• 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:
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...

That's because you don't seem to understand what 'evidence' is.
Here's a handy definition:

Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.




ETA: Thank you, PixyMisa
 
OT: Is this guy for real? I'm new here, and I was just wondering if this is some sort of elaborate Poe's Law being invoked. Does he honestly think this sort of circular jibberjabber would actually fly here?
 
LarianLeQuella said:
OT: Is this guy for real?
Click to expand...

Sadly, yes. DOC is one of our resident right-wing Bible-humpers, so don't expect a little thing like the facts won't convince him that the Bronze Age fairy tales and bigotries he espouses are neither real or moral.

He'd be funny if his apologetics weren't so pathetic...

... Awwww, Hell! I'll laugh anyway!

:newlol
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


I did post my requirements in post 887. If you do not find that clear enough, well, I guess your reading comprehension is on par with your evidence. Are you having problems with the term "evidence" or the term "non-biblical"? Failure to answer this question will make it impossible for me to be as specific as you would like, which may be the weasely evasion you are hoping for.

Here is some more advice for you, the mule-headed devotion to meaningless details you are currently demonstrating will only cause the people reading this thread to believe you have no evidence at all, quality be damned.
 
Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'll have to think about this for awhile, and I assume you mean 2000 and not 200 years ago. This question will require a lot of time to answer appropriately. I will answer it within 2 weeks, probably sooner.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the only thing keeping you from believing Christ rose from the dead is a written statement from one person who lived at that time and claims he/she saw the risen Christ and their statement is not in the bible -- is that correct?
 
DOC said:
So you are saying the only thing keeping you from believing Christ rose from the dead is a written statement from one person who lived at that time and claims he/she saw the risen Christ and their statement is not in the bible -- is that correct?
Click to expand...


Ah, I see where your confusion lies.

It is almost correct. I am asking for a non-biblical source, which is a bit different from "not in the bible". I know you have been avoiding most of Ichneumonwasp's posts, but how much of the history of the bible do you know? I would recommend starting with Bart Ehrman, who is one of the leading biblical scholars, and manages to write in a clear manner directed towards the layperson.

http://bartdehrman.com/

Make sure you read his short bio and CV at this site, he really does know what he is talking about. His book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is an excellent read, and he goes back to original sources in their original languages whenever possible. Heck, I'll even loan you my copy if you wish.

Once we can agree on what are and are not biblical sources, then we can proceed with the evidence.

If you would prefer to start a different thread on this subject, let me know. I am sure Ichneumonwasp, Greediguts, and others would be interested in discussing what is or is not a biblical source.
 
six7s said:
As real as any online character :p


DOC's Profile
Click to expand...

Actually since you brought it up some of my best threads are not included in the list of my threads for some reason. Must be a glitch in the system. If anyone wants to know what I consider my best threads they can privately message me or you can ask me publicly if you want.

And I'll say it for the umpteenth time. My threads are not about me.
 
DOC said:
Actually since you brought it up some of my best threads are not included in the list of my threads for some reason. Must be a glitch in the system. If anyone wants to know what I consider my best threads they can privately message me or you can ask me publicly if you want.

And I'll say it for the umpteenth time. My threads are not about me.
Click to expand...

Of course they aren't.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Ah, I see where your confusion lies.

It is almost correct. I am asking for a non-biblical source, which is a bit different from "not in the bible". I know you have been avoiding most of Ichneumonwasp's posts, but how much of the history of the bible do you know? I would recommend starting with Bart Ehrman, who is one of the leading biblical scholars, and manages to write in a clear manner directed towards the layperson.

http://bartdehrman.com/

Make sure you read his short bio and CV at this site, he really does know what he is talking about. His book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is an excellent read, and he goes back to original sources in their original languages whenever possible. Heck, I'll even loan you my copy if you wish.

Once we can agree on what are and are not biblical sources, then we can proceed with the evidence.

If you would prefer to start a different thread on this subject, let me know. I am sure Ichneumonwasp, Greediguts, and others would be interested in discussing what is or is not a biblical source.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is I still don't know what evidence or what facts or what anything would cause you to believe Christ rose from the dead even though I've asked several times. My personal belief is nothing short of seeing Christ in the flesh would cause you to believe. And if that is true I think it's phony to keep complaining about evidence.

But if it is true, you are not alone, the apostle known as "Doubting Thomas" was the same way, he wouldn't believe unless he saw Christ in person. And according to the bible Doubting Thomas saw something that stopped him from doubting and there have been reports he ended up doing evangelical work in India and founded a church there.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
the apostle known as "Doubting Thomas" was the same way, he wouldn't believe unless he saw Christ in person. And Doubting Thomas saw something that stopped him from doubting because he ended up doing evangelical work in India and founded a church in India.
Click to expand...



Are you suggesting that the apocryphal Acts of Thomas are literally true accounts?
 
DOC said:
Bottom line is I still don't know what evidence or what facts or what anything would cause you to believe Christ rose from the dead even though I've asked several times. My personal belief is nothing short of seeing Christ in the flesh would cause you to believe. And if that is true I think it's phony to keep complaining about evidence.
Click to expand...


You are wrong, and nice way to not answer my question. I think it's phony to ignore what everyone else has been saying, but hey, if that works for you.

What do you consider a non-biblical source and why? How much do you know about the history of the bible?
 
DOC said:
But if it is true, you are not alone, the apostle known as "Doubting Thomas" was the same way, he wouldn't believe unless he saw Christ in person. And according to the bible Doubting Thomas saw something that stopped him from doubting and there have been reports he ended up doing evangelical work in India and founded a church there.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, what Doubting Thomas saw was Jesus himself show up and show the disciple his wounds from the cross. If Jesus would only extend the same favor to the rest of us, we'd be all set.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Are you suggesting that the apocryphal Acts of Thomas are literally true accounts?
Click to expand...

I haven't read it. All I know is that there is a belief in parts of India that Thomas aka Doubting Thomas was a missionary there and founded a church there.
 
Sefarst said:
If I recall correctly, what Doubting Thomas saw was Jesus himself show up and show the disciple his wounds from the cross. If Jesus would only extend the same favor to the rest of us, we'd be all set.
Click to expand...

Yes, you would have a cold mechanical love for Christ now that you've got the evidence.
 
DOC said:
Yes, you would have a cold mechanical love for Christ now that you've got the evidence.
Click to expand...

So Thomas had a cold mechanical love for Christ? Why did they let him remain a disciple and go on to found that church in India?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom