• 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.
You want to blame Christianity for the the shortcomings of some of the people who claim to be Christians. That's like blaming the free enterprise system for crooked business executives who cook the books to deceive investors.
And that IS the fault of the free Enterprise system. It's why we don't HAVE a pure free Enterprise system, but have regulations.

Anyway, the free Enterprise system accepts the idea that some people will be "screwed" but that it's the best thing overall for the most people. It's not perfect, but it's the best we got. Are you saying that Christianity (The religion of the one true god) accepts the idea that some people will be "screwed" in the process by God's love? That Christianity isn't perfect, but it's the best we got?

Even Christ said not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. He also said (paraphrasing) there are those who have my name on their lips but not in their heart.
Yes, but even Christ condoned slavery. It seems that the pinnacle of good in the religion was wrong about some things.
 
Posted by Doc

'The eternal salvation of countless souls.'

What evidence do you have that the soul exists? Where are they saved?
That reminds me of a song we used to sing when the heart was younger than of even date.
(To the tune of John Brown's Body)

Jesus puts his money in the Cardiff savings bank,
Jesus puts his money in the Cardiff savings bank,
Jesus puts his money in the Cardiff savings bank,
Jesus saves,Jesus saves
 
And you want to credit Christianity with all the achievements of the people who claim to be Christians, and throw in a few achievements of people who don't.

Dave
And deny any achievements by non-Christians while also denying badness perpetrated by Christians and the Church because "they were not REAL Christians."

DOC is the panultimate hypocrite.
 
And deny any achievements by non-Christians while also denying badness perpetrated by Christians and the Church because "they were not REAL Christians."

DOC is the panultimate hypocrite.
It's equivilent to a researcher throwing out all data which refutes a hypothesis as "outliers". 1 or two, I'd agree, but when there's ample evidence to the contrary, you know longer have an "outlier" situation.
 
Yes, but even Christ condoned slavery. It seems that the pinnacle of good in the religion was wrong about some things.
Using you're logic there would have been less slavery in the world and slavery throughout the world would have ended sooner if Christ and Christians never existed. This would be a ridiculous assumption. I have to believe the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Rev. Ralph Abernathy would agree it is a ridiculous assumption.
 
Last edited:
Using you're logic there would have been less slavery in the world if Christ and Christians never existed.
Nah, but it sure as hell hasn''t done anything to change it.

This would be a ridiculous assumption. I have to believe the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Rev. Ralph Abernathy would agree it is a ridiculous assumption.
Indeed it is totally ridiculous, hence why are you the only one claiming it?
 
Oh yeah DOC. So with all those links and citations provided, are you going to come clean and state that Eusebius is a liar?
 
Can living things without souls leave thousands of posts on the Randi website.
Define a soul. What is it? What does it do? What is it composed of? Can it exist without a brain? What evidence do you have that it exist?
 
Define a soul. What is it? What does it do?
One of my definitions of a soul would be the thing that is capable of leaving thousands of posts on a the Randi website.

You didn't respond to my question. Is is possible for a thing without a soul to leave thousands of posts on a Randi website? If you don't believe in a soul then that question should be easy to answer.
 
What citation proves Eusebius was a liar.
So you didn't read a single one?
Talk about lazy.
"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself,
indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory,
and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.
Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion
that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other;
and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries".

--- Gibbon

"[Eusebius was] the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." "not until the mass of inventions labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are."

--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries"
(Gibbon, Rome, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1876).

"It must be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals"
(Gibbon, Rome, vol. iii. p. 163).


[FONT=&quot]“Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their "corrected" ― though really corrupted ― texts. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed.
-Paul Maier[/FONT]
 
Yes. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

OK, you've gone on record that people who leave thousands of posts on Randi don't have souls.

ETA: And the evidence is the thousands of posts this soul puts forth the effort to leave.
 
Last edited:
One of my definitions of a soul would be the thing that is capable of leaving thousands of posts on a the Randi website.
As per your completely and utterly useless definition, yeah sure. Everyone with a computer and internet access has a "soul", people without a computer are soulless.
You didn't respond to my question. Is is possible for a thing without a soul to leave thousands of posts on a Randi website? If you don't believe in a soul then that question should be easy to answer.
Using your useless definition, sure people without computers or internet access can't leave messages on an internet forum.

What is the relevance of your soul to anything again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom