Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

...Regarding those Lenin and Stalin movies I've seen (unfortunately I've seen my fair share of them in my childhood days. Surprisingly there are not a lot of those on Russian TV nowdays...), I wouldn't regard them to qualify as "a widely acclaimed good story" - they are neither good, nor widely acclaimed.

I get the feeling those movies didn't portray Lenin and Stalin as having any flaws because you didn't mention any.

 

[DOC]

So for 2 of your examples you do not even know if they support your stance you only doubt that they don't contradict it. With your John Wayne example it would be nice if you mentioned which of the 171 movies IMDB lists him as appearing in you mean.

The Green Berets and the Longest Day.

 

[Hokulele]

The main difference is that there is other evidence for Lenin, Stalin, John Wayne, and George Washington. Not so much for god.

 

[paximperium]

Well regarding Zoobob and Celestial you can't prove a negative.

EXACTLY. Thanks for playing. Glad to see your blatant double standard.

In regard to the proof (or evidence) you ask for here is some which supports the Christian God.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Actually I didn't ask for it but glad to see you taking an opportunity to preach when it wasn't asked for.

Is that the best you can do? Josh McDowell is a mediocre apologist. I read this essay some time ago.
His entire argument has one simple problem. It actually assumes that the bible is a historical record and makes a flimsy attempt at justifying its "authenticity". The rest of his essay is nothing more than regular apolegetics. Thanks for playing but a story is still just a story.

 

[paximperium]

The Green Berets and the Longest Day.

The Green Berets? It was a terrible piece of propaganda created during the height of the Vietnam War.

The Longest Day? It was a story about the battle not about John Wayne's character. The war was the story, not the main character. If I remember correctly, didn't he only play a supporting role in the flick?

 

[soikins]

I get the feeling those movies didn't portray Lenin and Stalin as having any flaws because you didn't mention any.

And? The point is that those movies don't qualify, because they suck. The point is that you are unable to provide ONE example of a GOOD story with a Mary Sue type protagonist, because those stories are BAD, thus you have failed to falsify the thesis that "the main hero of a good story must be flawed". This thesis directly contradicts with your assumption that "New Testament authors could have written a good story without a flawed main character" which you use as the basis for your claim that "portrayal of Christ as flawed is evidence for the truth of the New Testament". So your claim has become baseless. Congratulations!

 

[DOC]

You mean the multiple movies of George Washington showing him angry, easy to lose his temper and unsure of himself during crossing of the Delaware?

Anger during war is a normal and even admirable trait, especially when your subordinates screw up causing loss of life and even the possibility of losing the war. Caution or being unsure whether a strategy will work is also normal, but he did in the end make the right decision to cross the Delaware.

And even Jesus showed righteous anger when toppling the tables on the Temple grounds when they were using it as a market.

 

[DOC]

Why haven't you replied to Joobz's many other questions?[/SIZE]

Paximperium, since you asked the question, name the one question by Joobz you most want me to reply to and I will reply to it.

 

[paximperium]

Anger during war is a normal and even admirable trait, especially when your subordinates screw up causing loss of life and even the possibility of losing the war. Caution or being unsure whether a strategy will work is also normal, but he did in the end make the right decision to cross the Delaware.

And even Jesus showed righteous anger when toppling the tables on the Temple grounds when they were using it as a market.

True. He did show real anger when he made a scourge and attacked the poor money lenders.
"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" (John 2:13-16).

 

[paximperium]

Paximperium, since you asked the question, name the one question by Joobz you most want me to reply to and I will reply to it.

No. I'm not doing your work for you.

 

[six7s]

Well regarding Zoobob and Celestial you can't prove a negative.

In regard to the proof (or evidence) you ask for here is some which supports the Christian God.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Yet again, Circular (il)logic...

Which came first, for you? Your belief in a god or your acceptance of the words in a book that asserts there is a god to believe in

DOC, you have - I think - yet to make ONE positive substantiated claim for the existence of a god that has ANY discernible influence on reality

If I am mistaken, please repeat any such claim WITHOUT pretending that supporting evidence can be found in or via your bible, which - as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum - is unsuitable to support claims that any of its writers told the truth

 

[KingMerv00]

And as I've stated before both Christianity and atheism require faith -- that is unless you have definite proof there is no God. Does anyone here have definite proof there is no God?

You've been around for awhile now so you must know that you are fighting a strawman. Surely you know that most people here are agnostic atheists.

 

[joobz]

This implies there are good ones out there. But I'm pretty sure you would believe all apologists are poor. If not name one you think is good.

I've listed them already in this thread.
Lewis Carrol and CK Chesterton would be two I'd consider good.
That doesn't mean i agree with them, but I respect them and their intelligence.

Geisler....not so much.

 

[joobz]

Actually, DOC just needs to provide some examples to falsify his opponents position. For example, a widely acclaimed good story with a flawless hero would prove his thesis that it is not necessary to have a flawed protagonist to have a good story.

I have suggested him to do that, but he seems to have missed my post.

I completely disagree. the opposite is true.

A flawed hero, imperfect characters and unflattering biographical elements were presented as examples of why the bible is true. In order for us to buy into this argument, it must be demonstrated that such elements could never be included in fiction. As such, one example of a fictional story with such elements, destroys the premise and disproves the argument.

Not only are all of those elements common in fiction, they are common in good fiction and we have examples of them which predate the new testement.

As such, Geisler's argument is completely discounted.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And as I've stated before both Christianity and atheism require faith -- that is unless you have definite proof there is no God.

Show me your definite proof there is no such thing as a kraken.

 

[six7s]

The fact that 11 of the 12 apostles probably died for their beliefs so soon after Christ came is just one more piece of weight to be added to the scale of evidence.

No, it's not

Facts are facts

Probabilities are probabilities

For it to be 'one more piece' of 'evidence', there would have to be at least one piece extant

Another distortion for jeebus

And as I've stated before both Christianity and atheism require faith

You were wrong before, you are wrong now and you will continue to be wrong as long as you persist in distorting reality in favour of your delusional world-view

For your argument (hah!) to be considered even approaching being correct, we would all have to deflate the term 'faith' to the point of absurd meaninglessness, where it is encompasses the degree of non-consideration that rational people reserve for pink unicorns

-- that is unless you have definite proof there is no God.

Prove: aka test

Testing a negative? No thanks

Instead, I'll test positive claims that you and any of your fellow wooists make...

So far: you're losing... 100% to zip

Does anyone here have definite proof there is no God?

If you can think of a test that your god (and your god alone) can pass, please do let us all know

 

[Ladewig]

So its good story telling to make the disciples to look like dim-witted uncaring cowards. I would disagree. There was no need to do this when Christ was raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine etc.

And I would also disagree it's good story telling to make your Messiah look bad. For example example being called a deceiver, and demon-possessed.

Someone also mentioned the the verse where Christ seemed to say the tribulation would be seen by this generation. Although there is at least two explanations for this (eg. generation can be translated "race" to mean the Jewish race would be alive when this happened and that He was talking about the generation that was alive during the time He was talking about)

Whatever are you talking about, DOC?

The exact line that Jesus said was “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." How ever did you interpret "there be some standing here" to mean "people 2000+ years from now"? As for the idea that some Jews will be alive when the Son of Man comes in His kingdom, that makes for the most useless prophecy I have ever heard.

it doesn't make sense for a NT writer to make this up when it could possibly make Jesus look bad.

OK, I'll agree with you. The Gospel writers didn't make it up. The alternative is that Jesus said it and He was wrong. Thus we get back to the opening post: the failed prophecy in Matthew proves that the Gospel are not inspired truth.

. . . . . . .

You baffle me DOC. Sometimes you posts are so trollish that I am certain that you can't possible believe the nonsense you put in your posts. Some other posters have a theory that you are an atheist who is trying to make Christians look bad. You do seem to be making fundamentalist look foolish. It is very clear that you do not follow the precepts prescribed in the Bible - why do you waste your time posting here?

 

[Worm]

The fact that 11 of the 12 apostles probably died for their beliefs so soon after Christ came is just one more piece of weight to be added to the scale of evidence. That fact in itself is does not justify a belief in Christianity over atheism. It is just one of many pieces of evidence.

You seem to be confusing the Bible with facts ... once again.

Not only is anything you get from there not close to any reasonable definition of 'fact' (not soley on the strength of being in the Bible anyway) but even if it were, you're only confident enough to say they 'probably' died for their beliefs.

In what way is any of this 'evidence' of anything at all - apart from 'The Bible - it's a book.' ?

 

[DOC]

Well I think 2 people have asked me to give the embarrassing details about Jesus that are in the Bible. Well Geisler gives several but he then footnotes those by pointing out that he and his co-author Frank Howe explain those embarrassing passages in the book "When Critics Ask".

I would rather read that book first before I put out all the passages. I'll give you 2 though.

One was one I already mentioned- the embarrassing passage where Jesus seems to say the tribulation will happen in a generation. I already explained there are at least two explanations of that and gave them. The point is why would someone who made up the bible story put that in if he knew it didn't happen in a generation. That doesn't make sense unless you are being completely honest in your writing.

Also Geisler/Turek points out the embarrassing passage where Jesus "seems" to deny His deity when asking the rich young ruler: "Why do you call me good?... No one is good- except God alone' (Luke 18;19) This also doesn't make sense for someone to make up about Christ... Conclusion: the story wasn't made up.

 

[Hokulele]

Well I think 2 people have asked me to give the embarrassing details about Jesus that are in the Bible. Well Geisler gives several but he then footnotes those by pointing out that he and his co-author Frank Howe explain those embarrassing passages in the book "When Critics Ask".

I would rather read that book first before I put out all the passages. I'll give you 2 though.

One was one I already mentioned- the embarrassing passage where Jesus seems to say the tribulation will happen in a generation. I already explained there are at least two explanations of that and gave them. The point is why would someone who made up the bible story put that in if he knew it didn't happen in a generation. That doesn't make sense unless you are being completely honest in your writing.

Also Geisler/Turek points out the embarrassing passage where Jesus "seems" to deny His deity when asking the rich young ruler: "Why do you call me good?... No one is good- except God alone' (Luke 18;19) This also doesn't make sense for someone to make up about Christ... Conclusion: the story wasn't made up.

Conclusion: That still does not make it true. What people believe and what reality shows are often two different things. This whole thread is a lovely QED.