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

[joobz]

Good catch Joobz!

Don't thank me, it's Greediguts who found the lie.

DOC, what Geisler did is called a Lie of omission. A quote mine is a lie when you change the meaning of the quote by removing context. It's dishonest and deceitful. By omitting the clearly contradictory statement, Geisler made it appear that Sherwin-White would agree with Geisler's conclusion. This is false.

My example show's Geisler's willingness to publish made up facts (aka, lie). (university, indeed...)
Greediguts show's Geisler's willingness to quote mine (aka, lie).
And all throughout Page 1-5 of this thread, it was shown that all of Geisler's arguments are dependant upon blatant logical fallacies (a moronic think to do)

DOC, this isn't a "matter of opinion", it's a matter of fact. You have not presented any evidence supporting the OP. As such, the onus is on you to actually present some, or admit the OP is false.

Of course, you could continue to pretend like Geisler's arguments are still valid, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's usually not a good thing to rely on lying morons for support.

 

[Simon39759]

Oops; you're correct. I missed this last part, busy was I reading the other very interesting arguments in the post...

 

[DOC]

Is that the same Luke who has Jesus condoning slavery and the beating of slaves for violating rules that were unaware of?

Joobz your flooding the thread over and over again; try to come up with something new. And you did the same thing in the "Thomas Jefferson's Admiration and Financial support of Christianity" thread on the slavery issue.

I've already given a lengthy response to your point about the beating of slaves in post in post #2752:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4569083#post4569083

And I've already given additional responses to you're obsessive slavery issue in posts:

2705, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100.

If you are so obsessed with this issue you need to start your own thread. I've said all I'm going to say about this issue. I think my almost 20 posts are enough. If you continue to flood the thread I'll have to start complaining to a moderator.

 

[DOC]

Still waiting DOC.

There is more evidence for the Resurrection than there is that a living cell can be created over time from non-living chemicals. The reason being it has never been proved in an experiment and yet you have no problem believing this unproven theory.

We've already talked extensively about the Resurrection in this thread. I don't have the time to do it again when there are many other posts I have to respond to, especially to a person that has called me a vile twit (or whatever it was) and a liar. If you want to rebut arguments about the evidence of the resurrection, rebut the arguments from this site:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[joobz]

Joobz your flooding the thread over and over again; try to come up with something new. And you did the same thing in the "Thomas Jefferson's Admiration and Financial support of Christianity" thread on the slavery issue.

The slavery issue is HUGE and one that you have failed to address. I know you'd like to pretend it's going away, but It won't.

Sorry.

If you are so obsessed with this issue you need to start your own thread. I've said all I'm going to say about this issue. I think my almost 20 posts are enough. If you continue to flood the thread I'll have to start complaining to a moderator.

It's perfectly acceptable here as it contradicts your claims of truthfulness and moral goodness of the bible. As long as that's the theme of your thread, the slavery argument is valid.

If you feel this is not fair, I encourage you to contact a moderator. If they feel the argument is off topic, then I'll stop. But as it is a perfect example of why the bible can't be both true and moral, it is relevant.

 

[RobRoy]

Here is a prescription for some antacids for your heart burn. Take a couple and call me in the morning.

I had the same thing. But then the light said "South Park was right. Mormonism is the correct religion." I assumed the light was kidding.

That's it? That's all I get!?

Even joobz didn't jump on that post.

Sheesh. April 1 FAIL!

 

[joobz]

There is more evidence for the Resurrection than there is that a living cell can be created over time from non-living chemicals. The reason being it has never been proved in an experiment and yet you have no problem believing this unproven theory.

We've already talked extensively about the Resurrection in this thread. I don't have the time to do it again when there are many other posts I have to respond to, especially to a person that has called me a vile twit (or whatever it was) and a liar. If you want to rebut arguments about the evidence of the resurrection, rebut the arguments from this site:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

DOC, we've refuted those points, and we are left with that being unaddressed.

Unfortunately, for you, you are the one spamming the same stuff over and over again. You haven't presented an argument that hasn't already been addressed.
Geisler was destroyed in this thread.
That site was destroyed in this thread.

 

[joobz]

That's it? That's all I get!?

Even joobz didn't jump on that post.

Sheesh. April 1 FAIL!

I saw it, Sorry. I thought if funny.

 

[DOC]

DOC, this isn't a "matter of opinion", it's a matter of fact. You have not presented any evidence supporting the OP. As such, the onus is on you to actually present some, or admit the OP is false.

Is it really possible to make 634 posts in an evidence thread like I have in this thread without any evidence. People really need to take time to think about that.

 

[six7s]

Is it really possible to make 634 posts in an evidence thread like I have in this thread without any evidence.

Evidently

I wonder, can you make another 32 such posts?

People really need to take time to think about that.

You're funny!

 

[paximperium]

There is more evidence for the Resurrection than there is that a living cell can be created over time from non-living chemicals. The reason being it has never been proved in an experiment and yet you have no problem believing this unproven theory.

We've already talked extensively about the Resurrection in this thread. I don't have the time to do it again when there are many other posts I have to respond to, especially to a person that has called me a vile twit (or whatever it was) and a liar. If you want to rebut arguments about the evidence of the resurrection, rebut the arguments from this site:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

NO. I'm not doing YOUR homework for YOU. You are obviously unable to read English, are exceedingly lazy or are you aware that you are unable to present YOUR SINGLE BEST EVIDENCE.

Your dodge is noted.
Your refusal to accept the challenge is noted.
I am assuming that you completely and unable to present your BEST SINGLE ONE piece of evidence to discuss(ONE; not TWO, THREE or TEN) because there isn't any.

 

[paximperium]

Is it really possible to make 634 posts in an evidence thread like I have in this thread without any evidence. People really need to take time to think about that.

Yes it is. You are the perfect example of an empty blowhard who wins arguments purely by being stubborn and filled with hot air. You believe you can bully people off this thread by being inane and claim a victory.

Your continues repeat of this lie just shows how exceedingly dishonest you are and how stupid you must think people who read your post are.

 

[paximperium]

That's it? That's all I get!?

Even joobz didn't jump on that post.

Sheesh. April 1 FAIL!

An April Fools joke needs to be even barely plausible. DOC couldn't convince a retarded 4year child to his nonsense; he'd probably drive the child towards atheism with his inanity.

 

[DOC]

Geisler was destroyed in this thread.
That site was destroyed in this thread.

The kind of statement might have some effect in an oral debate, but the good news for me is my #634 posts are out there to read.

 

[joobz]

Is it really possible to make 634 posts in an evidence thread like I have in this thread without any evidence. People really need to take time to think about that.

YUP! it's fully possible.

Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that we're both right*, because we've both been posting hundreds of posts in this thread.


*Using the law of non-contradiction, this can't be true. So what do you think the answer to your question is?

 

[paximperium]

The kind of statement might have some effect in an oral debate, but the good news for me is my #634 posts are out there to read.

Your kind of statement might have some effect in an oral debate, but the good news is PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY READ YOUR NONSENSE to show Joobz's statement to be true.

 

[paximperium]

YUP! it's fully possible.

Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that we're both right*, because we've both been posting hundreds of posts in this thread.


*Using the law of non-contradiction, this can't be true. So what do you think the answer to your question is?

DOC. Would like to take a poll on how many lurkers actually agree with you or Joobz?

 

[joobz]

The kind of statement might have some effect in an oral debate, but the good news for me is my #634 posts are out there to read.

This post doesn't advance the argument.
Multiple people here have found MULTIPLE errors in Geisler's arguments.

Are you saying that you are right and we're all wrong?

I'm intentionally comitting the same logical fallacy that DOC uses...

 

[RobRoy]

An April Fools joke needs to be even barely plausible. DOC couldn't convince a retarded 4year child to his nonsense; he'd probably drive the child towards atheism with his inanity.

So you're saying that I'm smarter than a retarded 4 year-old. Thanks Pax!

Some people have questioned my intelligence on this forum. Now, if anyone asks, I'll just point them to your post as an affidavit.

 

[paximperium]

So you're saying that I'm smarter than a retarded 4 year-old. Thanks Pax!

Your April Fools joke is like pretending to be a 2year old anencephalic child. That's too much even for you...kids with no brains can't type.