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

[DOC]

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.

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

Are you saying Jesus was omniscient in the crib and when he was sleeping as an adult.

 

[DOC]

Still waiting for evidence of any resurrections ever occuring in the history of the cosmos.

At least we have at least 3 eyewitness written accounts of a Resurrected Christ if we are to believe St. Matthew, St. John, and St. Paul. It you don't believe Matthew and John wrote their Gospels (like the early church leaders did) then who did.

And in the history of the cosmos no human has ever created a single living cell, and thus the scientific theory that life arose from non living material (through unintelligent random forces) has never been proved.

 

[zooterkin]

At least we have at least 3 eyewitness written accounts of a Resurrected Christ if we are to believe St. Matthew, St. John, and St. Paul.

As has been pointed out to you several times already, that's a big 'if'. Weren't you supposed to be supplying evidence in support of it?

Where exactly is the 'eyewitness' account in Matthew?

It you don't believe Matthew and John wrote their Gospels (like the early church leaders did) then who did.

You're the one claiming they were the authors, do you have any evidence to back that claim?

 

[Mojo]

At least we have at least 3 eyewitness written accounts of a Resurrected Christ if we are to believe St. Matthew, St. John, and St. Paul. It you don't believe Matthew and John wrote their Gospels (like the early church leaders did) then who did.

Someone else.

By the way, are you now claiming Paul as an eyewitness to the resurrection?

 

[Mister Agenda]

No, Paul just reported other people saw it.

 

[paximperium]

At least we have at least 3 eyewitness written accounts of a Resurrected Christ if we are to believe St. Matthew, St. John, and St. Paul.

No. Not a single one saw Jesus rise form the dead, try again. So still not a single case in the history of the cosmos about you little resurrection yet?

It you don't believe Matthew and John wrote their Gospels (like the early church leaders did) then who did.

Satan. He wrote is as a joke. So you're a Satan worshiper. Prove me wrong.
My claim is as valid as your sad attempt to shift the burden of proof.

And in the history of the cosmos no human has ever created a single living cell, and thus the scientific theory that life arose from non living material (through unintelligent random forces) has never been proved.

We have created clones, viruses and DNA from scratch.
When we do create a living cell what will you do I wonder, move the goalpost again?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Someone else.

By the way, are you now claiming Paul as an eyewitness to the resurrection?

I think he is claiming that Paul accurately reported what he experienced -- the risen Christ -- in a vision or some such experience. That would make Paul a witness to Christ resurrected.

Now, whether or not that vision reflects reality is another issue.

 

[Hokulele]

I think he is claiming that Paul accurately reported what he experienced -- the risen Christ -- in a vision or some such experience. That would make Paul a witness to Christ resurrected.

Now, whether or not that vision reflects reality is another issue.

I disagree. When most Christians talk about resurrection, it is a bodily event, not a spiritual one. I don't think Paul ever claimed to see Christ in the flesh, but in the spirit (as can be seen in the descriptions of those who were with Saul at the time).

Nitpick, I know, but isn't that what most of DOC's thread devolve to?

 

[Mojo]

We have created clones, viruses and DNA from scratch.
When we do create a living cell what will you do I wonder, move the goalpost again?

Of course: that would just be life creating life.

 

[paximperium]

Well, after reading some more about Egyptology (thanks GreNME!), I would have to say that all of those points are bunk. It would be interesting if Christianity were so easily refuted, but it just ain't so. If you would like, I could link to some of the earlier discussions in one of the Zeitgeist threads (ack! barf!) where this concept was pretty much dismantled.

Unfortunately very true. While Christianity isn't exactly new or that original, it wasn't cut out of whole cloth and has its own little spin on many concepts.

You could cherry pick bits of beliefs from the Aboriginal beliefs and likely stick them to Christianity.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I disagree. When most Christians talk about resurrection, it is a bodily event, not a spiritual one. I don't think Paul ever claimed to see Christ in the flesh, but in the spirit (as can be seen in the descriptions of those who were with Saul at the time).

Nitpick, I know, but isn't that what most of DOC's thread devolve to?

Paul seems to think he experienced the resurrected Christ -- in some sort of body -- in his vision. Jesus supposedly talked to him, so, whatever his experience, it wasn't merely spiritual, depending on what we mean by spiritual.

Paul's own theology was predicated on the idea of bodily resurrection -- that's the only way to make sense of 1st Corinthians -- and all we have are sketchy pictures of what Paul supposedly experienced. He clearly thought that whatever it was it proved that Jesus had actually been resurrected or there is no way to make sense of his later career.

 

[articulett]

Paul sounds like a schizoid personality.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Paul sounds like a schizoid personality.

'Eeez very possible.

 

[Hokulele]

Paul seems to think he experienced the resurrected Christ -- in some sort of body -- in his vision. Jesus supposedly talked to him, so, whatever his experience, it wasn't merely spiritual, depending on what we mean by spiritual.

Paul's own theology was predicated on the idea of bodily resurrection -- that's the only way to make sense of 1st Corinthians -- and all we have are sketchy pictures of what Paul supposedly experienced. He clearly thought that whatever it was it proved that Jesus had actually been resurrected or there is no way to make sense of his later career.

I agree, Paul must believe in a resurrected Jesus, but I still have doubts he feels he actually met such a creature, and that may play into the apostalic tradition you and cj were discussing earlier. I will admit, I have been working my way through Acts once again (Yay for the Scriptural Literacy thread!), and now I am more confused than ever. At times, it feels as if the author is randomly substituting God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all over the place. It is as if the Trinity doctrine never existed, and these three, um, entities had different jobs associated with them, but rarely made it clear which one was acting when. What makes it even more tangled is the fact that the chapter implies that there is a difference between being baptized in the name of Jesus and being baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit.

Meh, I will need to re-re-read this and post about it in that other thread to see how you and Greediguts see it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree, Paul must believe in a resurrected Jesus, but I still have doubts he feels he actually met such a creature, and that may play into the apostalic tradition you and cj were discussing earlier. I will admit, I have been working my way through Acts once again (Yay for the Scriptural Literacy thread!), and now I am more confused than ever. At times, it feels as if the author is randomly substituting God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all over the place. It is as if the Trinity doctrine never existed, and these three, um, entities had different jobs associated with them, but rarely made it clear which one was acting when. What makes it even more tangled is the fact that the chapter implies that there is a difference between being baptized in the name of Jesus and being baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit.

Meh, I will need to re-re-read this and post about it in that other thread to see how you and Greediguts see it.

Yeah, I don't know exactly what Paul thought about his "vision" though he did make a point that Jesus had "appeared to him, as one untimely born".

I don't think the author of Luke/Acts would ever have thought in terms of the trinity. The whole trinity thing was a later invention. I'm not entirely sure how Luke made sense of the whole thing, but Acts is mostly about how the Holy Spirit becomes a force in the world (which cannot be stopped -- all evidence to the contrary). Just as Jesus was rejected by his people, so he took his message to the rest of the Jews, so the apostles are rejected and they take the message to the rest of the world -- the gentiles (making Paul the hero) through the power of the Spirit. I don't think he thought out all the implications of what Jesus was or what the Holy Spirit was, though I always had the idea that he thought of the Spirit as an emanation from God and Jesus as a prophet beloved by God (but not God himself). I'm probably weaker on Acts than any other book in the New Testament though.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Are you saying Jesus was omniscient in the crib and when he was sleeping as an adult.

First, would you please learn the correct use of the punctuation mark at the end of this sentence? It is called a "question mark" and is used - wait for it - to indicate that you are asking a question. The little dot you are so addicted to is a "period" (at least in punctuation - in other places it's a decimal point and in still others, just a dot) and is used to indicate that you are making a declarative statement.

Next, in response to what I assume (since there is no question mark) was your question: you tell me. He's your guy. However, I would think you would get into some tricky theological questions if you try to argue that the omniscience of an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, infinite entity can be limited.

Additionally, if, as you are suggesting, he was non-rational as an infant, and unconscious when asleep, then he could hardly have been appreciating the human condition at those times, either, could he? Which was the point of your post to which I replied.

But this is all just so much eyewash. Where was that evidence again?

 

[Hokulele]

Yeah, I don't know exactly what Paul thought about his "vision" though he did make a point that Jesus had "appeared to him, as one untimely born".

I don't think the author of Luke/Acts would ever have thought in terms of the trinity. The whole trinity thing was a later invention. I'm not entirely sure how Luke made sense of the whole thing, but Acts is mostly about how the Holy Spirit becomes a force in the world (which cannot be stopped -- all evidence to the contrary). Just as Jesus was rejected by his people, so he took his message to the rest of the Jews, so the apostles are rejected and they take the message to the rest of the world -- the gentiles (making Paul the hero) through the power of the Spirit. I don't think he thought out all the implications of what Jesus was or what the Holy Spirit was, though I always had the idea that he thought of the Spirit as an emanation from God and Jesus as a prophet beloved by God (but not God himself). I'm probably weaker on Acts than any other book in the New Testament though.

I don't think the author of Luke/Acts thought of things in terms of a trinity doctrine, but I am positive later translators/transcribers did, and may have influenced the text, in some cases rather significantly. How hard would it be to substitute one term for another to clarify a point?

Anyway, this may be better discussed in the other thread.

 

[six7s]

Reading the last 10 or so posts (since I quoted the somewhat erroneous stuff about Horus and JC) reminds me why I like this forum so much!

Polite, concise debunking of the woo I posted ⇒ JREF

 

[Thunder]

Billions of people believe the Bible to be true.

Therefore, it must be true.



Plus, the Bible says thousands of people saw Jesus resurrected. How could thousands of people be wrong?

 

[Z]

Billions of people believe the Bible to be true.

Therefore, it must be true.



Plus, the Bible says thousands of people saw Jesus resurrected. How could thousands of people be wrong?

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong...