Recently, Dr. David Tee, who is neither a doctor nor a Tee, coughed up yet another hairball about a post on this site. Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, responded to the post Who Wrote the Bible?, saying that its author, Dr. Philip Almond, is wrong; and that virtually everything this scholar said about the history of the Bible is wrong. Tee, of course, as a hardcore Fundamentalist, thinks whatever he believes about the history of the Bible is right. What qualifications does he have to make such a bold claim? Why, he’s a Christian. That’s it. According to Thiessen, the stupidest Christian knows more about the Bible than scholars such as Almond and Dr. Bart Ehrman.
I will leave it to readers to decide if they want to read Thiessen’s latest monument to ignorance. I do, however, want to point out one thing Thiessen said that I find ROTFL worthy. Thiessen says that no contemporary, first-century secular scholar or historian ever mentioned the Q source — a hypothetical collection of mostly Jesus’ sayings — so Q is a myth.
It should also be noted that no ancient non-Christian writer mentions Q or its existence. It is not and was not a source book for anyone. Even those scholars who claim the manuscript existed do not know when it was written or who wrote it.
Thus the arguments used against the Bible would apply to this document as well. There is no proof for this document anywhere.
It is unrealistic to think that unbelievers would have information about the Bible that Christians do not have. As usual, their efforts to discredit the Bible only backfire on them.
Q doesn’t exist because “no ancient non-Christian writer mentions Q or its existence,” Thiessen opines. Fair enough, but if that is the case, the same can be said about the virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles, and his resurrection from the dead. In fact, many of the people, events, and history mentioned in the Bible aren’t mentioned by “ancient non-Christian writer[s].” Thus, following Thiessen’s illogic to its logical conclusion means that because no ancient non-Christian writer mentions the virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles, and his resurrection from the dead, these things never happened.
Of course, Thiessen will object, saying that I am lying, twisting his words, or any of the other excuses he uses to escape culpability for what he says. I will leave it to readers to determine if I have fairly represented his words.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Thiessen’s response:
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2023/12/21/there-are-secular-ancient-authors/
I have no idea what he’s talking about. He totally ignores my singular point. But, hey ,what do I know? I’m not a “doctor” like him. 🤪🤪
Thiessen says there’s no evidence for the Q source because no first-century non-Christian writer mentioned it. Fine, but that rule must apply to his “Biblical” beliefs too. We have no first-century secular writers who mention all sorts of things found in the Bible.
Thiessen believes Moses wrote the Pentateuch. How? God dictated to him what to write. 🤣 We have two passages in the Pentateuch that record the text of the Ten Commandments, yet they disagree with one another. If “God” dictated these passages, you would think they would be identical. Same goes for two creation accounts in Genesis.
Sadly, believing the Bible is inerrant and infallible forces you to defend all sorts of nonsense.
Obviously we can disregard Tee’s words as the ramblings of a madman, but I would respond to three points he makes.
Firstly, he refers to a tradition of virgin births throughout the world and throughout history (though his words confuse virgin births and resurrections), rightly calling them myths, but then saying that their existence, when added to the textual support provided by the gospels, proves that Jesus was the exception!
Secondly, he provides a quote by Josephus that is regarded as a fraudulent interpolation by scholars (Tee is not a scholar). There is certainly a genuine Josephus quote that is regarded as extra biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but it’s clear even to a non scholar when placing the two side by side that the one on which Tee relies is a forgery.
Thirdly, isn’t it funny how, when Bart Ehrman says something he likes, suddenly Tee finds himself quoting him. Ehrman is a renowned expert on biblical texts, and textual interpretation, and acknowledges that there are countless thousands (I seem to recall that there are more textual errors in terms of copying than there are words in the bible) of textual variations. However, he goes on to say that they vary in importance and that the vast majority don’t affect the underlying meaning, that they are trivial. Of course, Tee ignores the significantly many which really are important and make a big difference, but why let educated people interfere with his foolishness?
Moses, the writer of Pentateuch, was perhaps the first person to ever be resurrected by God so that he could write about his own death and how the Israelites were mourning him as per Deuteronomy 34.
Bruce you sure know how to discredit a BSer. I tend to believe the likes of Tee knows his own words contradict his positions but coherence isn’t what he is about. He is about manipulating whomsoever he can. I doubt his incoherence is mere clumsiness. I believe, he, like most of his fellow thumpers, just blurts (and writes) whatever crosses his mind and logic and reason be darned. (danged?). The “Q” reference is interesting due to it’s contemporary use as a propaganda tool. Words, phrases, ideas, with no particular meaning adapt easily to manipulate the gullible. “Q”. “Antifa”, “Deep State”, “Sanctified Grace”, etc. Logical lapses in his narratives may serve to discredit him but not with susceptible minds. Confusion, vagueness, inconsistency, make gaslighting work.
I just can’t bring myself to read any of Thiessen’s drivel. I try, but it feels like wading into a cesspool.
I trust the prevailing work of scholarship on these matters much more than I trust someone who believes he is privy to Special Knowledge Revealed by an Invisible Holy Spirit.
Bruce, how dare you bear false witness against poor Dr. T. His library only needs 66 books bound up into one leather bound volume. That picture clearly shows books that his holiness would obviously not read as they contain images that would distract him from focusing on the thrice holy triune god. 🤣🤣🤣