In rather the same manner in which the western world obtained most of its riches: we despoiled that which belonged to others.
To be clear: This is a joke.
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
To be clear: This is a joke.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
You keep your babies under lock and key? That's what I call strict.
Sure, I can't afford child care. It's hard to pack them all in the gun cabinet with the firepower, though.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Driving on the left comes from the knights of old,your sword arm is free to be brought into play. If you're right handed.Eh, thats not nice! I protest the Verhohnepiepelung of the deutsche Sprache!
Blaukraut bleibt Blaukraut und Brautkleid bleibt Brautkleid.
There, try saying that very quick and several times, and let's see how far you get
Greetings,
Chris
ETA: And english is all wrong anyways. I mean, come on. That's a language which originated in a country where they constantly drive on the wrong side of the road. How are such people supposed to come up with a proper language anyways. Hehe...
Which is why I walk on the left in Paris, so I can still slap Frenchmen.
I've heard one person's opinion that Luke guessed on the birthplace of Jesus. Others disagree.
And some have brought up discrepancies, but as pointed out that is normal for eyewitnesses and to date I have still not seen a discrepancy in the NT that can't be explained.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
DOC, remember your definition of evidence and I'll ask you again to test your honesty.
Would you agree that much evidence has been posted in this thread that the NT writers were NOT telling the truth?
Would you agree that much evidence has been posted in this thread that the NT writers were NOT telling the truth?
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
1) That doesn't answer RoboTimbo's question
2) Your first point is inaccurate. It has been pointed out many times in this thread (although you've ignored it) that the apostles did not author the gospels. I don't care how many times your religious leaders have claimed this, the vast majority of non-biased non-agenda'd evidence-following researchers are in agreement on that fact. So very few people claim that Luke guessed on the birthplace of Jesus. The author of Luke may well have, but not Luke himself.
3) You haven't acknowledged many of the discrepancies pointed out, and of those you have you've merely twisted, dodged and lied your way through.
4) You've repeatedly demonstrated very low standards for "explanations" supporting your presuppositions.
5) When people put forward as experts disagree on a subject, it is best to look at their reasons, not their fame.
Edited to add quote, since some posting occurred while I typed this.
ETA 2: You heard someone (who?) on TV say that Yassir Arafat cried while watching the movie? See my point number 4.
Last edited:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Yeah, well that "one person" is a modern renowned expert of the new testament, Father Murphy-O'Connor, a Christian dominican priest. His argument is compelling and supported by facts.
Luke lied.
If you have a logical counter substantive argument (e.g., evidence of a census that required people to move towns), I'd be happy to hear it. Until then, Luke lied.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I for one, dispute that there was anything more than a tiny hamlet at most and maybe some old tombs where Nazareth was alleged to have been at the time the biblical Jesus was alleged to have been born.
When will you be presenting the evidence to refute this.
Me and the other bloke are very keen to see it.
So start explaining already.
Do you need me to repost Teh List?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Lothian
should be banned
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What he actually did was place the birth in Bethlehem in order to make it fit a prophecy, and make up a non-existent and highly implausible census as an excuse for a Galilean having been born there.
And this is someone who you keep describing as "one of the world's greatest historians".
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Problem is that for DOC, "explaining" is synonymous with "handwaiving" and "lying".
Greetings,
Chris
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
Gday,
Eye-witnesses?
Why is that no Christian actually claimed to BE an eye-witness?
In most religions it gives credibility and power to be close to the founders, to have MET him, to have BEEN there, to have SEEN it etc.
But not Christianity - the earliest Christians do NOT claim to have met a historical Jesus. The only 1st hand claims we DO have are of spiritual experiences and appearances of visions.
Anyway -
Here is my analysis of the usual claims :
The Alleged eye-witnesses to Jesus.
G.John - Prologue
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.
... And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth. "
Unknown Author G.John is a book written by some UNKNOWN person. That is the consensus of modern NT scholars. The author does NOT identify himself - instead we have BELIEFS and CLAIMS about the author by OTHERS.
About some spiritual being The Prologue is NOT about any historical person. Just LOOK at this :
"this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it. "
This is obviously spiritual language about a divine being (the Risen Christ). It's part of a spiritual sounding passage so different from the rest of the book it has it's own name - the Prologue. NOWHERE else in the book is the word "logos" used about Jesus. The OTHER part of the book is about Jesus, but the Prologue is about the Risen Christ - a heavenly being.
No clear personal connection Finally, the argument rests entirely on the tiny phrase :
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". As if the "us" (and the "we") MUST mean that the author is specifically included. When it fact it could just have easily meant the group in general.
G.John - Appendix
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was later added to this Gospel, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
1 John
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched —this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
He starts with "that which was from the beginning" - that's not a historical Jesus. What he saw and looked at and touched - but what? No mention of a historical Jesus there. He "proclaims concerning the Word of Life" - so it's about the "Word of Life" - something divine, but certainly not a historical Jesus. What he proclaims is "the eternal life" which "appeared to him". That's the key passage - the word of life appeared to the writer. The Greek is "ephanerothe", meaning a vision or appearance or apparition.
So the writer had a vision or apparition of the Word of Life. Just like Paul. Certainly not a historical Jesus.
G.Luke.
"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who were eye-witnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,"
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."
Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness? No.
Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses? No.
Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness? No.
Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses? No.
All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to : "Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us." No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.
THEN Luke describes his OWN VERSION : "after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you" NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY. So, the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writing.
2 Peter
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claim of exactly that. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Kapyong
Eye-witnesses?
Why is that no Christian actually claimed to BE an eye-witness?
In most religions it gives credibility and power to be close to the founders, to have MET him, to have BEEN there, to have SEEN it etc.
But not Christianity - the earliest Christians do NOT claim to have met a historical Jesus. The only 1st hand claims we DO have are of spiritual experiences and appearances of visions.
Anyway -
Here is my analysis of the usual claims :
The Alleged eye-witnesses to Jesus.
G.John - Prologue
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.
... And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth. "
Unknown Author G.John is a book written by some UNKNOWN person. That is the consensus of modern NT scholars. The author does NOT identify himself - instead we have BELIEFS and CLAIMS about the author by OTHERS.
About some spiritual being The Prologue is NOT about any historical person. Just LOOK at this :
"this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it. "
This is obviously spiritual language about a divine being (the Risen Christ). It's part of a spiritual sounding passage so different from the rest of the book it has it's own name - the Prologue. NOWHERE else in the book is the word "logos" used about Jesus. The OTHER part of the book is about Jesus, but the Prologue is about the Risen Christ - a heavenly being.
No clear personal connection Finally, the argument rests entirely on the tiny phrase :
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". As if the "us" (and the "we") MUST mean that the author is specifically included. When it fact it could just have easily meant the group in general.
G.John - Appendix
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was later added to this Gospel, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
1 John
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched —this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
He starts with "that which was from the beginning" - that's not a historical Jesus. What he saw and looked at and touched - but what? No mention of a historical Jesus there. He "proclaims concerning the Word of Life" - so it's about the "Word of Life" - something divine, but certainly not a historical Jesus. What he proclaims is "the eternal life" which "appeared to him". That's the key passage - the word of life appeared to the writer. The Greek is "ephanerothe", meaning a vision or appearance or apparition.
So the writer had a vision or apparition of the Word of Life. Just like Paul. Certainly not a historical Jesus.
G.Luke.
"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who were eye-witnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,"
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."
Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness? No.
Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses? No.
Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness? No.
Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses? No.
All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to : "Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us." No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.
THEN Luke describes his OWN VERSION : "after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you" NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY. So, the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writing.
2 Peter
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claim of exactly that. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Kapyong
Last edited:
There is a saying that "Actions speak louder than words". Below is what Luke (the person Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian) said about the actions of the formerly cowardly and uncertain apostles shortly after Jesus was killed by crucifixion and allegedly rose from the dead. The following actions occurred shortly after the apostles got out of jail.
Acts 5:40 and when they {the religious leaders} had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Acts 5:41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.
Acts 5:42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
____
Also Norman Geisler in the book cited in post #1 devotes an entire chapter to the question you raised in your post. Here is a link to that chapter. Those outside of the US will not be able to read the chapter
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
My time is limited but within 7 days I will make another comment about the question you raised in your post.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Just like clockwork. Lay low until you think everyone has forgotten that this garbage has been refuted about 7,519 times and then whack it up as a response to the most recent post in the thread without even attempting to provide some kind of meaningful answer to the matters raised, let alone the hundreds of posts that you simply ignored altogether.
Pathetic.
Are you completely unable to absorb the simple message that you can't use the bible as evidence for the bible's veracity?
If not, what exactly is your excuse for repeatedly attempting to do so?
This joke wasn't that funny the first hundred times you told it, DOC. It's just really sad and pathetic now.
How much time does it take to regurgitate the same old drivel that you've been posting for years?
Why the hell don't you just set the Luke-Ramsay-Geisler wankery up as a hotkey so you don't have to keep taking these sabbaticals?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Luke made up a census to make the site of Christ's birth fit with OT prophecies. This is not something that would be done by a great historian, or even by a competent historian, if they had any integrity.
All Ramsay's endorsement of Luke means is that Ramsay is not a reliable source.
In the time it took you to post the above non-response, DOC, you could have addressed Kapyong's point about eye-witnesses.
Repeatedly linking to Geisler's book, when you know it's unavailable to 95.5%* of the world's population, is pretty bad form.
*Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population, USA is 4.5% of the world's population.
Repeatedly linking to Geisler's book, when you know it's unavailable to 95.5%* of the world's population, is pretty bad form.
*Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population, USA is 4.5% of the world's population.
- Status