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

[DOC]

It took christianity a good few centuries to really take off.

Having your members crucified and fed to the lions would have a tendency to slow down the growth of any organization. And the early Christian Church wasn't spread by the sword as Islam initially was.

 

[paximperium]

Strawman -- Geisler does not use any argument from popularity. And Houkele's post was a stawman also. Notice Houkele doesn't specifically say what is wrong. She just starts out her post by saying this is wrong. Houkele tell me exactly what is wrong that I said and from which post it came from.

No, Geisler hasn't(in your list anyway) but YOU SURE DID and that wasn't even Hokulele's point. DO you actually read anyone's posts or just argue against some other inane point?

oh and Hokulele did explain why you completely and utterly wrong:

No, you are still wrong. It is only proof of their belief, not proof that their belief is founded on anything real. Simply repeating your claim does not make it true.

Heaven's Gate would have just as much evidence for "truth" by Geisler's standards.

Strawman, I never said or believe this.

To quote you:

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

Would you like to retract your statement?

 

[paximperium]

Having your members crucified and fed to the lions would have a tendency to slow down the growth of any organization. And the early Christian Church wasn't spread by the sword as Islam initially was.

So?

 

[DOC]

Amazing!!! Is that "all" you have left?

Of course one could always built up a nice list of "all" the questions you refuse to answer.

What is the one question on this list that you would "most" want me to respond to and I'll make an attempt to respond to it.

 

[paximperium]

What is the one question on this list that you would "most" want me to respond to and I'll make an attempt to respond to it.

Just amended by prior post:
"Amazing irony!!! Is that "all" you have left?

Actually, I'll take you up on that challenge. Post a single argument you have posted in this entire thread supporting your claim that isn't an inane logical fallacy. Try hard. "

 

[DOC]

To quote you:

Would you like to retract your statement?

I said:

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

Which part of that statement above is wrong. The confusion is the result of Houkele's strawman argument. I should of maybe not responded to her because I still don't know what she considered wrong (that i stated).

 

[DOC]

Just amended by prior post:
"Amazing irony!!! Is that "all" you have left?

Actually, I'll take you up on that challenge. Post a single argument you have posted in this entire thread supporting your claim that isn't an inane logical fallacy. Try hard. "

Will you apologize for your very derogatory statement if I do?

 

[paximperium]

I said:

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

Which part of that statement above is wrong. The confusion is the result of Houkele's strawman argument. I should of maybe not responded to her because I still don't know what she considered wrong (that i stated). That is why people should be specific if they don't respond to a specific post.

The statement is completely and utterly 100% true and is completely and utterly supportive of Hokulele's response to:

The 270 bishops of the council of Nicaea obviously must have examined the evidence of all the scripture of the day and then collectively gave their opinion as to the authenticity of those works.

You mean the "strawman" of this statement you made claiming "truth" from "authority" and POPULARITY?

PS: Please look up what a strawman is. I think you doth not know what it means.

 

[paximperium]

Will you apologize for your very derogatory statement if I do?

Sure. I'll be happy to amend it to "MOST of DOCs arguments involved jumping from inane logical fallacies to the next logical fallacy."

 

[DOC]

When I talk about 11 of the 12 apostles being martyred, that is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the Resurrection was true. In and of itself, it doesn't prove the resurrection is true, but when you add it to all the other facts that I've been bringing up, it increases the likelihood that it was indeed true.

No, you are still wrong. It is only proof of their belief, not proof that their belief is founded on anything real. Simply repeating your claim does not make it true.

This is a strawman because I never said the apostles martyrdom was "proof" that their belief was real, I said it is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the resurrection was real.

It is logical to believe that the resurrection was "more likely" to be real when 11 of 12 died because of their belief than if none of the apostles died for their beliefs. This has little to do with proof, it has to do with increased likelihood. Your talking about proof in this case is a strawman. I never used the word proof.

 

[DOC]

Sure. I'll be happy to amend it to "MOST of DOCs arguments involved jumping from inane logical fallacies to the next logical fallacy."

Name 3 logical fallacies I've stated in my 80+ posts and which posts they came from.

 

[paximperium]

This is a strawman because I never said the apostles martyrdom was "proof" that their belief was real, I said it is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the resurrection was real.

Which continues to be false. It doesn't add weight to that likelihood at all.

It is logical to believe that the resurrection was "more likely" to be real when 11 of 12 died because of their belief than if none of the apostles died for their beliefs. This has little to do with proof, it has to do with increased likelihood.

No it doesn't. To quote Hokulele:

No, you are still wrong. It is only proof of their belief, not proof that their belief is founded on anything real. Simply repeating your claim does not make it true.

Your talking about proof in this case is a strawman. I never used the word proof.

You have no idea what a strawman is.

 

[cyborg]

It is logical to believe that the resurrection was "more likely" to be real when 11 of 12 died because of their belief than if none of the apostles died for their beliefs.

The number of people who died for their beliefs is irrelevant to the truth of their beliefs ergo it's a logical fallacy.

It's pretty simple.

 

[paximperium]

Name 3 logical fallacies I've stated in my 80+ posts and which posts they came from.

No.

You lose credibility when you use words like "all". I have over 80 posts in this thread, would you like me to show you where your incorrect in that statement.

So you're not going to take up that challenge that you show even ONE argument you have posted that is not based on a logical fallacy?

 

[joobz]

Having your members crucified and fed to the lions would have a tendency to slow down the growth of any organization.

actually. that probably helped maintain christianity as a faith. Nothing keeps a cult together like a good sense of persecution.

And the early Christian Church wasn't spread by the sword as Islam initially was.

They waited until they had the numbers before they started that practice.
Besides, what really helped them take off was when kings/leaders realized that they could shore up thier power by claiming it came from god. without the monarchies, I doubt christianity would have been anything more than druidism.

 

[joobz]

This is a strawman because I never said the apostles martyrdom was "proof" that their belief was real, I said it is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the resurrection was real.

But it doesn't even do that.

Are you saying that Heaven's gate is "More likely" to be true because of the deaths?

And let's look at the modern era, and not things that supposedly happened 2000 years ago. By the numbers today, using your argument; Islam is "More likely" to be true than Christianity.





Note: I do not believe that argument, becuase it's based upon poor reasoning. As I said, DOC, I suggest you stop reading Geisler. He's weakening your reasoning skills.

 

[Lonewulf]

Indeed

Why is this thread more than three posts long?

+1

 

[Elizabeth I]

This is a strawman because I never said the apostles martyrdom was "proof" that their belief was real, I said it is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the resurrection was real.

It is logical to believe that the resurrection was "more likely" to be real when 11 of 12 died because of their belief than if none of the apostles died for their beliefs. This has little to do with proof, it has to do with increased likelihood. Your talking about proof in this case is a strawman. I never used the word proof.

Using your reasoning, the Holocaust proves that Judaism is the One Truth Faith.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Having your members crucified and fed to the lions would have a tendency to slow down the growth of any organization. And the early Christian Church wasn't spread by the sword as Islam initially was.

Really? Then why did some of the early Church fathers argue that the Christian response to persecution actually helped increase conversions?

Which way do you want it, persecutions increased or decreased the size of the church?

And let's get real. Initially the only persecutions came not from the Romans but from Jewish leaders (despite your earlier protestations that Matthew would not have signed his name to the gospel that is now attributed to him because the Roman world was so dangerous for Christians). The first Roman persecutions were not oriented toward belief, if we are to believe Tacitus, but an attempt by Nero to shake the charge that he burned parts of Rome for his grand rennovation scheme.

The Romans initially didn't give a hoot about the early Christian church. Do you know why the persecutions by the Romans, after the time of Nero, began and for what reason? Have you read any of the early Christian apochrypha and what ideas they promoted?

 

[Hokulele]

Houkele tell me exactly what is wrong that I said and from which post it came from.

Sure, it was in the post of yours I quoted when I made that statement regarding you being wrong (which you still are, by the way).

When I talk about 11 of the 12 apostles being martyred, that is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the Resurrection was true. In and of itself, it doesn't prove the resurrection is true, but when you add it to all the other facts that I've been bringing up, it increases the likelihood that it was indeed true.

It doesn't any weight to this at all. None. Nada. Zip. Rien. ゼロ.

As I have explained to you repeatedly, being willing to die for a concept does nothing to improve the chances that the concept is in any way true. Hence my assertion that by your logic (or Geisler's, if you wish to cravenly disown the thought process), the fact that all of the Heaven's Gate members were willing to not only die, but take their own lives, makes it more likely to be the truth than whatever flavor of Christianity you support. After all, your quote indicates that at least one apostle didn't have the strength of conviction the Heaven's Gate members did.

And please, at least show me the courtesy of spelling my screen name correctly.