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

[DOC]

Except for the fact that we have no EVIDENCE that Peter was ever in Rome at all...

I gave a link in post #1333 for the thread "It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

If you can't get that link (which doesn't come up when I hit it) then google:

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome" and read the evidence.

 

[ddt]

I think you're being far too charitable in putting it down to bad copying, since in Post #1193 DOC managed to quote the flap text without any trouble.

viz.

​

I wonder what his explanation for this anomoly will be. It certainly doesn't appear to be for the sake of being more accurate as was the case in his amendment of my list of apologists.

DOC?

Thanks. That also means he was already aware that text is not from Ehrman himself. Does his Pinocchio nose already reach the moon?

 

[Akhenaten]

I gave a link for the thread "It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

Posting links to yet another of the evidence-free threads that you've started here is itself evidence of nothing more than your own pathetic belief that you have some credibility.

If you can't get that link (which doesn't come up when I hit it)

You can't follow a link that you posted yourself to another of your own posts?

Fail²

. . . then google:

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome" and read the evidence.

Fail³

Please go and buy a clue.

 

[DOC]

Thanks. That also means he was already aware that text is not from Ehrman himself

How do you know it wasn't from him? And if it wasn't don't you believe a well known author would approve the text in big bold letters in his own books jacket.

ETA

Page 173 of Ehrman's book cited earlier

"Jesus certainly existed."

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks. That also means he was already aware that text is not from Ehrman himself. Does his Pinocchio nose already reach the moon?

You remember that eclipse a couple of weeks ago?

 

[ddt]

I gave a link in post #1333 for the thread "It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

If you can't get that link (which doesn't come up when I hit it) then google:

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome" and read the evidence.

Except then that that thread was evidence-free. You only presented a lemma from the Catholic Encylcopedia in the OP which only contains some vague assertions.

 

[Akhenaten]

How do you know it wasn't from him? And if it wasn't don't you believe an author would approve the text in big bold letters in his own books jacket.

The more important point, DOC, is your omission of a key word when you pretended to quote the text on the cover, despite the fact that you obviously knew exactly what it said.

In other words, why did you lie?

 

[ddt]

How do you know it wasn't from him? And if it wasn't don't you believe an author would approve the text in big bold letters in his own books jacket.

In general, people don't talk about themselves in the third person (*), and especially academics don't write such accolades about themselves.

(*) I can think of one exception, but I'm not sure he ever existed because we don't have his signature.

And authors have little influence over what the editors decide to write in the flap text. That's more a marketing decision.

 

[ddt]

You remember that eclipse a couple of weeks ago?

No, but I do remember seeing a black line in the middle over the moon, as if it was split in half.

OMG! DOC is Muhamed!

 

[Akhenaten]

No, but I do remember seeing a black line in the middle over the moon, as if it was split in half.

OMG! DOC is Muhamed!

That would explain so much!

 

[DOC]

Except then that that thread was evidence-free. You only presented a lemma from the Catholic Encylcopedia in the OP which only contains some vague assertions.

I think you are confusing the word evidence with proof. And there is such a thing known as "historical evidence" which you might read more about.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think you are confusing the word evidence with proof.

Is Post #1400 'proof' or 'evidence' that you knew what was printed on the cover flap of Ehrman's book but stated that it said something else anyway?

And there is such a thing known as "historical evidence" which you might read more about.

DOC, there's only one possible reaction to you attempting to lecture someone else about what constitutes evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why are you ignoring this post and the many others just like it, DOC?

For the record, Ehrman states categorically in his book:

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence.

 

[ddt]

I think you are confusing the word evidence with proof. And there is such a thing known as "historical evidence" which you might read more about.

I'm definitely not confusing the two. There was not a shred of evidence that Peter ever was in Rome. But feel free to point out what you think constitutes evidence. We're done with discussing Ehrman's book anyway I think.

Oh, and don't forget that Greek lesson. Failure to complete it before next Wednesday 20:00 GMT means an F- and that you're disqualified from ever again discussing NT translations.

 

[joobz]

Page 173 of Ehrman's book cited earlier

"Jesus certainly existed."

Yup and slavery existed. I wonder what jesus had to say about it?

 

[Lucian]

In general, people don't talk about themselves in the third person (*), and especially academics don't write such accolades about themselves.

(*) I can think of one exception, but I'm not sure he ever existed because we don't have his signature.

And authors have little influence over what the editors decide to write in the flap text. That's more a marketing decision.

An example of the influence authors have on the presentation of their books: a former professor of mine wrote a book about J.R.R. Tolkien subtitled Author of the Century. As I recall, the title was the publisher's choice, not the author's. In addition his name appeared in different ways in different places on the book (Tom Shippey on the cover and T.A. Shippey on the spine, if I recall correctly).

 

[pakeha]

Will this count as a fulfilled prophecy, O Pharaoh?

Indeed it will since, unlike the god of the reedcutters, Pharaoh has the power to deliver on his promises.*
*10am - midnight. Metro area only.

Perfect!
Just in time for the IIG live-streaming of the latest paranormal claimant!

Except for the fact that we have no EVIDENCE that Peter was ever in Rome at all, nor that he ever wrote anything. In fact, as the same Barth Ehrman you brought up argues, Peter as an illiterate fisherman, and explicitly said in Acts (by the same "great historian Luke" that you so like) to be illiterate, almost certainly wouldn't write whole tracts of eloquent Greek sophistry.

So all we have is some forgeries attributed to Peter, and some pious fan-fic to claim continuity from him....respectfully snipped for space...

...If you can't get that link (which doesn't come up when I hit it) then google:

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome" and read the evidence.

I have a better idea.
Why don't YOU Google the phrase you wan us to learn about and post up the sources YOU think are most interesting?
And especially those which falsify Tim Callahan's excellent post?

How do you know it wasn't from him? And if it wasn't don't you believe a well known author would approve the text in big bold letters in his own books jacket. ...

Still on the book's jacket, are we, DOC?
Never mind, some people DO read more slowly than others.

"FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional?"

And we know the Roman guard fled because....?

I hope you're not ignoring my question, DOC!

 

[Mojo]

Or in Julius Cæsar, of whom we don't even have a signature, owing to there being no paper in those days.

As I have pointed out before, they used a sponge on a stick. There must have been plenty of sponges on which he left his mark.

 

[Mojo]

Why are you ignoring this post and the many others just like it, DOC?

For the record, Ehrman states categorically in his book:

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence.

Well, to be fair, he puts this forward as Albert Schweitzer's view of Jesus as "firmly rooted in his own time and place as a first-century Palestinian Jew", but he does then go on to say, in the very next paragraph, "Schweitzer's view of the historical Jesus happens to be mine as well, at least in rough outline".

 

[Akhenaten]

Or in Julius Cæsar, of whom we don't even have a signature, owing to there being no paper in those days.

As I have pointed out before, they used a sponge on a stick. There must have been plenty of sponges on which he left his mark.

Sorry. I seem not to have absorbed that bit of knowledge.