• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
From Wiki's article on the "Best Selling Books"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books..
Click to expand...
Huh? Are you being intentionally obtuse or are your blinkers distorting your view to the extent that you simply can't see how stupid your (so-called) 'argument' is?

From your link (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books):
Notes

1. ^ The Bible listed here refers to all versions ever printed, many of which have been given away freely, not sold (for example, during missionary work).
2. ^ The Holy Bible is controversial regarding authorship. While many claim it to be in fact a holy book of divine inspiration, secular critics and some biblical scholars do not accept supernatural guidance or authorship. Secular Biblical scholars usually place a creation date closer to 900 B.C. for the earliest texts. Conservative Biblical scholars place the earliest date around 1400 B.C.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Doc,
Since you believe the bible to be a historical record, how do you feel about the recent translation of the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest bible in existence (~1500 years old)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

It appears to have some important differences in the content.
Since you believe the bible to be a historical document, and the word of God, are you prepared to revise your beliefs according to this less tampered with version?
 
paximperium said:
Still waiting. isn't that kinda sad that he can't even find ONE non fallacious argument?
Click to expand...

This is obviously deceptive since I've asked you twice if you would agree to apologize (for your very derogatory false statement) if I did so. You still bring it up, while ignoring my offer to do so for an apology. Anymore bringing up this issue without responding to my offer is flooding the thread.
 
DOC said:
This is obviously deceptive since I've asked you twice if you would agree to apologize (for your very derogatory false statement) if I did so. You still bring it up, while ignoring my offer to do so for an apology. Anymore bringing up this issue without responding to my offer is flooding the thread.
Click to expand...

paximperium said:
Sure. I'll be happy to amend it to "MOST of DOCs arguments involved jumping from inane logical fallacies to the next logical fallacy."
Click to expand...
I already agreed to change my original statement and apologize. Your turn.
 
Cavemonster said:
Hey Doc,
Since you believe the bible to be a historical record, how do you feel about the recent translation of the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest bible in existence (~1500 years old)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

It appears to have some important differences in the content.
Since you believe the bible to be a historical document, and the word of God, are you prepared to revise your beliefs according to this less tampered with version?
Click to expand...

No, I've already responded to this two or three weeks ago. From memory the debate is with a portion of one gospel only, what about the other 3. If I get the time I'll look up my previous answer to this.
 
DOC said:
What post did you agree to apologize in?
Click to expand...

I'm enjoying watching you squirm while dodging the challenge and trying to weasel out of it.

However, I'm not going to play your little weasel game.
"I SWEAR BY ZEUS, THE US CONSTITUTION, DAWKINS AND DARWIN THAT I WILL APOLOGIZE AND AMEND MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOUT DOC IF HE PRODUCES ONE SINGLE NON-FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD CONCERNING THE "EVIDENCE FOR WHY WE KNOW THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITER'S TOLD THE TRUTH.".

Your turn bucko.
 
DOC said:
No, I've already responded to this two or three weeks ago. From memory the debate is with a portion of one gospel only, what about the other 3. If I get the time I'll look up my previous answer to this.
Click to expand...

Yes. What about the other 3 Gospels? Which is the true one?
 
paximperium said:
I'm enjoying watching you squirm while dodging the challenge and trying to weasel out of it.

However, I'm not going to play your little weasel game.
"I SWEAR BY ZEUS, THE US CONSTITUTION, DAWKINS AND DARWIN THAT I WILL APOLOGIZE AND AMEND MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOUT DOC IF HE PRODUCES ONE SINGLE NON-FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD CONCERNING THE "EVIDENCE FOR WHY WE KNOW THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITER'S TOLD THE TRUTH.".

Your turn bucko.
Click to expand...

The very first post gives Five that I have brought in and they all are included in this thread. I don't have the time right now to go through my other 80+ posts.
 
DOC said:
The very first post gives Five that I have brought in and they all are included in this thread. I don't have the time right now to go through my other 80+ posts.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahaha...what a dodge.
You must have missed every post that has completely torn those completely fallacious arguments apart.

Not ONE SINGLE non-fallacious argument? None? Can't even find one?
I stand by my original statement. When I said ALL, I mean ALL until you can show otherwise.
 
DOC said:
Here is 5 important non-Christian sources for Jesus and there are at least 5 more.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
Click to expand...

Oh great. These again?
Little tid-bits from wikipedia

Tacitus:
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117): Talks about Christians and their belief AFTER Jesus is already a legend:

Pliny the Younger:Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61/63 - ca. 113): Ditto. Talks about Christians and their beliefs.

Josephus: Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100),[1] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[2] was a first century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}
Click to expand...
This is believed to a Christian edit. It is a lie. Anyway, he is just talking about Christian belief anyway.

Talmud: thanks for using an out of context quote.

Lucien: Another mention of Christian belief.

Thanks for using useless evidence, misquotes, forgeries etc. for your "evidence". I have little doubt you have been told about the validity of your "evidence" multiple times in the past.
 
DOC's original claim (my bold).

DOC said:
I'm not talking about concepts I'm talking about actual historical events. Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martryed <snipped link> for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened. I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.
Click to expand...


DOC's explanation of why his claim is true.

DOC said:
Argumentum-ad-populum might be a fallacy for concepts but not for History. And that by the way is what we are talking about -- Biblical history. The more manuscripts found, the merrier when it comes to history. The more sources, the merrier, when it comes to history. Of course you still have to then analyze those sources, but more is always better than less. The fact that there are at least 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ within 150 years of his death is much better than if there were 5 non-Christian sources.
Click to expand...


My response.

Hokulele said:
Great. So what sources, other than the bible, describe Jesus rising from the dead.

*Waits*
Click to expand...


DOC's response to this.

DOC said:
How can a source describe Jesus rising from the dead when even the apostles didn't see Jesus actually rise from the dead, although they did see Him later. But this site might will help answer your question:

<snipped link>
Click to expand...


Ah, so there are a grand total of 0 sources that describe Jesus rising from the dead, and only a single source that even implies it. In other words, it never happened and clearly cannot be considered an historical event. Got it.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
How can a source describe Jesus rising from the dead when even the apostles didn't see Jesus actually rise from the dead, although they did see Him later. But this site might will help answer your question:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/res_nonbiblical.htm
Click to expand...

Here's some advice for you, DOC. When you post a website as evidence of something, make sure that the website agrees with your position.

From the posted site:

[regarding Josephus] There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
How can a source describe Jesus rising from the dead when even the apostles didn't see Jesus actually rise from the dead, although they did see Him later. But this site might will help answer your question:
Click to expand...
Your qualified just helped to disprove your own argument.

If no one saw it, any claim of its occurance is simple Hearsay. Therefore, 1 text or 1 million texts of first hand accounts doesn't provide ANY weight to the validity of the event. All it supports is how widely held the belief that the event took place was.

For instance, Do all of the countless photos, first hand accounts, personal testimonies prove the existence of:
THe Lock Ness monster?
Big foot?
Elvis being still being alive?
 
Hokulele said:
Ah, so there are a grand total of 0 sources that describe Jesus rising from the dead, and only a single source that even implies it. In other words, it never happened and clearly cannot be considered an historical event. Got it.
Click to expand...
Yup!

Kind of funny, really. I fear that Geisler has horribly weakened DOC's logical capacity.


I am starting to wonder if Geisler isn't, in fact, an atheist. Afterall, his arguments are so trasparently bad, you wonder if it isn't some mock parody of christian apologetics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom