Posts: 8219
Threads: 40
Joined: March 18, 2014
Reputation:
54
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 30, 2015 at 10:06 pm
(May 30, 2015 at 6:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (May 30, 2015 at 4:39 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You're the one that over-filled his plate starting all those threads...
Go ahead and use it as an excuse though. After all, any excuse works when you're looking for one.
"All those threads"?
Three. I've started three that are active.
You're the one using them as an excuse. Seeing as there's only three, that makes your excuse even weaker.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 30, 2015 at 10:08 pm
No need to come crying to me about the weight of responses your threads have attracted in a discussion forum. All I'm suggesting is perhaps you need to rethink your strategy, as clearly this one is more than you can handle without complaining.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 30, 2015 at 11:10 pm
(May 26, 2015 at 11:42 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Luke: Fan Fic Writer Pretends to be a Historian
Is that what experts say? Let's see...
Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that " Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: " For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."
Nope. Guess not. Guess atheists shouldn't pretend to be experts on subjects they know nothing about.
Quote:Like Matthew, Luke tries to elaborate on Mark, fleshing out a story of Jesus' birth and a bit of his childhood. He also gives us a number of milestones to offer more of a historical setting. Many Christian apologists such as Josh McDowell, praise the "incredible accuracy" of Luke as a historian.
Evidently, McDowell read a different Gospel then the rest of us did.
No. He just actually read it.
Quote:Like Mark, Luke is a companion of Paul and not an "eye witness". He admits in his opening of his Gospel that he has stitched together the different accounts he has heard, acting as if he were a historian.
What Luke admits is that he has done his homework...something that your forum mates do not want to credit him with at all. So, watch your back...you've just given away the store.
I'll finish this tomorrow.
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm
(May 30, 2015 at 11:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (May 26, 2015 at 11:42 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Luke: Fan Fic Writer Pretends to be a Historian
Is that what experts say? Let's see...
Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth." Wow, You found two christian apologists that claimed the bible they believed in to be historical just 50 and 100 years ago! Wow! Were convinced now, we skeptical atheists just swoon at christian authorities of the early 1900's!
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 30, 2015 at 11:56 pm
Quote:Edward Musgrave Blaiklock was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature
Quote:Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar.
Bible thumping shits is the best you can do, huh? Why am I not surprised. You can always trot out some jesus freak who tells you what you want to hear. I'll take real scholars, thank you very much.
Posts: 6843
Threads: 0
Joined: February 22, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 31, 2015 at 2:26 am
(May 30, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (May 30, 2015 at 12:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: What's funny is two of the four are not even attributed to "eye-witnesses", taking Christian claims of authorship at face value. Mark was no witness and neither was Luke. Luke even says so in his opening.
What does Luke say?
Quote:And Mark was the original, on which Matt and Luke were clearly based.
Who was Mark's source?
Mark was one of Paul's disciples. So Paul was Mark's source.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 31, 2015 at 8:53 am
First off OP your stuff is getting unreadable it is butt condense it.
Let's start with the big elephant in the room.
Next the other big elephant.
I don't have a video for this so bear in mind its only a bit of reading.
okay so let's give god his famous powers.
1. all knowing
2. all powerful
3. all intrusive and has everything
Free will goes out the window if he is all knowing and the fact being is he made us with those decisions.
So it wouldn't matter what ever you do it was all planned out you were either made to go to heaven or made
to go to hell. So as far as go to jesus to save you no you pretty much are already fucked from the get go.
god created everything bullshit
Also here faith healing
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 31, 2015 at 8:59 am
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2015 at 9:08 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Quote:While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.
Do you really think so?
Lets test your resolve on this one.
-it is indisputable that if the reports of alien abduction can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the reports of alien abduction as a whole is greatly advanced.
Yeah? How about we try chupacabra, plug chupacabra in there. At what point is the argument greatly advanced, and how, for -any of these three things-?
You know what might -actually- advance the argument for the reliablility of the new testament? Establishing that there was anything to witness in the first place. Then, then, you could bullshit us endlessly about the accuracy of their testimony. Can't establish a "jesus", can't even establish a "paul"..... and yet.....we're babbling on about eyewitness testimony as though it would matter even if it were.......lol.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 31, 2015 at 9:06 am
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2015 at 9:08 am by robvalue.)
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make ages ago in this thread, but for some reason it's always different when the subject is something other than Jesus. Or if someone is telling the wrong story about Jesus.
So it's simple special pleading, on top of ignoring the fact that eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. And even that is after giving the benefit of the doubt that they actually were eyewitnesses, and that they were actually trying to tell the truth about an event, and that the event actually happened. That's a whole pile of unfounded assumptions.
I guess we're back to little hurdles. I think Randy should really decide whether this is a simple textual analysis or an actual argument.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 31, 2015 at 9:24 am
(May 31, 2015 at 9:06 am)robvalue Wrote: This is exactly the point I've been trying to make ages ago in this thread, but for some reason it's always different when the subject is something other than Jesus. Or if someone is telling the wrong story about Jesus.
So it's simple special pleading, on top of ignoring the fact that eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. And even that is after giving the benefit of the doubt that they actually were eyewitnesses, and that they were actually trying to tell the truth about an event, and that the event actually happened. That's a whole pile of unfounded assumptions.
I guess we're back to little hurdles. I think Randy should really decide whether this is a simple textual analysis or an actual argument.
Pretty much the video touches all bases saying jesus didn't exist. I'm wondering why people take hearsay and a book for its word especially the bible when it's inaccurate and
written by ancient man.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
|
