• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ddt said:
Isn't that the book you've repeatedly linked to on Google Books, even though it has been pointed out that only Americans can see it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The problem isn't so much that DOC repeatdly links to it, it is that, having been told that many posters can't see it he continues to tell people to read it rather than (as he has been requested to) summarising the argument he wants to use it for in his own words. It's almost as if he doesn't want people to be able to see the arguments he is trying to advance.
 
DOC said:
Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.
Click to expand...

Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.
 
Craig B said:
...
Another miracle accepted as proved in the same year (1835) was the multiplication of the bone dust of the saint, which provided for hundreds of reliquaries without the original amount experiencing any decrease in quantity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, if wiki says so, that's good enough for me!
Who knew-magically reproducing relics!

On the subject of Acts, DOC wrote:
DOC said:
Luke, who has been called a great historian by at least one scholar, wrote it as a letter to a friend. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a portion of it from his traveling companion Paul (who according to Bart Ehrman, met with Peter and James) to put in it.
Click to expand...

But I'm still confused about the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus and the two different account of Paul's conversion, DOC.
Please clear this up.
 
Fireshadow said:
This is perhaps my favorite response to the idea that "martyr for a statement=truth of that statement". True, people are often martyrs for true things (Nathan Hale comes to mind: I regret I have but one life...) but it's unlikely that truth, in and of itself, will be a cause for martyrdom. In all the counter examples that have been given, it's been martyrs who've died for other causes, not people who chose not to be martyrs because the cause is, on its face, true, and therefore does not require someone to die for it.
Click to expand...
As a point of fact Hale's last words were not "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" but probably a variation on "It is the duty of every good Officer, to obey any orders given him by his Commander-in-Chief"


Marduk said:
just one scholar out of the hundreds of thousands who have lived since his texts were written.
Click to expand...
A scholar who was criticised by his peers for allowing his beliefs to blind him to historical facts.
 
catsmate1 said:
As a point of fact Hale's last words were not "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" but probably a variation on "It is the duty of every good Officer, to obey any orders given him by his Commander-in-Chief"



A scholar who was criticised by his peers for allowing his beliefs to blind him to historical facts.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, I'm not a historian, and no one has ever claimed I was. But you bring up another good point: The words of a man who is documented to have existed by multiple sources, and who died 250 years ago, are up for debate; who can be sure what an alleged man, who cannot be proven outside one holy book, and reportedly died 2000 years ago, actually said at his execution?
 
Fireshadow said:
Yes, well, I'm not a historian, and no one has ever claimed I was. But you bring up another good point: The words of a man who is documented to have existed by multiple sources, and who died 250 years ago, are up for debate; who can be sure what an alleged man, who cannot be proven outside one holy book, and reportedly died 2000 years ago, actually said at his execution?
Click to expand...


Oh goody. We haven't had this one for a while.

Your post will be the trigger for DOC's "How do we know that Juilus Cæsar (for whom we have no signature) and Alexander the Great (who has no known grave) ever existed?" argument.

Always good for a laugh, some sidebar learning about real history and a few pictures.

​
 
DOC said:
If someone gave me a million dollars, I would quit my job and other activities and answer each and every one.

Unfortunately, some of these points brought up by skeptics aren't rebutted because I simply don't have the time. People should do their own research and not take as gospel anything said in here, especially those many posts without sources.
Click to expand...

Judging from your nearly 7,000 posts, I assumed you were retired.

DOC said:
Good information for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (a defense of the Christian religion) is anything by Norman Geisler, especially the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", or anything by Ralph Muncaster, author of book "Examine the Evidence". Also former atheist and Chicago Times journalist, Lee Strobel, has a 2 DVD set called "The Case for Christ".
Click to expand...

All of those authors write tripe, especially Stroebel. How I wish I could get back the time spent on him.
 
DOC:

Just out of curiosity, in reference to Matthew's walking dead, why do you suppose the following?:

1) Why did only Matthew made reference to them?

2) Did they go back to their graves after the crucifixion was fininshed, or did they reclaim their lives and property?

As to Paul's 500 brethren to whom the risen Christ appeared, if you believe that Paul and Luke knew each other, why didn't Luke mention them?

Even given the possibility that different witnesses to the same event will have variations in their stories, how do you reconcile the risen Jesus meeting the disciples in Galilee, according to Matthew, and his meeting them in Jerusalem according to Luke?

Why, after they have seen the risen Christ, are the disciples, according to the last chapter of the Gospel of John, back home in Galilee fishing?
 
TimCallahan said:
DOC:

Just out of curiosity, in reference to Matthew's walking dead, why do you suppose the following?: ... 2) Did they go back to their graves after the crucifixion was fininshed ... ?
Click to expand...
Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27.
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Click to expand...
So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!
 
Craig B said:
Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27. So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!
Click to expand...
And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.
 
joobz said:
And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.
Click to expand...
Nor anywhere else in the Gospels, either.
 
joobz said:
And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.
Click to expand...
The next verse is relevant:
54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”
Click to expand...
So the centurion and a "whole company of soldiers" (verse 24) (and the other spectators presumably) saw all that happened - an earthquake and zombies!
Centurions commanded 60 to 80 men. That is a bit more than 8 even if the rest of the city were blind, deaf and dumb.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.
Click to expand...

They might have been too busy evangelizing and getting martyred to write history books to most of the people who couldn't read anyway.

We know something big was happening for there to be such dynamic growth. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward. Could there have been more going on then just the formerly cowardly Peter's preaching?
 
Craig B said:
Nothing so straightforward! Matthew 27. So they remained in their open tombs from the death to the resurrection of Jesus, and only then commenced their peregrinations. That really takes some explaining!
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight.
Jeebus dies.
An earthquake occurs.
The tombs of the saints are wrenched open.
Said saints are resurrected, but lie still for 36hours.
Said saints commence (new word for me. Thanks) their peregrinations.


These bloody zombies laid where they were for 36 hours, didn't move, then got up and perambulated around town on a drippy flesh, bones showing, Thriller-esque meet & greet?
They must have had the patience of a sain.... ahhh fuhgeddaboudit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom