• 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.
The following post has been edited by me to prove a point:

DOC said:
These are nice complicated hard to follow theories by biased, misguided and evil people. But even "if" Eusebius added some historical information to a work, that doesn't mean that historical information was false. Eusebius was following God's will and God is infallible. Except when it comes to changing his mind. Remember they didn't have newspapers or CNN back then. Just Fox. Information was reliable. If a copyist had additional new information that was true, I personally would would welcome all the additional new information I could get, and gladly have in interspersed into someone else's work, as though it were there originally. Eusebius was perfect and followed the teachings of Christ and all the works of the New Testament. Eusebius has nothing to do with writing the actual bible.
Click to expand...



So, DOC, is what I did dishonest?





EDIT: Because this is a new page, I'll include the original test below.

DOC said:
These are nice complicated hard to follow theories by mostly anti religion websites. But even "if" Eusebius added some historical information to a work. That doesn't mean that historical information was false. Remember they didn't have newspapers or CNN back then. Information was scarce. If a copyist had additional new information that was true, I personally would would welcome all the additional new information I could get. And even "if" Eusebius might have not have been perfect that has no relation to the teachings of Christ or all the works of the New Testament. Eusebius has nothing to do with the actual bible.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
Thanks for showing off your complete and utter lack of any intellectual integrity. Fraud is obviously justified if it agrees with your beliefs. The ends justify the means.
Click to expand...

You forget that some historians believe that the Josephus quote in question is accurate. And most historians do believe the one dealing with James and Jesus is accurate. If you have good evidence that the "James and Jesus" quote has a partial interpolation please present it.

And would it be fraud if a Jewish writer inserted a small passage in a work to inform people about what was going on in Nazi camps if it was true.
 
DOC said:
You forget that some historians believe that the Josephus quote in question is accurate. And most historians do believe the one dealing with James and Jesus is accurate. If you have good evidence that the "James and Jesus" quote has a partial interpolation please present it.
Click to expand...


If you have good evidence that the "James and Jesus" quote is evidence of the resurrection, please be so kind as to provide it.

And would it be fraud if a Jewish writer inserted a small passage in a work to inform people about what was going on in Nazi camps if it was true.
Click to expand...


It would be fraud if people then later claimed that the entire work was an accurate history written by the original author. Why do you think an encylopedia has the editor's name on the front rather than claiming he/she is the author of the tome?
 
DOC said:
You forget that some historians believe that the Josephus quote in question is accurate.
Click to expand...
So?
Who is "some historian" or is this the best you can do?
And most historians do believe the one dealing with James and Jesus is accurate. If you have good evidence that the "James and Jesus" quote has a partial interpolation please present it.
Click to expand...
No. The quote in question clearly states a James and a Jesus. This James was martyred. End of story. The full statement does not mention who this Jesus is.
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

And would it be fraud if a Jewish writer inserted a small passage in a work to inform people about what was going on in Nazi camps if it was true.
Click to expand...
You are one disgusting person. Your persistent attempts to use the holocaust for your own ends is just truly disgusting.

Your example is has nothing to do with the additions in Josephus's writings.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Ah, so you agree that there is no evidence outside of the bible of the resurrection. Good.
Click to expand...

How about the huge (still in use) St. Peter's basillica smack dab in the heart of the extinct Roman Empire. I would say something caused it to progress from a group of scared apostles holed up in a upper room, wouldn't you.

And besides there is very little evidence I can present in here short of Christ coming through your computer screen that's going to make prolific Randi posters (who don't believe they have souls) believe anyway.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
How about the huge (still in use) St. Peter's basillica smack dab in the heart of the extinct Roman Empire. I would say something caused it to progress from a group of scared apostles holed up in a upper room, wouldn't you.
Click to expand...


That's evidence for the existence of the Christian Church, not for the resurrection.

Do you consider the existence of all those mosques in Mecca, a city where Muhammad and his followers were at one time persecuted, to be evidence for the truth of Islam? I would say something caused it to progress from a persecuted minority to the dominant religion, wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Ah, so you agree that there is no evidence outside of the bible of the resurrection. Good.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you agree there is no evidence (only theory) that living organisms can come from non-living chemicals. The reason for that being it has never been experimentally proved.
 
Mojo said:
That's evidence for the existence of the Christian Church, not for the resurrection.

Do you consider the existence of all those mosques in Mecca, a city where Muhammad and his followers were at one time persecuted, to be evidence for the truth of Islam? I would say something caused it to progress from a persecuted minority to the dominant religion, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Sharp swords was a big reason for its initial growth unlike Christianity.
 
DOC said:
And besides there is very little evidence I can present in here short of Christ coming through your computer screen that's going to make prolific Randi posters (who don't believe they have souls) believe anyway.
Click to expand...
DOC, you've presented NO evidence. Very little, implies that some was given, which is simply not true.
 
DOC said:
And I'm sure you agree there is no evidence (only theory) that living organisms can come from non-living chemicals. The reason for that being it has never been experimentally proved.
Click to expand...


Neither has the development of the Christian Church. Do you accept the possibility, then, that the Bible could be a hoax perpetrated at some point over the last couple of thousand years?
 
DOC said:
Sharp swords was a big reason for its initial growth unlike Christianity.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that christianity wasn't spread by violence?

Shall I rehash the list of genocides done in the name of christianity?
 
DOC said:
Sharp swords was a big reason for its initial growth unlike Christianity.
Click to expand...

Or are you by chance talking about the first couple centuries after the apostolic (sp?) period? The ones where the early church was persecuted mercilessly and converts were brought in due to both proselyzation and the curiosity of people which went something like "those guys are dying violently for something, I wonder what it is and if it's worth believing".

That episode of swords and violence spread Christianity at least as much as the later crusades and other holy wars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom