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

[joobz]

No, I haven't.

Well, it certainly completely avoids mentioning the resurrection.

As I said before, why would Josephus, who owed much to the Romans and lived in Rome, want to build up and advertise a threat to the Roman empire and the Roman gods. This would most likely not make his Roman superiors happy. We know what happened to the Roman gods once the masses found out about Jesus.

So if Josephus didn't mention it, who did?

 

[Hokulele]

If there is no evidence for consciousness separate from the physical body how is it possible for the soulless bodies in here to keep demanding evidence?

I would recommend starting with V.S. Ramachandran's writings on neurology, neuroscience, sources of consciousness, and neurotheology. There is a bunch of neat stuff out there, none of which necessitates a soul.

It doesn't make sense for soulless bodies to demand evidence.

It doesn't make sense to insist on the existence of something without evidence. Mary Roach's book Spook - Science Tackles the Afterlife has a good discussion on this very thing.

Can physical living material demand evidence?

Apparently so.

Can physical living material post thousands of posts on a Randi site?

Yes, as can physical non-living material. If you haven't yet met AutoModAction, please keep derailing this thread.

 

[kedo1981]

I think my favorite “proof” is the one about the angels at the tomb.
Well one gospel writer mentions two angels but another mentions just one, and this is proof of “convergent” evidence.
I’ve use this on my little brother,

“how many donuts did you eat,

“one donut”

“But there was two and now there all gone”

“I eat one t then I eat another donut”

 

[six7s]

Can physical living material post thousands of posts on a Randi site?

Yes, as can physical non-living material. If you haven't yet met AutoModAction, please keep derailing this thread.

Win!

Ba-dum-pish!

 

[DOC]

I think my favorite “proof” is the one about the angels at the tomb.
Well one gospel writer mentions two angels but another mentions just one, and this is proof of “convergent” evidence.

So you are complaining that the gospels are too different. Yet others in the threads have complained they are too similar and merely copies of each other. Skeptics should make up their minds - Are the gospels too different or too similar, you can't have it both ways.

In response to your point about the angels here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1966 says on this matter under the subject "Resurrection of Christ" page 407.

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events: the discovery of the empty tomb by women, the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles, the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples), and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles. That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

 

[Hokulele]

So you are complaining that the gospels are too different. Yet others in the threads have complained they are too similar and merely copies of each other. Skeptics should make up their minds - Are the gospels too different or too similar, you can't have it both ways.

They are too different to be "the inerrant word of God" and too similar to be written independently.

See? It is perfectly possible to have it both ways.

 

[joobz]

So you are complaining that the gospels are too different. Yet others in the threads have complained they are too similar and merely copies of each other. Skeptics should make up their minds - Are the gospels too different or too similar, you can't have it both ways.

Who argued they were too similar?

It's been argued that some of the gospels relied on other gospels for thier writing, but that's not the same thing as saying they are "too similar".

 

[Hokulele]

Who argued they were too similar?

It's been argued that some of the gospels relied on other gospels for thier writing, but that's not the same thing as saying they are "too similar".

Well, I did offer evidence that Matthew was a plagiarist (with poor reading comprehension), and Ichneumonwasp was more than happy to discuss the history of early Christianity. Maybe that is what DOC is referring too?

Nah, he is simply quoting Geisler again.

Ironically, it's not the New Testament that is contradictory, it's the critics. On one hand, the critics claim that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are too uniform to be independent sources. On the other hand, they claim they are too divergent to be telling the truth. So which are they? Are they too uniform or too divergent?

Apparently both Geisler and DOC are too timid to read any current biblical scholarship regarding Mark and Quelle as sources for Matthew and Luke.

 

[joobz]

Well, I did offer evidence that Matthew was a plagiarist (with poor reading comprehension), and Ichneumonwasp was more than happy to discuss the history of early Christianity. Maybe that is what DOC is referring too?

That's what I was thinking he was getting at, but saying "Too similar" is a dishonest summary of the argument.

 

[DOC]

If there is no evidence for consciousness separate from the physical body how is it possible for the soulless bodies in here to keep demanding evidence?

It doesn't make sense for soulless bodies to demand evidence. Can physical living material demand evidence?

Consiousness is a result of the physical body. We have direct evidence of this, as we can alter consiousness and personality by altering the brain, physically and chemically.

Yes, the Bible knows full well of this, it mentions drunkenness several times, but that has nothing to do with its message about the soul. According to the bible the body and soul are separate. You can get drunk or do drugs and this affects the physical mind -- that's the part of us that says the abc's and adds 2 +2 but the physical mind/intellect and the soul are not the same thing. The soul deals with right and wrong. When you feel guilty about doing something that's the soul. If a person does not have the ability to feel guilt, then they are not in touch with their soul. If a person is not in touch with or aware of their soul for whatever reason then probably the only way to get in touch with it is too pray to God to help you become aware of it.

 

[joobz]

Yes, the Bible knows full well of this, it mentions drunkenness several times, but that has nothing to do with its message about the soul. According to the bible the body and soul are separate. You can get drunk or do drugs and this affects the physical mind -- that's the part of us that says the abc's and adds 2 +2 but the physical mind/intellect and the soul are not the same thing. The soul deals with right and wrong. When you feel guilty about doing something that's the soul. If a person does not have the ability to feel guilt, then they are not in touch with their soul. If a person is not in touch with or aware of their soul for whatever reason then probably the only way to get in touch with it is too pray to God to help you become aware of it.

Drugs are only part of the equation. Behavioral, morali, and personality changes are a halmark of some brain tumors. Tell me, why is the soul sensitive to brain tumors?

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, the Bible knows full well of this, it mentions drunkenness several times, but that has nothing to do with its message about the soul. According to the bible the body and soul are separate. You can get drunk or do drugs and this affects the physical mind -- that's the part of us that says the abc's and adds 2 +2 but the physical mind/intellect and the soul are not the same thing. The soul deals with right and wrong. When you feel guilty about doing something that's the soul. If a person does not have the ability to feel guilt, then they are not in touch with their soul. If a person is not in touch with or aware of their soul for whatever reason then probably the only way to get in touch with it is too pray to God to help you become aware of it.

No, that is empathy or a conscience. That has nothing to do with a soul, since they do not exist.

In your world, do dogs have souls? Cockroaches? Maple trees? Jellyfish?

 

[DOC]

Who argued they were too similar?

It's been argued that some of the gospels relied on other gospels for thier writing, but that's not the same thing as saying they are "too similar".

Sure it is.

 

[Hokulele]

Sure it is.

No, it isn't.

 

[DOC]

They are too different to be "the inerrant word of God" and too similar to be written independently.

See? It is perfectly possible to have it both ways.

To your mind it is in error, but those perceived errors can be a result of many things. For example a human copying error, or a human error in translation, or some thing our imperfect human minds don't understand fully understand yet. Also things like there actually might have been 2 angels at the tomb but one of the witnesses only noticed the one angel standing in front of her while another witness noticed another angel several feet away.

 

[Hokulele]

To your mind it is in error, but those perceived errors can be a result of many things. For example a human copying error, or a human error in translation, or some thing our imperfect human minds don't understand fully understand yet. Also things like there actually might have been 2 angels at the tomb but one of the witnesses only noticed the one angel standing in front of her while another witness noticed another angel several feet away.

Wonderful, at least you aren't one of those "inerrant" types and do admit that there are flaws in the bible.

So, any evidence that angels exist?

 

[paximperium]

I never claimed spambots have souls. You know what I meant. I meant one of my definitions of the soul would be living creatures who post thousands of messages on the Randi site have souls. You're just trying avoid coming right out and saying humans don't have souls. Your have to say it in a indirect way as evidenced by your last sentence above.

Do you have the courage to come right out a say human beings do not have souls? Yes, or No.

No. I don't know what you mean by a "soul".

Don't blame people for not being able to read your mind because you don't have the balls to clearly define the "soul".

 

[arthwollipot]

I've just skipped about a hundred posts. Have we got anywhere yet?

 

[Hokulele]

I've just skipped about a hundred posts. Have we got anywhere yet?

I think we just got back to page 4.

 

[paximperium]

If there is no evidence for consciousness separate from the physical body how is it possible for the soulless bodies in here to keep demanding evidence?

Because people are demanding evidence. Why is the lack of a soul exempt a call for evidence?

It doesn't make sense for soulless bodies to demand evidence.

Why?

Can physical living material demand evidence?

Yes.

Can physical living material post thousands of posts on a Randi site?

Yes.