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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
_
kmortis, I wish they would hit the "quote" button, instead of the "post reply" button. To any lurkers out there you will notice a lot of people like to talk about me without responding to a particular quote of mine. You have to ask why. Posting something is one thing, anybody can do that, posting something in response to a specific quote of mine (that is shown) is another.
Click to expand...

While DOC posted up his de profundis message, I was happily nattering on about the history of glass-making and ended writing

pakeha said:
...All one could wish for is evidence the NT writers wrote the truth, but there you are.
I want to believe DOC'll eventually find some to share with us.
Click to expand...

Not a quarter of an hour later DOC edited his post to add
And I have some new insights that I might bring up in the coming weeks either in this thread or in the religious section
Click to expand...

Does that count as 'lying for Jeebus' or is it just more of the general dishonesty we've come to know and expect from DOC?
 
Last edited:
And I have some new insights that I might bring up in the coming weeks either in this thread or in the religious section.
Click to expand...

At last, and about time too. You are going to prove once and for all that the gospelers were writing the truth? :cool:
 
DOC said:
kmortis, I wish they would hit the "quote" button, instead of the "post reply" button. To any lurkers out there you will notice a lot of people like to talk about me without responding to a particular quote of mine. You have to ask why. Posting something is one thing, anybody can do that, posting something in response to a specific quote of mine (that is shown) is another.
Click to expand...



DOC, do you read the discussions in the thread? Most of the posts you quoted aren't actually talking about you.

Mine, for example, was addressed to a newcomer. It contains a general comment on the thread, and a brief dissection of her mother's idea of evidence for the veracity of the bible. I quoted the post I was replying to, so I don't know why you would think I was referring to you or complain about a lack of quoting or discussion about yourself in absentia.

Or am I not permitted to answer someone else's post? Please, DOC, if we are supposed to be grovelling at your feet and only your feet, begging for those cherished snippets of evidence, do tell us so.
 
This is my first post on this nutty thread. I do check it out from time to time, mostly for amusement, but many times offering some good information(not from Doc of course!).
 
I'm guessing this thread will have "gone places" in the 496 previous pages... but hey, I'm going to reply to the very first post. :p
Doc's argument is actually a pretty strong one. The writers probably did believe what they were writing down, and for that reason it cannot be considered "mythical" on the level of Greek or Egyptian myths. Instead you have to treat our sources for Jesus as historical sources, accepting some points and disregarding others.
This is actually pretty easy to do. Was Jesus born of a virgin? No. 2 books written decades after his death isn't enough to warrant a belief that scientific rules temporarily didn't apply. Did Jesus know John the Baptist? Yes. 4 books written decades after his death is enough to warrant a belief that one Jew kinda knew another Jew.

I'm really looking forward to Bart Ehrman's upcoming book on this actually. Dunno if anyone else is?
 
Phelix: The thread really hasn't gone anywhere. BUt I direct your attention to post #3...

Hokulele said:
These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.
Click to expand...
 
phelix said:
I'm guessing this thread will have "gone places" in the 496 previous pages... but hey, I'm going to reply to the very first post. :p
Click to expand...
You might want to try to take a look at some stuff that followed it...

phelix said:
Doc's argument is actually a pretty strong one. The writers probably did believe what they were writing down, and for that reason it cannot be considered "mythical" on the level of Greek or Egyptian myths.
Click to expand...
Actually no. DOC's assumptions are that if a person was lying, he wouldn't have said those things because they would make the lie less credible.
Therefore... He accepts the lie...

In other words, the *smart* thing a lier would do was use this version as it is clearly the more effective one. Heck, take a couple of classses in anything about writing fiction (literature or screenwriting) and you would see those are actually basic techniques first year students learn...

Instead you have to treat our sources for Jesus as historical sources, accepting some points and disregarding others.
Click to expand...
In other words cherry pick. Sorry, it doesn't go that way.

Did Jesus know John the Baptist? Yes. 4 books written decades after his death is enough to warrant a belief that one Jew kinda knew another Jew.
Click to expand...
Going by your logic, gone with the wind must be a true story.
Did Scarlet Ohera meet Ret Butler? Yes. 1 book written decades after her death is enough to warrant a belief that one christian kinda knew another christian.
 
kmortis said:
I see we've had another hit&run.

So what's this about the glass indusrty throughout history?
Click to expand...

Well, reading about it helps pass the time while awaiting DOC's evidence or insights or whatever it turns out to be.
For example, here
http://archaeology.about.com/gi/o.h...u=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.10.024
is an article about colourless blown glass from the Roman period found in Britain.
Naturally ocurring glass has been known and used since Neolithic times.
I myself have a pair of tiny handchipped knives made from a clear yellow fulgurite, from the sands of Lebanon when they melted in a meteorite or lightning impact a long time ago.
Ah yes, clear glass is mentioned in the book of Revelation, which is held to be evidence of something or other.
From Libya, not Lebanon
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
So what's this about the glass indusrty throughout history?
Click to expand...
.
A transparent attempt at distraction. No evidentiary vases for the claim. No fibre to it at all. Might help one to focus, but more likely DOC is just blowing. Just for safety, everyone watch their temper and we won't be jarred out of the jam -- no pane, just smooth. I mean, DOC can't be completely full of it, because half of it is enough. At a minimum, it'd just take a phillip. Yes, zie recycles endlessly, but that's just the work of the bevel. A stain on the forum, that.

If you'll pardon me, my foot is kiln me, so I'm going to lamp over to the shade and scratch an etch. .
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterFox said:
Going by your logic, gone with the wind must be a true story.

Did Scarlet Ohera meet Ret Butler? Yes. 1 book written decades after her death is enough to warrant a belief that one christian kinda knew another christian.
Click to expand...
Sir, Rhett Butler would ask you to name your second and meet him at dawn if he heard you call him a Christian!
 
X said:
DOC, do you read the discussions in the thread? Most of the posts you quoted aren't actually talking about you.

Mine, for example, was addressed to a newcomer. It contains a general comment on the thread, and a brief dissection of her...
Click to expand...

His :)

TSR said:
.
A transparent attempt at distraction. No evidentiary vases for the claim. No fibre to it at all. Might help one to focus, but more likely DOC is just blowing. .
Click to expand...
Ah I take credit for bringing that up. My mom claimed that mentioning clear glass validates the bible. I disagree, but I shared her thoughts.
 
Last edited:
phelix said:
I'm guessing this thread will have "gone places" in the 496 previous pages... but hey, I'm going to reply to the very first post. :p
Doc's argument is actually a pretty strong one. ?
Click to expand...

Keep reading. DOC has never made a strong case for anything. His case has been destroyed time and again.


<shakes head> :confused:
 
John Jones said:
Keep reading. DOC has never made a strong case for anything. His case has been destroyed time and again.


:confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah... I assumed it would be so when I read the OP, where opinion was used as evidence of historical truth. And turns out it was so :)
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
What can I say?


TTTWND_Search.jpg
Click to expand...
You could say "it ain't easy being modest when you're so bloody brilliant"

YOU ROCK!
 
phelix said:
I'm guessing this thread will have "gone places" in the 496 previous pages... but hey, I'm going to reply to the very first post. :p
Doc's argument is actually a pretty strong one. The writers probably did believe what they were writing down, and for that reason it cannot be considered "mythical" on the level of Greek or Egyptian myths. Instead you have to treat our sources for Jesus as historical sources, accepting some points and disregarding others.

This is actually pretty easy to do. Was Jesus born of a virgin? No. 2 books written decades after his death isn't enough to warrant a belief that scientific rules temporarily didn't apply. Did Jesus know John the Baptist? Yes. 4 books written decades after his death is enough to warrant a belief that one Jew kinda knew another Jew.

I'm really looking forward to Bart Ehrman's upcoming book on this actually. Dunno if anyone else is?
Click to expand...

Hilite 1) Not Really

Hilite 2) I'm guessing you haven't heard of Mithra, or the numerous pre-Christian Solar Cults which all have their Saviours being born of a virgin, then dying and resurrecting, and all being associated with imagery including the Lion and the Lamb.

GB
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom