Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay was a skeptic before he studied biblical lands for 15 years and subsequently stated Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (with regard to non-supernatural events).
Click to expand...


Fine, if you think someone who got as muddled as Luke did over the censuses can be regarded as a "great historian".
 
Not that ****** Ramsay again!!! Surely you have others? No one knows who the authors of the gospels were. They're all written anonymously. Names were given them much later. Even you would know that!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DOC said:
One piece of evidence I presented was that of a Jewish Rabbi who stated that "Oral Tradition Evidence" was superior to written evidence at that time. Oral tradition was an important way to relay information in that time of little literacy and no paper or printing presses.
Click to expand...

What did Moses have in his pocketses, then, my precious?
 
amb said:
Not that ****** Ramsay again!!! Surely you have others? No one knows who the authors of the gospels were. They're all written anonymously. Names were given them much later. Even you would know that!
Click to expand...

Not just him, a whole heap of wrongness, so much so that I wouldn't know where to start, and all of it discredited more than once.

Chutzpah, thy name is DOC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DOC said:
One piece of evidence I presented was that of a Jewish Rabbi who stated that "Oral Tradition Evidence" was superior to written evidence at that time. Oral tradition was an important way to relay information in that time of little literacy and no paper or printing presses.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is for this reason our legal system will frequently accept hearsay over signed affidavits.

And we also remember as children playing whispers just how amazingly accurate we are able transmit the original message over a series of retellings.

DOC said:
Also probably the greatest evangelist who ever lived, the apostle Paul, at one time approved of the killing and persecutions of Christians.
Click to expand...
And we know that the "I was once a athesit/sinner/drug user..." born-again story isn't a standard story told by all who are trying to proselytize others. And each and every time we do hear it, it is totally true. :rolleyes:

DOC said:
And even I was a skeptic/atheist at one time.
Click to expand...
Do tell. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Not just him, a whole heap of wrongness, so much so that I wouldn't know where to start, and all of it discredited more than once.

Chutzpah, thy name is DOC.
Click to expand...

I was stupid enough to go check out this Ramsay fellow and instead found a nut case. :p
 
amb said:
I was stupid enough to go check out this Ramsay fellow and instead found a nut case. :p
Click to expand...

Did you find the right one? I think 'nut case' is a bit harsh; he was of his time, but archaeology and biblical studies have both moved on a lot in the hundred years or so since he was active. What would be stupid is to use him as an authority and ignore all developments since 1909...
 
amb said:
Not that ****** Ramsay again!!! Surely you have others? No one knows who the authors of the gospels were. They're all written anonymously. Names were given them much later.
Click to expand...
Some scholars believe that and some don't. As stated, we don't even have a signature in existence for Julius Caesar.

If someone dug up a scroll in Jerusalem that said, My name is Philip and I was an apostle and I saw Jesus raised from the dead, and the document was verified to be about 2000 years old, would you become a Christian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DOC said:
If someone dug up a scroll in Jerusalem that said, My name is Philip and I was an apostle and I saw Jesus raised from the dead, and the document was verified to be about 2000 years old, would you become a Christian.
Click to expand...

No one should based on that. The first idea that should surface is that this Phillip was mistaken in same way, was fooled by a conjuror's illusion, etc.

I mean, geez, what's your point here?

(notice the queston mark)
 
DOC said:
If someone dug up a scroll in Jerusalem that said, My name is Philip and I was an apostle and I saw Jesus raised from the dead, and the document was verified to be about 2000 years old, would you become a Christian.
Click to expand...
This is a bizarre attempt at minimizing the importance of knowing the real authorship. And it only further undermines your argument. Of course I wouldn't rely on such a document, as I need much more evidence than that to believe in an event like a Resurrection actually happened.

You've asked us to believe the resurrection occurred because it was witnessed by people. Yet the best witness testimony you have is hearsay. In other words, the quality of evidence you present is poorer than evidence that would still be considered poor evidence.

The book of Mormon has signed affidavits corroboration the veracity of the golden plates. Yet, I do not believe that any more because there is NO other reliable evidence supporting their existence.
 
DOC said:
Well even if this was true, it would be an ad hom fallacy. Here are some reasons it is not true.

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay was a skeptic before he studied biblical lands for 15 years and subsequently stated Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (with regard to non-supernatural events).

One piece of evidence I presented was that of a Jewish Rabbi who stated that "Oral Tradition Evidence" was superior to written evidence at that time. Oral tradition was an important way to relay information in that time of little literacy and no paper or printing presses.

Also probably the greatest evangelist who ever lived, the apostle Paul, at one time approved of the killing and persecutions of Christians.

And even I was a skeptic/atheist at one time.
Click to expand...

I should probably be posting this in the 'computer' sub forum but I wonder if you guys can help. I refreshed the page and the post quoted appeared. Why is it that my computer keeps showing regurgitated posts from the first few pages of this thread?
 
welshdean said:
I should probably be posting this in the 'computer' sub forum but I wonder if you guys can help. I refreshed the page and the post quoted appeared. Why is it that my computer keeps showing regurgitated posts from the first few pages of this thread?
Click to expand...

It's funny. One guy re-posts and re-posts and another guy can't be bothered.
 
Akhenaten said:
I've read your posts and there's no escaping the conclusion that until it was pointed out to you several times you hadn't even read the thread title, let alone responded to it.

And I still find no reason to believe you've read the OP. You certainly haven't responded to that.





Yourself. You need to get over it.
Click to expand...

I think all may be made right if perhaps (s)he could answer a question that has been troubling us for some time without answer.

OCaptain, how did Simon the Zealot die?

That should allow us to determine whether the NT writers told the truth or not.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I think all may be made right if perhaps (s)he could answer a question that has been troubling us for some time without answer.

OCaptain, how did Simon the Zealot die?

That should allow us to determine whether the NT writers told the truth or not.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :jaw-dropp

You know that ocaptain will wuss out of answering don't you. All fundies, when confronted with the blatent foolishness of their beliefs do exactly the same thing:
Tra la la, can't hear you, tra la la.
 
DOC said:
Well even if this was true, it would be an ad hom fallacy. Here are some reasons it is not true.

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay was a skeptic before he studied biblical lands for 15 years and subsequently stated Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (with regard to non-supernatural events).

One piece of evidence I presented was that of a Jewish Rabbi who stated that "Oral Tradition Evidence" was superior to written evidence at that time. Oral tradition was an important way to relay information in that time of little literacy and no paper or printing presses.

Also probably the greatest evangelist who ever lived, the apostle Paul, at one time approved of the killing and persecutions of Christians.
Click to expand...
Repeating the same oft debunked lies again and again doesn't make them true.
DOC said:
And even I was a skeptic/atheist at one time.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you.

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone here actually believe DOC was ever an atheist?
 
catsmate1 said:
As a matter of curiosity, does anyone here actually believe DOC was ever an atheist?
Click to expand...

No. I don't even believe that they are human, either but that is neither here nor there. Damn, I wish this board was an MMO sometimes. Would report DOC for using third-software (boting) a long time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom