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

[joobz]

Not true, the commandments in both Exodus and Deuteronomy say you shall not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor. Rape is coveting your neighbor's body. It is also adultery on a married person. And personal assaults are wanting to steal the peace of mind and security that a person possesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Rape is not coveting. coveting is merely the desire for something. You can not desire your neighbor's wife and possessions.


Slavery is the theft of another person's freedom.
Why doesn't the bible object to Slavery?

 

[Hokulele]

Not true, the commandments in both Exodus and Deuteronomy say you shall not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor. Rape is coveting your neighbor's body. It is also adultery on a married person.

And there are many other locations in Leviticus where the laws state rape is fine, provided she is a slave, or you end up marrying her.

And personal assaults are wanting to steal the peace of mind and security that a person possesses.

What? No seriously, what? By that twisting of logic, I could ask you to stop proselytizing here as you are stealing my peace of mind by accusing atheism of immorality.

 

[Worm]

It appears to me that this discussion has meandered quite outrageously from

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

to

'Reasons why Christians rock!'

Thread drift isn't necessarily bad, but simply continuing the discussion in another area because DOC can't defend his original position risks diluting the argument...maybe.

Just my opinion of course....

 

[Hokulele]

Not true, the commandments in both Exodus and Deuteronomy say you shall not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor. Rape is coveting your neighbor's body.

I have been thinking about this a bit, and I realized why I found it so irritating.

DOC, if a husband forces his wife to have sex with him (or vice versa), do you consider that to be rape?

 

[paximperium]

It appears to me that this discussion has meandered quite outrageously from

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

to

'Reasons why Christians rock!'

Thread drift isn't necessarily bad, but simply continuing the discussion in another area because DOC can't defend his original position risks diluting the argument...maybe.

Just my opinion of course....

Not much of a discussion on the second point either. DOC is epically failing even in his derail.

He is showing that a mindset that ignores reality can also rewrite history to a false lie to fit his own beliefs in contradiction to all the evidence out there.

 

[joobz]

It appears to me that this discussion has meandered quite outrageously from

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

to

'Reasons why Christians rock!'

Thread drift isn't necessarily bad, but simply continuing the discussion in another area because DOC can't defend his original position risks diluting the argument...maybe.

Just my opinion of course....

I agree. While I enjoy playing the "See what silly dodge DOC will do next" game, I think you are right to demand that DOC keep to the points of the thread or admit he is unable to defend his position.

Perhaps Someone would care to summarize the unanswered points DOC has avoided?

I'd do it (and have already), but it seems to not help.

 

[joobz]

I have been thinking about this a bit, and I realized why I found it so irritating.

DOC, if a husband forces his wife to have sex with him (or vice versa), do you consider that to be rape?

I think this is an excellent question and one that deserves it's own thread. Do you care to start it?

 

[Hokulele]

I think this is an excellent question and one that deserves it's own thread. Do you care to start it?

I guess this really is a comparative morality question. Social Issues or R&P?

 

[wollery]

DOC, you haven't answered my question.

I was raised in an entirely religion free home. I was never taught the ten commandments. I know right from wrong. I've never committed a crime. I've never even been in a fight. I'm married and faithful to her. I hold down a good job. I pay my taxes. I don't covet anyone's anything.

What does that say about your 10 commandments assertion?

 

[DOC]

DOC, you haven't answered my question.

I was raised in an entirely religion free home. I was never taught the ten commandments. I know right from wrong. I've never committed a crime. I've never even been in a fight. I'm married and faithful to her. I hold down a good job. I pay my taxes. I don't covet anyone's anything.

What does that say about your 10 commandments assertion?

If you have peace of mind and are happy with your life, fine. But my personal belief is that if a person is not in the will of God for their life, something will always be missing.

 

[DOC]

"Doubting joobz"

So, evidence that would support the resurrection for me would be as follows:

1.) Jesus returning saying that it happened.
2.) A body of Jesus that is 2000 years old and still in viable tact. (Although this would contradict the corporeal assention of Jesus into heaven, it would at least support the unusual circumstances of a resurrection. E.g., it would prove that his body was immune to decay as a result of death)
3.) A demonstration of modern human being dead for three days (in the "dead/dead" way) and returning to life. It would help to also document that this person could ascend corporeally into heaven. Also explain where/what heaven is. It doesn't prove that Jesus resurrected, but it at least proves that it is possible and I would no longer deny it as a possibility.
4.)Or to tackle the problem in another way: Demonstrate that it is impossible for the stone blocking the tomb to have been moved by people other than Jesus.
5.) Or demonstrate that it is impossible for a tomb to be empty for any other reason than a ressurection. (E.g., demosntrate that body thefts/grave robbing never happen)


These are merely examples. But I think that they reflect the kind of evidence that is warrented to support the ressurection story.

So in other words you would need Christ to appear to you in person, along with even more conditions for you to believe in the Resurrection.

This means there is absolutely no evidence I could present in this thread that would convince you of the truth of Christianity. It would seem that just by being in here and posting so many times (152 posts) -- and also by criticizing and arguing with me you are implying that it would be possible for me to somehow convince you of the truth of Christianity if I could just present enough evidence in the thread. We now know that no matter what I do or say in this thread (or any other thread) it will not be enough.

I think that's why some other people in here have refused to answer that question I posed about what evidence would convince them. Because they also know there is "nothing" I could do or say in here that would convince them. And then they would not be able to complain about the lack of evidence anymore.

 

[wollery]

DOC, you haven't answered my question.

I was raised in an entirely religion free home. I was never taught the ten commandments. I know right from wrong. I've never committed a crime. I've never even been in a fight. I'm married and faithful to her. I hold down a good job. I pay my taxes. I don't covet anyone's anything.

What does that say about your 10 commandments assertion?

If you have peace of mind and are happy with your life, fine. But my personal belief is that if a person is not in the will of God for their life, something will always be missing.

So you're not actually going to answer my question?

 

[joobz]

So in other words you would need Christ to appear to you in person, along with even more conditions for you to believe in the Resurrection.

That is not at all what I said. ANY one of those bits of evidence would work. You don't need to acheive all. This really isn't difficult.
Prove to me that a person can rise from the dead. Just do that, and I'll admit that the ressurection is at least possible.

This means there is absolutely no evidence I could present in this thread that would convince you of the truth of Christianity. It would seem that just by being in here and posting so many times (152 posts) -- and also by criticizing and arguing with me you are implying that it would be possible for me to somehow convince you of the truth of Christianity if I could just present enough evidence in the thread. We now know that no matter what I do or say in this thread (or any other thread) it will not be enough.

IN other words, there is no good evidence proving the ressurection is possible, let alone that it happened. DOC, I thought you said you had evidence?

DOC, I"m not being unfair here. I'm asking for exactly what I would ask any person who made a far fetched claim.

I think that's why some other people in here have refused to answer that question I posed about what evidence would convince them. Because they also know there is "nothing" I could do or say in here that would convince them. And then they would not be able to complain about the lack of evidence anymore.

This is wholly foolish. Multiple people have answered you and even more have explained why your evidence doesn't support anything.

On page one, hokulele said that the most generous answer, "That the evidence you provide is evidence that the bible authors BELIEVED what they wrote, not that it was true" I deny even this much, but you could say she's nicer than me.

I gave you exactly the KIND of evidence needed to prove that the ressurection happened or is even possible. Telling me that some guy knew his geography isn't enough to support the ressurection is possible. Telling me that some guys wrote about historical people isn't enough to tell me that the ressurection is possible Telling me that people may/or may not have been martyred for their belief isn't enough to prove that the ressurection is true. And telling me that the aggregate of these points are true is not enough to prove the ressurection is true. That's simply dumb.
WHY IS IT SIMPLY DUMB? Because, there is no evidence in our world that such a thing is possible.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you have peace of mind and are happy with your life, fine.

That actually makes sense. Why not stop there?

But my personal belief is that if a person is not in the will of God for their life, something will always be missing.

Your personal belief may or may not be valid, but as expressed here it's jibberish. What the blazes does "in the will of God for their life" mean?

You know what's really missing Doc? Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. It seems you offered some a while back, but haven't actually presented it yet.


Why don't you become an Atenist like me? We have lots of evidence that the Sun exists.

 

[DOC]

What the blazes does "in the will of God for their life" mean?.

This will take a long time to explain, but I'll try to get to it before Christmas.

 

[DOC]

Prove to me that a person can rise from the dead. Just do that, and I'll admit that the ressurection is at least possible.

Why do you (and others) have no problem believing the current mainline scientific theory that life came from non-life when it has "never been proven" and yet you can't believe "without proof" that someone was once alive, then died, and then came back to life.

Rational speaking (irregardless of religion) it would seem more logical that something that was "alive once" and then stopped living would have an easier time returning to life than something that was "never" alive suddenly coming to life.

 

[Elizabeth I]

So in other words you would need Christ to appear to you in person, along with even more conditions for you to believe in the Resurrection.

This means there is absolutely no evidence I could present in this thread that would convince you of the truth of Christianity. It would seem that just by being in here and posting so many times (152 posts) -- and also by criticizing and arguing with me you are implying that it would be possible for me to somehow convince you of the truth of Christianity if I could just present enough evidence in the thread. We now know that no matter what I do or say in this thread (or any other thread) it will not be enough.

I think that's why some other people in here have refused to answer that question I posed about what evidence would convince them. Because they also know there is "nothing" I could do or say in here that would convince them. And then they would not be able to complain about the lack of evidence anymore.

What you conveniently keep forgetting is that YOU titled this thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth." YOU are the one who said YOU had evidence. None of people who have responded to you started a thread entitled "What is the evidence the New Testament writers told the truth?" and demanded that you provide said evidence. All they have done is asked that YOU live up to the claim YOU made and provide the evidence YOU said YOU had.

Instead you have quoted special pleading by authors who admittedly have a pre-existing bias in favor of their hypothesis. You have presented invalid logic, half-truths, and evasions. Especially evasions. You are big on evasions.

When none of that worked, you have started false hares and dragged red herrings across the trail. You have tried to redirect and misdirect the discussion, all in an attempt to avoid the fact that YOU said you had evidence and YOU have failed to provide it.

So don't come back now whining, "It doesn't matter what I say, you won't believe me. <<sniff>> You're so UNFAIR! <<snuffle>> You said you wanted evidence, but now you won't believe anything I say. <<choke back a sob>> What do you want from me?"

YOU said YOU had evidence. So cough it up or admit you don't have it.

 

[joobz]

Why do you (and others) have no problem believing the current mainline scientific theory that life came from non-life when it has "never been proven" and yet you can't believe "without proof" that someone was once alive, then died, and then came back to life.

Because it's what the evidence suggests. If new data is presented I'll change my view.
It's the exact same reason why I trust evolutionary theory, the navier stokes equation, germ theory, newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics.....

In all the centuries of science, we have not seen anything that would suggest that a person could be resurrected from the dead.

I can believe a person would appear dead and in a coma, only to awaken some time later. That's reasonable. but other's isn't.

So, do you have evidence for what I ask? That a person can be ressurected from the dead?
Remember, the bible has multiple examples of this occurinig, so it should be easy to find modern examples as well.

Rational speaking (irregardless of religion) it would seem more logical that something that was "alive once" and then stopped living would have an easier time returning to life than something that was "never" alive suddenly coming to life.

nope.

 

[articulett]

DOC what sort of evidence would convince you that Scientology is true? What sort of evidence would you expect of a person making that claim?

Why wouldn't you offer at least that much? If we are going to pick which magical story to "believe in", you surely can't think you've made a case that Christianity is the best one merely because it's the one you've been indoctrinated with.

 

[paximperium]

Rational speaking (irregardless of religion) it would seem more logical that something that was "alive once" and then stopped living would have an easier time returning to life than something that was "never" alive suddenly coming to life.

That is the stupidest attempt at a false analogy/non-sequitur/ad hominem I've read from anyone and DOC has said many such things.

No. It is not rational(you don't even know the meaning of the word) to think that a dead human corpse could be resurrected and brought back to life after having no biological function for 3 days COMPARED TO some made-up moving goal post arbitrary definition of "alive" self-replicating virus/enzyme/bacteria which took an untold thousands or millions of years to evolve in to "life" is even an hint of an analogy.