• 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.
Yes, it's embarrassing for the Messiah... and if his omniscience doesn't extend to fig tree seasons, it's an indictment against divinity.
 
DOC said:
Regarding Reason #2 in Post #1. How about when Jesus was seen cursing the fig tree for not having figs (when it wasn't even the season for figs). Is that something someone would make up about their Messiah. Would you say that is embarrassing for the messiah himself.

I wonder if joobz now thinks reason #2 has been destroyed.
Click to expand...
Doc. Out of interest. Why would Jesus/God not know when the fig season was? Presuming that Jesus/God is infallible we have the bible telling an lie. Why do you think the fact that the bible contains lies and made up stories makes it more credible?
 
DOC said:
Regarding Reason #2 in Post #1. How about when Jesus was seen cursing the fig tree for not having figs (when it wasn't even the season for figs). Is that something someone would make up about their Messiah. Would you say that is embarrassing for the messiah himself.

I wonder if joobz now thinks reason #2 has been destroyed.
Click to expand...


Seeing as how the fig tree is repeatedly identified with Israel and the Temple system in biblical and extra-biblical sources, yes, it is something someone would make up about their Messiah; or, it could simply be a memory of something he said filtered through later knowledge of the Temple's destruction.
 
Lothian said:
Doc. Out of interest. Why would Jesus/God not know when the fig season was? Presuming that Jesus/God is infallible we have the bible telling an lie. Why do you think the fact that the bible contains lies and made up stories makes it more credible?
Click to expand...

Jesus came to earth as a man. He ate, slept, cried, and in the fig tree incident he hungered. And he obviously felt frustration at being hungry and disappointed that there was not fruit on the tree. Because of this incident and others we have no doubt that Jesus understands hunger, frustration, and even getting angry. Christians don't have some distant unapproachable God as some might interpret the God of Islam; this incident could serve the purpose of letting us know for sure that Christ understands the suffering of many humans.

And of course the agony on the cross demonstrates this even more so... I have to believe Jesus occasionally performed miracles to let us know he was who he said he was, but he was also very human during his time on earth. If he was always infallible while on earth, how could he really understand the feelings and the shortcomings of humans.
 
DOC said:
Jesus came to earth as a man. He ate, slept, cried, and in the fig tree incident he hungered. And he obviously felt frustration at being hungry and disappointed that there was not fruit on the tree. Because of this incident and others we have no doubt that Jesus understands hunger, frustration, and even getting angry. Christians don't have some distant unapproachable God as some might interpret the God of Islam; this incident could serve the purpose of letting us know for sure that Christ understands the suffering of many humans.

And of course the agony on the cross demonstrates this even more so... I have to believe Jesus occasionally performed miracles to let us know he was who he said he was, but he was also very human during his time on earth. If he was always infallible while on earth, how could he really understand the feelings and the shortcomings of humans.
Click to expand...
You are not answering the question. I will make it easier.

Do you believe that Jesus/God/holy spirit is ignorant about the Fig season?
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
What I have a hard time believing is that he "rose from the dead."
Click to expand...

And yet you have no problem believing the (never been proved) scientific theory of life coming from non-life. It seems it would be more logical to believe that something that was once alive could come back to life much easier than something that was "never" alive, suddenly becoming alive.



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)
Click to expand...

It would be impossible to do 4 and 5 if it was guarded by a Roman soldier or soldiers.

From Blue Letter Bible (KJV)

Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make [it] as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.


And if the formerly unsure, cowardly, apostles did somehow manage to get past the Roman guard (or guards), break the Roman seal, move the boulder, and then steal the body, would they then constantly risk their lives, travel all over the Roman empire, and eventually get martyred preaching for a dead corpse.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And yet you have no problem believing the (never been proved) scientific theory of life coming from non-life. It seems it would be more logical to believe that something that was once alive could come back to life much easier than something that was "never" alive, suddenly becoming alive.
Click to expand...
That continues to be your stupidest argument in the world. Your complete and utter illogical mindset it truly sad. Not only is that a cowardly attempt to dodge the question, it is a completely moronic argument.

Something that dies, rots. End of story.
Something that becomes "alive"(whatever the hell that means) goes through a multitude of steps taking thousands of years.

Do you have any, any evidence at all of a resurrection? Or are you going to keep weaseling your way out of providing this evidence?
 
DOC, what you believe has a lot more "magical elements" that go contrary to science and a lot less evidence than what any of his here believe. But we don't have to know the answer, to realize that you can't know it either... to realize that lots of people have been claiming to know various versions of the answer over the eons... but none of their magic stories corresponds with any evidence. Science can't look for evidence of whatever story they wish were true. They just have to follow the evidence where it goes, and wait for the gaps to be filled in with data. Sticking a supernatural explanation into a lack of knowledge is a common woo trick-- a fake explanation--but it has never turned out to be right. And it has the effect of aborting further inquiry with this notion that we can't understand god.

Well, if we can't understand god-- then why the hell do you think you do? Scientists are not the ones claiming divine truths. They just provide evidence-- the kind that is available to anyone... even as the liars for assorted gods battle to maintain their claim to divine truths.

Our lack of knowledge does not make your fairy story true. Evolution was a fact even before humans existed. The evidence was in our DNA even though your failure of a god didn't mention it. And so much of what we know is do to that discovery. Nothing useful or true or prescient has ever come from your magic book.
 
DOC said:
And yet you have no problem believing the (never been proved) scientific theory of life coming from non-life. It seems it would be more logical to believe that something that was once alive could come back to life much easier than something that was "never" alive, suddenly becoming alive.





It would be impossible to do 4 and 5 if it was guarded by a Roman soldier or soldiers.
Click to expand...
Do you believe Matthew and the angel of death story or mark and Luke's more moderate fare?
 
paximperium said:
Something that becomes "alive"(whatever the hell that means) goes through a multitude of steps taking thousands of years.
Click to expand...

During those thousands of years was this thing ever alive?

And don't you agree that the non-life to life theory has never been proved.
 
Last edited:
I have to believe Jesus occasionally performed miracles to let us know he was who he said he was, but he was also very human during his time on earth. If he was always infallible while on earth, how could he really understand the feelings and the shortcomings of humans.
Click to expand...

[bolding added] Well, that kind of knocks the "omniscient" claim in the head, doesn't it?

I thought your God was omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? And Jesus is wholly God, as well as wholly himself? So wouldn't he kind of be born "understanding the feelings and shortcomings of humans?"

Do you EVER think about what you write?
 
DOC said:
During those thousands of years was this thing ever alive?

And don't you agree that the non-life to life theory has never been proved.
Click to expand...
Define "alive". If and when you do we can talk. I can define dead and rotting though.

Still waiting for evidence of any resurrections ever occuring in the history of the cosmos.
 
DOC said:
And yet you have no problem believing the (never been proved) scientific theory of life coming from non-life.
Click to expand...
The countless degrees of evidence points to it being the case. Of course, if there is ever evidence presented which contradicts this view, I'd happily change my stance.

DOC said:
It seems it would be more logical to believe that something that was once alive could come back to life much easier than something that was "never" alive, suddenly becoming alive.
Click to expand...
Describe what you mean by Suddenly?

Your statement is only logical if you have never studied biology.

DOC said:
It would be impossible to do 4 and 5 if it was guarded by a Roman soldier or soldiers.
Click to expand...

And if the formerly unsure, cowardly, apostles did somehow manage to get past the Roman guard (or guards), break the Roman seal, move the boulder, and then steal the body, would they then constantly risk their lives, travel all over the Roman empire, and eventually get martyred preaching for a dead corpse.[/quote]
You are making the assumption that the tomb was in fact:
1.) guarded
2.) Sealed (BTW, what's a roman seal?)
3.) bouldered
Is there any evidence of this outside the bible?
 
Elizabeth I said:
[bolding added] Well, that kind of knocks the "omniscient" claim in the head, doesn't it?

I thought your God was omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? And Jesus is wholly God, as well as wholly himself? So wouldn't he kind of be born "understanding the feelings and shortcomings of humans?"
Click to expand...
That's just one of the many mysteries of god.
Don't you know, if there is any contradiction that you see, it's because you are simply not smart enough to understand the mystery of god.

Convinced yet?
 
DOC said:
And yet you have no problem believing the (never been proved) scientific theory of life coming from non-life. It seems it would be more logical to believe that something that was once alive could come back to life much easier than something that was "never" alive, suddenly becoming alive.
Click to expand...

DOC, this is an interesting one. It certainly changes my perception of you. I thought YOU believed that something never alive suddenly became alive. That's what it says in Genesis.

The only difference between science and Genesis on the matter of life coming from non-life is that scientists don't believe it takes a miracle (suspension of the laws of nature) for it to happen.

Assuming you're not trying to argue what it sounds like you're arguing (that life didn't actually begin because it's impossible for life to come from non-life), all you're left with is you not believing it can happen without a miracle.

What particularly irritates me about this common argument is that if scientist were ever to prove it's possible, creationists will just move the goalposts. DOC, will you become a skeptic if scientists ever create life from non-life in the laboratory? If not, how is there any point to your contention that it's not possible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom