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

[paximperium]

DOC apparently would argue that Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom were lovers during the filming of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, because there are so many fan-written stories portraying them that way.

In fact, Kiera Knightley may have been miraculously resurrected, because I read one story in which the three were stranded on a desert island: according to this account, Knightley died and Depp and Bloom ate her (!!) before engaging in all manner of activities detailed description of which would be subject to Rule 9.

And neither Depp nor Bloom have "disputed any falsehoods" in these accounts. Nor has Knightley, although she is notably alive.

I find your taste in fan fiction disturbing. Almost as disturbing as the Bible.

 

[DOC]

29 pages and still no evidence, DOC. Perhaps I should rephrase that: The evidence in your mind that enhances your belief and solidifies your conviction is not factual proof.

You are a Christian and presenting other believers opinions as evidence, but this is the point your missing. Your evidence is not real evidence because it requires faith to believe it is evidence without facts to back it up.

Well you have the right to your opinion and if you haven't read post 13 where I give mine and answers.com definition of evidence please read it and think about it.

And your 100% right that Christianity requires faith but guess what so does atheism. A lot of atheists will deny it, but unless they can present proof there is no God, atheism does require faith.

And the whole essence of Geisler's and Turek's book cited in post #1 is that after you look at all the evidence: historical, scientific, empirical, logic etc. it requires "more" faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. If you think that is a bunch of bull than read the book and try to prove it wrong. The book is about 425 pages long. I've only went over about 20% of the material it talks about in this thread.

 

[zooterkin]

And your 100% right that Christianity requires faith but guess what so does atheism. A lot of atheists will deny it, but unless they can present proof there is no God, atheism does require faith.

Do you believe in Odin? If not, exactly how much faith does that require?

And the whole essence of Geisler's and Turek's book cited in post #1 is that after you look at all the evidence: historical, scientific, empirical, logic etc. it requires "more" faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. If you think that is a bunch of bull than read the book and try to prove it wrong. The book is about 425 pages long. I've only went over about 20% of the material it talks about in this thread.

How about you read the 80% of posts in this thread that you didn't make?

 

[joobz]

Well you have the right to your opinion and if you haven't read post 13 where I give mine and answers.com definition of evidence please read it and think about it.

Even by your definition, you've failed to present evidence.
Afterall, all of what you presented neither support or prove false the ressurection.

And your 100% right that Christianity requires faith but guess what so does atheism. A lot of atheists will deny it, but unless they can present proof there is no God, atheism does require faith.

DOC, DOC, DOC.
Why do you use this silly claim? Let's pretend that you are right, and atheism does require faith. This would require us to state that faith in something being nonexistent is near identical in the faith in something being existant.

The fact that no one has ever errected temples to the non-existence of Xenu, I'm led to believe that this assumption is foolishly false, but let's continue.

Does claiming that atheism requires faith make faith in christianity more plausible? Do you gain something by trying to make atheism and christianity similar in the game of faith? I contend that by making your assertion that atheism also requires faith, you effectively expose the underlying insecurity that exists with faith. That this faith isn't in itself a virtue but a weakness in religion and that by labeling atheism as being a faith, you attempt to caste atheism with this same weakness. By doing so, you are able to comfort yourself that atheism isn't any better because it is just as weak of a position as your religion.

Indeed, DOC, calling atheism a faith is effectively an admission that you view atheism as a logically superior position and that you merely hope to bring it down to the level of your faith so that you can dissmiss it on non-rational grounds.

And the whole essence of Geisler's and Turek's book cited in post #1 is that after you look at all the evidence: historical, scientific, empirical, logic etc. it requires "more" faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. If you think that is a bunch of bull than read the book and try to prove it wrong. The book is about 425 pages long. I've only went over about 20% of the material it talks about in this thread.

Keep repeating this mantra. Perhaps you'll convince yourself of it eventually.

However, It's clear that you do not actually believe it, otherwise you wouldn't see a need to label atheism as a faith.

 

[DOC]

DOC,

I am one of those lurkers/readers you claim the JREF forum is trying to sway with 'empty posts'.

I was raised Christian, and left the faith--but most of my family is still in it. I am always interested in -new- information in the historicity of things in the Bible, as its a nice, relatively neutral topic to discuss with my family.

However, in the last two years since I joined this forum, I've noticed your threads over....and over....and over....and over....and over...again.

The first time I clicked on the last page of one to see what the arguments were, I -did- wonder if you had just gotten lost in your own argument, and they were being a little unfair. I know that people I care about who truly believe tend to have good points, though shaky logic/historical accuracy.

....and then I read from the beginning. I have, in fact, read -this- thread from the beginning, because it -claimed- to have new facts, the exact sort of thing I was interested, as I stated above.

I have followed your arguments, and the JREF arguments. Everytime this thread pops back up, I keep -hoping- for something that's solid. Something that will actually....make me question?

I am an open skeptic. I would have -loved- to have been convinced of God's love during my tour in Iraq. It failed to happen. I would have been thrilled to have been convinced of God's love when my father died suddenly two Thanksgivings ago. It failed to happen.

If God had reached out, this past year, during my nervous breakdown, I would have taken -that- with open arms, as I needed someone badly to help me out. It was neither God nor religion--it was the Veteran's Administration that helped me out.

And yet I do wander about, seeking more information. If I'm wrong about being an atheist, I'd love to know.

This thread stated that was its aim--to give actual evidence. I looked eagerly for it, and found -none-.

By this stage of the thread, JREFers are exhausted with your ephemerality...there's nothing solid in your arguments, nothing that belief -should- be built on. Even seekers such as myself, who hope for a nugget of -something- that they could build at least a comforting half-assed agnosticism out of....

Yeah, we get nothing out of your arguments. Nothing. I -am- the person you are supposedly reaching out to. All I ask is something -solid-, something -true-, something that I can have trust in....

Well thanks for your post. All I can say is keep on seeking. The bible says seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will open. And it says to be persistent at it too. For some people it just takes time. I've said this maybe twice in the last 2 years and that is I used to be an atheist when I was in my early to mid 20's. I even read a couple issues of Atheist magazine and can even remember telling someone that the bible is just a book written by 4 guys. I was raised Catholic but never really read the bible much.

Then one day when I was about 26. I was in a fleebag motel room watching TV and Kenneth Copeland came on TV. I couldn't tell you 2 words he said that day but I know something changed in that motel room and then I started to read the bible seriously for the first time. And it amazed me -- the words, there was a whole new world that opened up to me. It did not come overnight it was more of a process. Christian TV helped build my faith over time, whereas some people get more from church.

My advice would be to just keep reading the New testament especially the four gospels, Maybe watch Christian TV if its in your area. And remember I"m not perfect, I don't have all the answers, but I've looked at most of the world's philosophies and religions including the
Buddism and atheism and you know what won out. I've been in these threads for almost 2 years now and have had about 27 religious threads and my faith is still strong in spite of all the argumentative and personal attacks I've received. That in itself says something about the power of Christianity. As I've said many times I'm just putting info out there. I rarely talk about hell. Maybe once or twice in two years. What people do with the info I put out there is there business. But I do believe (and I'm not talking to you but to some of the others) there does come a time when it's too late, when there is no turning back. It's kind of like some of the transients you see on the street. There are some of them that are too far gone.

Give me that, and I'll return to church. But please, -quit- claiming that JREFers are trying to sway people like me.

Some, I do believe are trying to do that, especially the ones who continually personally attack me and my threads in posts without giving any reasoned explanation in that post.

It's you who are reaching out to the 'anonymous' and saying that we are too terrified of JREFers scarcasm to post in agreement with you.

I never said anything like that, although it might be true. But it might be best for someone new in Christianity not to face off against some of these people until you are strong, confident, and well read in your faith; as well as in other world philosophies. This might take many years to get to this level. But if you're a new Christian go with your gut, and God through the Holy spirit will give you wisdom if you seek it and pray about it.

 

[paximperium]

I've been in these threads for almost 2 years now and have had about 27 religious threads and my faith is still strong in spite of all the argumentative and personal attacks I've received. That in itself says something about the power Christianity.

No. It shows how you do not listen to anyone and do not use your brain. Refusing to listen and refusing to understand an opposing viewpoint, is not "testing your faith", it is close-minded delusion.

Some, I do believe are trying to do that, especially the ones who personally attack me in a posts without giving any reasoned explanation in that post.

You mean how many have concluded and stated that you are a dishonest liar due to your behavior?

I never said anything like that, although it might be true. But it might be best for someone new in Christianity not to face off against some of these people until you are strong, confident, and well read in your faith; as well as in other world philosophies.

Why are you here? You are most definately not well read in your faith and definately ignorant about science and philosphy. Stubborn, deluded and deaf but definately not much of an example for anyone to follow.

 

[Lothian]

I even read a couple issues of Atheist magazine and can even remember telling someone that the bible is just a book written by 4 guys.

I see your knowledge of Atheism matches your knowlegde of Christianity.

 

[DOC]

Why are you here? You are most definately not well read in your faith and definately ignorant about science and philosphy. Stubborn, deluded and deaf but definately not much of an example for anyone to follow.

This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science. Look these threads up on the web if you think I don't have good knowledge of science. And your comment about me not being well read in my faith is a joke that my 27 or so threads with thousands of posts will attest to.

 

[Mashuna]

But I do believe (and I'm not talking to you but to some of the others) there does come a time when it's too late, when there is no turning back. It's kind of like some of the transients you see on the street. There are some of them that are too far gone.

Don't worry Doc, I'm sure there's still hope for you.

 

[Mashuna]

This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science. Look these threads up on the web if you think I don't have good knowledge of science. And your comment about me not being well read in my faith is a joke that my 27 or so threads with thousands of posts will attest to.

<Looks up threads>

<Remebers Doc's bizzare interpretations of science>

<Adds one to the "Argument ad populum" counter - nearly at 1000 now!>

Yes Doc, it is entirely possible for someone to have two threads in a science forum, with 55,000 views and 18,000 views respectively, and have no idea about science.

Did your parents ever teach you about quality versus quantity?

 

[Lothian]

This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science. Look these threads up on the web if you think I don't have good knowledge of science. And your comment about me not being well read in my faith is a joke that my 27 or so threads with thousands of posts will attest to.

Doc, I am afraid to say you knowledge of the bible, science and logic is poor. I am responsible for a fair number of the views in the two threads above. I do read them and I do learn a lot, but not from your posts but from the posts of others.

 

[joobz]

This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science.

yes. Not only is it possible, it is practically a requirement.

The more blatantly, insultingly naive the poster, the greater the likelihood of a there being a high post count.

I could start a thread on methods of calculating diffusion coefficients in human tissue and I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would contain very few replies in it.
For multiple reasons
1.) I know what I'm talking about, so it is unlikely to have a large number of people correcting my methods.
2.) Nobody here would consider such evaluation as controversial, and therefore would likely accept my summaries.
3.) it would being extremely boring topic.

 

[paximperium]

This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science. Look these threads up on the web if you think I don't have good knowledge of science. And your comment about me not being well read in my faith is a joke that my 27 or so threads with thousands of posts will attest to.

I've read them and it definately shows your blatant and prideful ignorance of science.

 

[six7s]

3.) it would being extremely boring topic.

Extremely? Perhaps

Relatively? No

@DOC,

Although the replies to the threads you start (they are NOT your threads!) are numerous, there is no reason to suggest that your ideas are interesting. Rather, as this is a critical thinking forum, the responses are - as you know - primarily aimed at alerting you and any lurkers as to the errors in the ridiculous, pathetic conclusions that you jump to in order to support your delusions

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity in your reply to VoGts. However, your advice to "just keep reading the New testament especially the four gospels" is (in light of your obvious, evident, ignorance) hardly a sensible, rational recommendation for anyone who asks you to "show me something that doesn't make me willfully suspend my disbelief"

Of course, neither this nor any of the next 42,000 replies to your woo will even begin to change your mind; that can't happen until you start thinking

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink

If/when you finally acknowledge that your mind is philosophically dehydrated, you'll be pleased to know that there's a glass with your name on it at the water cooler, where everyone knows your name

Cheers!

 

[paximperium]

Extremely? Perhaps

Relatively? No

@DOC,

Although the replies to the threads you start (they are NOT your threads!) are numerous, there is no reason to suggest that your ideas are interesting. Rather, as this is a critical thinking forum, the responses are - as you know - primarily aimed at alerting you and any lurkers as to the errors in the ridiculous, pathetic conclusions that you jump to in order to support your delusions

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity in your reply to VoGts. However, your advice to "just keep reading the New testament especially the four gospels" is (in light of your obvious, evident, ignorance) hardly a sensible, rational recommendation for anyone who asks you to "show me something that doesn't make me willfully suspend my disbelief"

Of course, neither this nor any of the next 42,000 replies to your woo will even begin to change your mind; that can't happen until you start thinking

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink

If/when you finally acknowledge that your mind is philosophically dehydrated, you'll be pleased to know that there's a glass with your name on it at the water cooler, where everyone knows your name

Cheers!

What I find sad is that DOC actually believes his inane posts and threads are an actual "test of faith". That is the furthest from the truth. To test your faith, you actually need to understand the opposing opinion and opposing evidence against your faith and develop a counter-argument against such an argument or evidence. If you can really investigate and understand the opposition and still remain faithful, then that is a true test of faith...not saying it is a good thing but at least it is honest.

DOC not only refuses to listen to an opposing argument, he refuses to understand and instead attacks fantasy versions of these arguments that he himself makes up. It is an easy and lazy form of a "test" where he has essentially deluded himself into believing that he is winning arguments and testing himself when if fact, he is lying to himself.

 

[Sefarst]

This is exactly what I mean about personal attacks without a well reasoned explanation. Is it possible for someone to have science related threads like my threads:

1) "Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins"

and

2) "Do most Atheists know that science..."

with 55,000 views and 18,000 views without a good knowledge of science. Look these threads up on the web if you think I don't have good knowledge of science. And your comment about me not being well read in my faith is a joke that my 27 or so threads with thousands of posts will attest to.

In my experience at this site, the most inane and ridiculous threads are always the ones that get the most views and replies (if you want evidence of this, go look at the Bigfoot threads on the paranormal forum). I think this is mostly the case because the skeptics around here start smelling blood in the water every time an overconfident Wooer shows up and everyone starts taking turns pummeling the guy.

I think the reason you get so many replies and views is that your arguments are easy to refute -- so easy that the overwhelming majority of people here can do it with little effort. The really intelligent threads about science, history, politics, etc. tend to get fewer views and replies because they are well-thought-out and anyone who wants to respond to them has to take time to carefully understand the arguments presented and return an intelligent reply.

Anyway, just making a thread with "science" somewhere in the title and getting a lot of views means nothing.

 

[Hokulele]

But it might be best for someone new in Christianity not to face off against some of these people until you are strong, confident, and well read in your faith; as well as in other world philosophies.

Well read in your faith? Seriously? A book by Geisler and one by Kennedy do not make you well-read in your own faith, much less others. Considering the fact that you seemed to be unaware of the most-respected Christian apologists earlier in this thread (much less have read any of their works), and you have previously admitted that you haven't even read the Bible in its entirety, this recommendation comes off as pompous and hypocritical at best.

In what other faiths do you consider yourself an expert?

If he responds "atheism", I win the "I Told You So" bonus for this thread.

This might take many years to get to this level.

You may want to get started then.

 

[truethat]

I can't believe the OP is actually serious. So we know they are telling the truth because they disparaged themselves and Jesus and made the rules tough? Well damn!!! Guess you've never been to a Scientology center? Guess you've never been to an AA meeting or a monestary.


People who have "ephiphanies" do this all the time my friend. Even the Koolaid Captains at Jonestown did this sort of thing. Its par for the course of brainwashing. People readily admit their flaws and say how they were just like you, a regular person and then they realized they were lying to themselves etc etc etc.

Self disgust and flaggelation are part of the psychotic aspect of religious fervor that make most people sick to their stomach. The "confessing the error of their ways" repent and cry for forgiveness....well all of that speaks to mental illness. Lets say it again mental illness.

And what is sick is that it appeals to a hell of a lot of people. That's why we atheists run with our skin crawling away from religious freaks. Down on their knees crying that they are a sinner and will repent their ways and do better.....it's absolutely a lie and a psychological ploy.

That's what is most repulsive about any religion in my opinion. So to offer this up as evidence of the authenticity of the bible is beyond weird.

 

[VotGs]

Well thanks for your post. All I can say is keep on seeking. The bible says seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will open. And it says to be persistent at it too. For some people it just takes time. I've said this maybe twice in the last 2 years and that is I used to be an atheist when I was in my early to mid 20's. I even read a couple issues of Atheist magazine and can even remember telling someone that the bible is just a book written by 4 guys. I was raised Catholic but never really read the bible much.

Then one day when I was about 26. I was in a fleebag motel room watching TV and Kenneth Copeland came on TV. I couldn't tell you 2 words he said that day but I know something changed in that motel room and then I started to read the bible seriously for the first time. And it amazed me -- the words, there was a whole new world that opened up to me. It did not come overnight it was more of a process. Christian TV helped build my faith over time, whereas some people get more from church.

My advice would be to just keep reading the New testament especially the four gospels, Maybe watch Christian TV if its in your area. And remember I"m not perfect, I don't have all the answers, but I've looked at most of the world's philosophies and religions including the
Buddism and atheism and you know what won out. I've been in these threads for almost 2 years now and have had about 27 religious threads and my faith is still strong in spite of all the argumentative and personal attacks I've received. That in itself says something about the power of Christianity. As I've said many times I'm just putting info out there. I rarely talk about hell. Maybe once or twice in two years. What people do with the info I put out there is there business. But I do believe (and I'm not talking to you but to some of the others) there does come a time when it's too late, when there is no turning back. It's kind of like some of the transients you see on the street. There are some of them that are too far gone.



Some, I do believe are trying to do that, especially the ones who continually personally attack me and my threads in posts without giving any reasoned explanation in that post.



I never said anything like that, although it might be true. But it might be best for someone new in Christianity not to face off against some of these people until you are strong, confident, and well read in your faith; as well as in other world philosophies. This might take many years to get to this level. But if you're a new Christian go with your gut, and God through the Holy spirit will give you wisdom if you seek it and pray about it.

DOC, you seriously just made me make a sad face. A -really- sad face.

Let me help you understand for a moment:

I first read the bible completely through at the age of six. I have been able to discuss even the minor stories therein since I was about ten. Since I was fifteen, I could give you -literary- analyses of the themes of each book.

I lived in Western Oklahoma, which if you don't know, is a HUGELY baptist area. I lost my faith very early. Not out of a hate for God, but out of simple disappointment. But I kept hoping. I attended church, hoping to feel that faith again. I didn't want to be different from all my family and most of my friends. When I finally stopped attending church because I felt it was a disservice to mouth things I no longer believed, I was called a devil worshipper and a daughter of satan. I was told, by these same people, that I caused my own sister's miscarriage because I read fantasy books, and they brought demons into the house.

I abandoned religion, but kept -looking-. When I joined the Army eight years ago, I began reading Gnostic compilations, the history of Christianity, researching the translation errors and interpretation errors extremely common in popular sects of Christianity today. I looked into Buddhism, Deism, Atheism, Catholicism, LDS....you name it. I went searching for my faith, hoping that disillusion would pass, and I would -see- what I saw so clearly when I was a child.

I am now, at the age of 26, having traveled across the world, dealt with people of many faiths, many beliefs, and discussed it with them--somewhat of an amateur theologian.

I haven't found that faith yet. I am not a Christian. I am not an Atheist....I am what I have always termed 'non religious'. I abstain from the question. God? No God? It doesn't matter. I'll do the best I can, right here, right now, and if I have to justify myself to a God someday, that is the only statement I'll need.

I did the best I could.

The Bible is a pillar of your faith. But it is only -one- pillar. One column. For you, these other columns are self-evident, and obvious.

For the rest of us, we need to see -evidence-. Evidence, actual flat out -facts-, not suppositions, but facts -which can be agreed upon by those who read them-, will tie together the columns and make a building, an edifice (and I might even say...a church?) out of the columns.

You present us here a single column, and some trusses (by which I mean your books written by Christians with some...um...shaky or out of date concepts), and say, "Why don't you see the beauty of my Church!"

And someone like me looks and says, "Man, am I gonna fall through the floor if I walk in there? It looks about as stable as a stack of cups..."


((ETA: Twenty seconds after I post, I realize I am reading too much of the 9/11 Conspiracy Forums, when the first analogy that comes to mind is trusses and columns and how they collapse...))

 

[joobz]

DOC, you seriously just made me make a sad face. A -really- sad face.

Let me help you understand for a moment:

I first read the bible completely through at the age of six. I have been able to discuss even the minor stories therein since I was about ten. Since I was fifteen, I could give you -literary- analyses of the themes of each book.

This is exactly why I found DOC reply to you extremely arrogant and insulting.

It insinuated that since you didn't come to his conclusion, it was because you were simply ignorant of the bible and christianity. He even gave his testimony as a former ignorant atheist himself. Whether or not his story is true, it doesn't matter. He equated you to a person who would think the bible was merely written by 4 guys.

It's been my experience that people here that non-christians here tend to be much more informed of the bible than the devote fundementalists that come here. DOC is merely one example.