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

[paximperium]

What question has been asked 24 times that I didn't respond to and I'll respond to it? And I guess my 650 posts are not enough for some people.

650post filled with lies and garbage are often not very satisfying to people who care about the truth. Some people on the other just care about quantity of garbage produced not quality.

 

[DOC]

Still trying to sell that raggedy old story, huh? What about the number of suicide bombers who have died for Islam? Does that prove Islam is true?

Actually the suicide bombers died and die for much more than Islam. They're are political, nationalistic, and cultural reasons also. Whereas the martyrs I listed died for totally religious reasons. If they renounce Christ, they don't die.

 

[paximperium]

Actually the suicide bombers died and die for much more than Islam. They're are political, nationalistic, and cultural reasons also. Whereas the martyrs I listed died for totally religious reasons.

Your ignorance about Islam is very pathetic:

“The daughter of Khabbaat and the mother of ‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir, she was the seventh person to enter Islam. She was tortured by Abu Jahl who stabbed her in her private parts, and she died. She was the first shaheedah (martyr) in Islaam… Al-Mujaahid said: The first seven to publicly declare their Islam in Makkah were: the Messenger of Allah , Abu Bakr, Bilaal, Khabbaab, Suhayb, ‘Ammaar and Sumaya. The Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr were protected by their own people, but the others were forced to wear iron shields then were exposed to the burning sun. Abu Jahl came to Sumaya and stabbed her in her private parts, killing her. This was reported by Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah from Mujaahid; it is mursal and its isnaad is saheeh. Ibn Sa’d reported with a saheeh isnaad from Mujaahid: The first martyr in Islam was Sumayah, the mother of ‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir. She was an old, weak woman (according to a report narrated by al-Bayhaqi: Abu Jahl stabbed her in her private parts. Al-Dalaa’il, 2/282). When Abu Jahl was killed on the day of Badr, the Prophet said (to ‘Ammaar): ‘Allah has killed the one who killed your mother.’” (al-Isaabah, 4/327; al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer, 3/59).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_(martyr)

Whereas the martyrs I listed died for totally religious reasons.

Really? ALL OF THEM? Not a single one had a cultural, nationalistic or political reasons to die for their beliefs? You really don't know a thing about early Christianity do you?

If they renounce Christ, they don't die.

So they committed suicide just as the suicide bombers did. What's the difference again?

 

[DOC]

Your ignorance about Islam is very pathetic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_(martyr)
Really? ALL OF THEM? Not a single one had a cultural, nationalistic or political reasons to die for their beliefs? You really don't know a thing about early Christianity do you?

So they committed suicide just as the suicide bombers did. What's the difference again?

So when Muslims intentionally kill other Muslims in Iraq by suicide bombings are you saying there are no political forces at work.

And name one of the martyrs I listed in post #3070, that did not die for strictly religious reasons.

 

[DOC]

What response? No one has seen it. Please post a direct link.

So now you speak for everyone, were you elected spokesman?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4605018#post4605018

 

[DOC]

You really don't know a thing about early Christianity do you?

Statements like these seriously hurt your credibility. You know they're false. You really should take the time to cool off before you respond. Emotion and logical analysis usually don't mix.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Actually the suicide bombers died and die for much more than Islam. They're are political, nationalistic, and cultural reasons also. Whereas the martyrs I listed died for totally religious reasons. If they renounce Christ, they don't die.

The point is that suicide bombers die for their beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be. By your (very silly) argument, that makes those beliefs true.

 

[DOC]

The point is that suicide bombers die for their beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be. By your (very silly) argument, that makes those beliefs true.

Strawman

 

[zooterkin]

Statements like these seriously hurt your credibility.

He does at least have some credibility

You know they're false.

Not based on what you've said in this thread and others. You've even admitted to not having read the whole bible.

You really should take the time to cool off before you respond. Emotion and logical analysis usually don't mix.

It's very brave of you to comment on things of which you know so little.

 

[Elizabeth I]

The point is that suicide bombers die for their beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be. By your (very silly) argument, that makes those beliefs true.

Strawman

Um, no:

So then I would assume that you believe that these "historical" figures probably died for a literary device:

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 34 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Saint Mark was dragged in the streets until his death
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew flayed alive and crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed with a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hung.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^WP [emphasis mine]

If you're not arguing that willingness to be martyred for an idea proves that idea's truth, then what are you arguing? Because your (very silly) post makes no sense otherwise.

 

[Mojo]

Because your (very silly) post makes no sense otherwise.

His post makes no sense anyway: many, perhaps all, of those listed died before Mark's gospel was written or circulated, so their deaths can't have had much to do with the literary device in question.

 

[Elizabeth I]

His post makes no sense anyway: many, perhaps all, of those listed died before Mark's gospel was written or circulated, so their deaths can't have had much to do with the literary device in question.

You're quite right, of course, but it makes even less sense if he tries to say that he wasn't arguing what he clearly was arguing.

 

[six7s]

Still waiting

You must have missed my response.

No

I read your response

It was bollocks

I'm 'still waiting' for a sincere, meaningful, concise and coherent answer to my simple question

But I ain't holding my breath

 

[paximperium]

Statements like these seriously hurt your credibility. You know they're false.

If you believe simply stating such nonsense makes it true, you truly are delusional. You have no credibility and have been shown to be a perpetual liar and a pretty incompetent apologist.

It is a statement of truth. Your entire post history is evidence of your ignorance and delusion. You are ignorant about early Christian history..in fact your are pretty ignorant about Christianity is general. You deny and twist history to fit your delusion.

You really should take the time to cool off before you respond. Emotion and logical analysis usually don't mix.

Please stop projecting your nonsense onto others. There is nothing emotional with my statement. It as factual as stating that the sun rises from the east. You are ignorant. That is fact.

 

[six7s]

The point is that suicide bombers die for their beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be. By your (very silly) argument, that makes those beliefs true.

Strawman

FAIL

Either try harder, DOC, or admit that its you who is clutching at straws

 

[DOC]

It is a statement of truth. Your entire post history is evidence of your ignorance and delusion.

Sometimes I think you don't realize that my 650+ posts in this thread are out there for everyone to read. But I must admit you'd be pretty good in a live oral debate. Unfortunately, for you this is a written debate that has a written trail (for those willing to take the time to read my posts).

...You are ignorant about early Christian history...

You must have missed most of my posts in this thread and my 13 page thread from 2 years ago that dealt almost entirely with the early history of the Church. Of course I am much more knowledgeable now then I was 2 years ago. In cased you missed that early Church history thread, here it is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

 

[Mojo]

Sometimes I think you don't realize that my 650+ posts in this thread are out there for everyone to read.

Sometimes I think that you don't realise that this means that people can read them.

 

[Wally]

Sometimes I think you don't realize that my 650+ posts in this thread are out there for everyone to read. But I must admit you'd be pretty good in a live debate. Unfortunately, for you this is a written debate and has a paper trail for those willing to take the time to read it.




You must have missed most of my posts in this thread and my 13 page thread from 2 years ago that dealt almost entirely with the early history of the Church. Of course I am much more knowledgeable now then I was 2 years ago. In cased you missed that early Church history thread, here it is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

It is the very existence of those 650 posts in this tread and that 13 page thread from 2 years ago that are EVIDENCE (you remember that word don't you) that Paximperium is entirely correct. Have you noticed that not a single rational person has jumped in to support any of your positions????

 

[DOC]

It is the very existence of those 650 posts in this tread and that 13 page thread from 2 years ago that are EVIDENCE (you remember that word don't you) that Paximperium is entirely correct.

So you read that 13 page thread given in post 3116 in 15 minutes??

 

[Lothian]

Sometimes I think you don't realize that my 650+ posts in this thread are out there for everyone to read.

Shall we look at some of them?

I have over 80 posts in this thread.

I don't have the time right now to go through my other 80+ posts.

And I asked you to list only 3 fallacious arguments in my 100 posts in this thread and which post they came from.

List one specific lie contained in my 163 posts and your proof that it is a lie.

But it is my belief God does give enough evidence (some of which I have pointed out in my 160+ posts) to rationally believe in Him,

Huh, haven't you read my 174 posts?

Would it be possible for me to post 200+ times in an evidence thread that has around 90 other posters without giving any evidence

And a lot of the evidence or reasons or whatever you want to call it that I've presented in my 200+ posts have been from the book posted in post #1.

You must have missed my last 215 posts.

And your comment about me not being well read in my faith is a joke that my 27 or so threads with thousands of posts will attest to.

Haven't you read my 259 posts..

I left over 400 posts in that thread.

Your welcome to read my 319 posts.

Your post might confuse someone who haven't read my 319 posts

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll be happy if people read at least half of my 319 posts in here and they can judge for themselves.

I'll be happy if people with an open mind read at least half of my posts.

My 358 posts are out there for everyone to read and then they can make up their own mind.

Name one post out of my 395 posts in this thread where I lied. Of course you won't be able to.

there is also more evidence within my 400 posts.

Can living things without souls leave thousands of posts on the Randi website.

Sometimes I think you don't realize that my 650+ posts in this thread are out there for everyone to read.

And the evidence is the thousands of posts this soul puts forth the effort to leave.

Name one spambot that has left thousands of posts in the Randi threads?

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

I've been on this site over 2 years and left over 2800 messages.

[And of course other information is brought out in my 460+ posts.

I believe it and in my 500 or so posts in this thread I given you some reasons why you should believe.

I've given my reasons based on facts in my 560 posts in this thread

My 500 posts in the following thread say otherwise:

My close to 3000 posts about Christianity have to have some substance behind them

Maybe 2 to 3 % at most of my 2900+ posts have to do with those topics

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

the good news for me is my #634 posts are out there to read.

And I guess my 650 posts are not enough for some people.