or cease quoting one particular opinion. The Journal of Roman Studies would be a good place to begin your research. Have you even read the work you're quoting or are you merely copying from an apologist source?
This really needs to be specifically addressed; no proper historian takes a source for granted. Especially not one that includes supernatural events and claims them as fact. Claims in one source are compared to other...............why am I wasting my time trying to educate DOC in proper scholastic methods.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,789
Bugger I hadn't done that, I'd ordered the book in the college library.
welshdean
Michael McDonald 1967 - 2021
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 5,689
I'd like to return yet again to something I mentioned earlier - and has been repeated a lot by many of us - especially Welshdean using a subtle blend of colour and size. Being originally from Cymru, I can appreciate such support.
DOC - among the original points you made, you stressed the importance of the martyrdom of the apostles as being one of the reasons why the NT writers told the truth.
Now I did something that I suspect you didn't want anybody to do... I checked the martyrdom of the apostles.
I was scarcely suprised to discover that the evidence for their martyrdom was shown to be "according to legend.." or "early church tradition..." which to many people suggests that it ain't so.
Therefore, if we're to take your assertion that said martyrdom is important for the claim of veracity, then I'm sure we'd like to see the evidence that you promised - also ages ago.
Especially - I'm sure you were expecting this - about Simon the Zealot and his attempt to be the most-resurrected apostle of all.
Thanking you in anticipation....
Thanks to you Rincewind, I couldn't be bothered to trawl through years of posts to find the 'Author' of the question. I have had a friendly warning for asking the same question repeatedly though. So I am never going to ask:
DOC, HOW DID SIMON THE ZEALOT DIE?
I promised that I wouldn't ask the question again, so I won't. I'd still love to know the answer though,
BACKED UP WITH EXTRA-BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.
But since I'm not allowed to ask the question, DOC will be free to carry on being a liar, a fraud and by his religion's standards, condemned for all eternity to be shunned from the gates of heaven!
welshdean
Michael McDonald 1967 - 2021
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 5,689
Bugger I hadn't done that, I'd ordered the book in the college library.
Honestly, Catsmate, don't waste your time. D[ishonesty]O[ver]C[redibility] will just ignore you anyway.
Just sit tight and watch him squirm, lie and obfuscate, they are his only redeeming features
.joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Not at all.
note that your posts from then to now have remained consistent. Such is the result when one uses first principles in logic and debate.
However, when one props up their arguments based upon logical fallacies and half truths, one risks making embarrassingly inconsistent points.
For example:
In one moment using a source as evidence that Roman histories had huge historical man crushes on Luke. And in another thread, claim that source as being biased and not reliable. (at least not reliable when it contradicted his argument).
Another example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2921675#post2921675
Rincewind
Philosopher
Can you remind me, please?
What was the question that you're not going to ask?
Thanks!
Rincewind
Philosopher
I think that DOC has made - and keeps making - a huge, fundamental mistake.
He keeps forgetting that we will, and do, check things.....
He keeps forgetting that we will, and do, check things.....
- Status