• 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:
To all the people in here who are complaining about no evidence for the resurrection (like Hokulele, Zooterkin, Paximperium, Lothian, Articulett, Arthwollipot etc.) I want each one of you to tell us what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe that Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago. If you can't do that you're hypocrites for continuing to complain about evidence.
Click to expand...


I already explained this to you (Paul does not count). Arthwollipot and I seem to be on the same page, so you can respond to his post and if you can meet the standard he described, I will also be satisfied.
 
DOC said:
To all the people in here who are complaining about no evidence for the resurrection (like Hokulele, Zooterkin, Paximperium, Lothian, Articulett, Arthwollipot etc.) I want each one of you to tell us what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe that Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago. If you can't do that you're hypocrites for continuing to complain about evidence.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Independent, contemporary, non-Biblical writings that say that Jesus was killed and came back to life.

As opposed to independent, conteporary, non-Biblical writings that say that Christians believe that Jesus was killed and came back to life.

Mind that distinction.

I would consider this to be valid evidence. But it alone would not be convincing evidence unless it were corroborated by other sources.
Click to expand...

You haven't been specific, you haven't told us what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe in the resurrection 2000 years ago in a clear way that we know specifically what you mean. You say independent "writings" but you don't say how many. Would it be at least 4 writings, 5, 6?

And then you have a stipulation to even this? You say that these writings (whatever the number) would not be enough, they would then have to corroborated by other sources? This is vague because you don't say what the other sources are.

So in order for us to truly understand your answer you would have to give

1) the "number" of independent contemporary non-biblical writings that would be sufficient.

2)what "specific" other sources and how many of those other sources.
 
DOC said:
You haven't been specific, you haven't told us what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe in the resurrection 2000 years ago in a clear way that we know specifically what you mean. You say independent "writings" but you don't say how many. Would it be at least 4 writings, 5, 6?

And then you have a stipulation to even this? You say that these writings (whatever the number) would not be enough, they would then have to corroborated by other sources? This is vague because you don't say what the other sources are.

So in order for us to truly understand your answer you would have to give

1) the "number" of independent contemporary non-biblical writings that would be sufficient.

2)what "specific" other sources and how many of those other sources.
Click to expand...


Just curious, what would it take to convince you that abiogensis is true?
 
Hokulele said:
I already explained this to you (Paul does not count). Arthwollipot and I seem to be on the same page, so you can respond to his post and if you can meet the standard he described, I will also be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's right, the former Christian enemy Paul, is in the Bible, so he doesn't count according to you...

As I explained above, Arthwollipot's answer was vague, would it be possible for you to clearly state your position in a way that we know exactly what is the least amount of evidence that would satisfy you that the resurrection occurred.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
You haven't been specific, you haven't told us what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe in the resurrection 2000 years ago in a clear way that we know specifically what you mean. You say independent "writings" but you don't say how many. Would it be at least 4 writings, 5, 6?

And then you have a stipulation to even this? You say that these writings (whatever the number) would not be enough, they would then have to corroborated by other sources? This is vague because you don't say what the other sources are.

So in order for us to truly understand your answer you would have to give

1) the "number" of independent contemporary non-biblical writings that would be sufficient.

2)what "specific" other sources and how many of those other sources.
Click to expand...
I'm curious too...

The style of writing seems, to me, to suggest that DOC wasn't the author of this post

Am I right, DOC?
 
DOC said:
Oh, that's right, the former Christian enemy Paul, is in the Bible, so he doesn't count according to you...
Click to expand...


Circular reasoning.

Seriously, do you know what circular reasoning is and why it is a fallacy? It seems like you haven't learned the basics of argument or debate, and keep asking for the same explanations repeatedly. Are you interested in learning how to develop better arguments, or do you want to keep playing Merry-go-Round with the same old tired nonsense?

I am serious, this is a great place to learn something, and you would be wise to take the opportunity.

Geisler, not so much.

As I said above, Arthwollipot's answer was vague, would it be possible for you to clearly state your position in a way that we know exactly what is the least amount of evidence that would satisfy you that the resurrection occurred.
Click to expand...


Yes. I have stated it before, and will state it again.

Just give me one non-biblical source that documents Jesus rising from the dead.
 
six7s said:
I'm curious too...

The style of writing seems, to me, to suggest that DOC wasn't the author of this post

Am I right, DOC?
Click to expand...

Red herring -- and you are wrong. Now let's get back to the topic.
 
Hokulele said:
Meaning you cannot answer the question?
Click to expand...

What does abiogenesis have to do with this thread?

It sounds like you're the one who doesn't want to respond to my simple request to tell us what evidence specifically would make you believe Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

If you can dish it out about evidence this and evidence that then you should be able to answer the question. If you can't answer the question then just say so.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
It sounds like you're the one who doesn't want to respond to my simple request to tell us what evidence specifically would make you believe Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

If you can dish it out about evidence this and evidence that then you should be able to answer the question. If you can't answer the question then just say so.
Click to expand...


Translation: I didn't read post 887, and now I am going to whine for no particular reason.
 
DOC said:
You haven't been specific, you haven't told us what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe in the resurrection 2000 years ago in a clear way that we know specifically what you mean. You say independent "writings" but you don't say how many. Would it be at least 4 writings, 5, 6?
Click to expand...

How many unicorns would it take to pull Santa's sleigh?

Let's worry about the quantity and quality of evidence just as soon as you start producing any.
 
DOC said:
What does abiogenesis have to do with this thread?

It sounds like you're the one who doesn't want to respond to my simple request to tell us what evidence specifically would make you believe Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

If you can dish it out about evidence this and evidence that then you should be able to answer the question. If you can't answer the question then just say so.
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
Translation: I didn't read post 887, and now I am going to whine for no particular reason.
Click to expand...

I did read post 887? Hokulele are you going to answer my question in a clear manner that we know exactly what specific evidence will satisfy you about the resurrection or not? If you don't want to or can't just say so.
 
DOC can you tell me in a clear manner what specific evidence would convince you that Jesus did not rise from the dead 200 years ago?
 
One none-Biblical account from a non-Christian who witnessed Jesus rising from the dead or actually met his risen form.

OR

More than three independent, corroborated, consistent and completely similar accounts from Christian authors who actually saw Jesus rise from the dead or met the risen Jesus before he allegedly rose to heaven(you don't even have one from the Bible) ie. before he became a legend/myth.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
How many unicorns would it take to pull Santa's sleigh?

Let's worry about the quantity and quality of evidence just as soon as you start producing any.
Click to expand...

If you and others are going to complain about the quality of evidence, it is certainly reasonable to request what evidence would satisfy you, and to tell me in a way that is not vague but clear to anyone's understanding. So far I've gotten the run around to my simple question.
 
DOC said:
If you and others are going to complain about the quality of evidence, it is certainly reasonable to request what evidence would satisfy you, and to tell me in a way that is not vague but clear to anyone's understanding. So far I've gotten the run around to my simple question.
Click to expand...
I've answered it. Now let see you produce it.

Oh yes, please remember the "...independent, corroborated, consistent and completely similar..." parts and don't dump inconsistent secondary or terteriary eyewitnessed accounts from unknown authors.
 
Last edited:
RichardR, for the "embarrassing details" bit to mean anything at all, you'd also have to prove that the Gospels were written by the people supposed.

And if I recall my studies on this matter, there does not appear to be any text earlier than about 70 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, so you cannot actually tie the Gospels to a specific person.
 
I doubt that there is any evidence that would convince me. If we have not had it by now I can't see anything turning up.

However all is not lost, Prove God, prove that God is omnipresent and omnipotent and I may dispite the lack of evidence believe she had a son who rose from the dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom