• 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.
DOC said:
Well since I've been told repeatedly then you should agree to apologize if I show you are incorrect and didn't lie, right. So will you agree to apologize? I have a feeling you won't agree to apologize.
Click to expand...
And you'd be wrong. Again, please stop projecting your own dishonest mindset onto others.

Didn't we play this game before? Sure, I'll apologize if you show that you didn't lie about ever presenting "evidence that John and Mathew wrote their gospels" AND "show a few(let's say 2 different persons) persons agreeing with your claim in this thread."

Sorry, I'm too lazy to slog through your drivel to find the host of posts that tear your arguments apart.

PS: Oh yeah, be sure to post the appropriate links.

Oh yeah, you can be honest and actually answer Six7s question instead of running away like you always do.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well since I've been told repeatedly then you should agree to apologize if I show you are incorrect and didn't lie, right. So will you agree to apologize? I have a feeling you won't agree to apologize.
Click to expand...

FYI to Lurkers and newer members, DOC will use semantic games to avoid admitting error. It's these semantics that he must rely on to make his case.

Previously, DOC started multiple threads with rather inconsequential details. All of these he claimed that he was merely "informing" us of facts. I started a thread stating that it was my belief that he was attempting to prove christianity true. HE denied this. I showed him wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2921675#post2921675


Now, DOC claims that providing evidence for something isn't the same as "proving" something. But, obviously, this is merely a semantic issue. What is the point of providing evidence for somthing if you aren't trying to support an argument being made. If you aren't "proving" your argument valid.

I only provide this for historical context and show that this diversion is merely an attempt to avoid actually discussing the issue at hand.


DOC, unless you can present new information (information that hasn't already been covered in this thread) that supports the OP or answer any one of the questions raised by others, then I'm guessing we are done with this topic.
 
paximperium said:
And you'd be wrong. Again, please stop projecting your own dishonest mindset onto others.

Didn't we play this game before? Sure, I'll apologize if you show that you didn't lie about ever presenting "evidence that John and Mathew wrote their gospels" AND "show a few(let's say 2 different persons) persons agreeing with your claim in this thread."

Sorry, I'm too lazy to slog through your drivel to find the host of posts that tear your arguments apart.

PS: Oh yeah, be sure to post the appropriate links.
Click to expand...

Why do you now have a stipulation that 2 people agree with my claiim. What the heck does that have to do with your claim that I lied about bringing in evidence about John and Matthew writing their gospels? Will you agree to apologize (with no invented stipulations) for calling me a liar about this -- Yes or No?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Why do you now have a stipulation that 2 people agree with my claiim. What the heck does that have to do with your claim that I lied about bringing in evidence about John and Matthew writing their gospels? Will you agree to apologize (with no invented stipulations) for calling me a liar about this -- Yes or No?
Click to expand...
The original claim was that YOUR WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY that your "evidence" is false. You don't get to change it. Just "presenting evidence" does not change the fact that you lied and repeatedly lied when told that your evidence is invalid.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Why do you now have a stipulation that 2 people agree with my claiim. What the heck does that have to do with your claim that I lied about bringing in evidence about John and Matthew writing their gospels? Will you agree to apologize (with no invented stipulations) for calling me a liar about this -- Yes or No?
Click to expand...

where is that evidence?
i got a very very good source for everything about Tora and Bible
 
So DOC. Do you want to still play this game?

Show us all how you presented evidence and that you WEREN'T told it was false and garbage(ie. show at least 2 people who agree with you...in fact just show one).
 
Dictator Cheney said:
where is that evidence?
i got a very very good source for everything about Tora and Bible
Click to expand...

All Pax has to do is agree (with no invented stipulations) that he will apologize for calling me a liar for stating that I brought in evidence that John and Matthew did write their gospels, if I can show that I did indeed bring in this evidence.

Calling someone a liar is pretty serious -- a civil person should agree to apologize if they are shown to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
So I guess DOC, you are not gonna answer any of my questions. Well, if that's the case, then continuing in this thread seems pointless, so I'm gonna bow out. Going around in circles just isn't any fun.
 
DOC said:
All Pax has to do is agree (with no invented stipulations) that he will apologize for calling me a liar for stating that I brought in evidence that John and Matthew did write their gospels, if I can show that I did indeed bring in this evidence.
Click to expand...
No. It is NOT my original claim. I will not agree to apologize for something I never claimed. You don't get to demand to change my claim to suit your nonsense.

Either show that you presented evidence and was never appropriately challenged for your claim or you can keep playing the dishonest game that you seem to enjoy.

You do realize your "martyrdome game" is pretty pathetic.
Calling someone a liar is pretty serious -- a civil person should agree to apologize if they are shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...
I will if I was. So far you've not been able to.
 
DOC said:
All Pax has to do is agree (with no invented stipulations) that he will apologize for calling me a liar for stating that I brought in evidence that John and Matthew did write their gospels, if I can show that I did indeed bring in this evidence.

Calling someone a liar is pretty serious -- a civil person should agree to apologize if they are shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...

show him wrong and i promise you to support you in pressuring pax to appologise.
im at war with that anti-acupuncture guy anyway :D
 
L The Detective said:
So I guess DOC, you are not gonna answer any of my questions. Well, if that's the case, then continuing in this thread seems pointless, so I'm gonna bow out. Going around in circles just isn't any fun.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm leaving this thread. I've sent a note to the mods to send this thread to AAH.
 
joobz said:
FYI to Lurkers and newer members, DOC will use semantic games to avoid admitting error. It's these semantics that he must rely on to make his case.

Previously, DOC started multiple threads with rather inconsequential details. All of these he claimed that he was merely "informing" us of facts. I started a thread stating that it was my belief that he was attempting to prove christianity true. HE denied this. I showed him wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2921675#post2921675


Now, DOC claims that providing evidence for something isn't the same as "proving" something. But, obviously, this is merely a semantic issue. What is the point of providing evidence for somthing if you aren't trying to support an argument being made. If you aren't "proving" your argument valid.

I only provide this for historical context and show that this diversion is merely an attempt to avoid actually discussing the issue at hand.


DOC, unless you can present new information (information that hasn't already been covered in this thread) that supports the OP or answer any one of the questions raised by others, then I'm guessing we are done with this topic.
Click to expand...
That's the crux of the matter. With Doc using his own definitions for words like "evidence" and "answer" there is no pinning him down. Someone asked what Doc's goal here is, it really looks like the driving force now is a desire to avoid admitting error.
 
According to Doc, the fact that the author of Paul might have spelt the name of a desert somewhere correctly is overwhelming evidence that his account of the resurrection must be equally correct.

Until he understands that the two are not connected this silly game will continue.
 
A note for participants.
Threads do not get sent to AAH just because one or more members are fed up with them. If you are finished with the thread, unsubscribe and ignore it.

If you find reason to contact the mod team, don't post about it in a thread - that's going off topic, often starts a bickering session, and may result in moderation action other than what you expected.

Someone refusing to support a claim they have made is not a reason to call in the mods. Discuss the topic, not each other, and don't start bickering.

Calling someone a liar is not a personal attack if the person claiming the other is a liar can support the claim.

In general I see no need for moderation here, but there have been a batch of reports, and I wanted to explain that some of them are unfounded. Please keep the thread civil, and on topic, and everything will be fine.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Marcus said:
That's the crux of the matter. With Doc using his own definitions for words like "evidence" and "answer" there is no pinning him down. Someone asked what Doc's goal here is, it really looks like the driving force now is a desire to avoid admitting error.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm pretty well convinced that DOC's goal here is to post as many times as possible, and to draw out the length of this "discussion" as long as possible. This has a two-fold objective of lending credibility to his claims and credibility to himself. He has repeatedly pointed out both the number of posts on this thread and his own number of posts as evidence for the veracity of what he's preaching. The conclusion, I should think, will render DOC two fallacious appeals: authority and numbers.

Anyone not knowing better would think that the huge number of posts DOC has made in general, the large number made specifically in this thread, and the length of the thread itself, all conspire to convey an in depth understanding of the issues, create an authority of DOC, and provide support for his claims.

The problem with this is in part it will work. DOC clearly thinks it is already working, since he has cited and continues to cite his number of posts and the length of the thread as some kind of argumentative barometer, with the higher the numbers being directly related to the relative truth of his statements. On the surface, younger forum members will actually buy that DOC has authority and speaks from solid evidence, instead of the reverse.

This doesn't fly with anyone who understands anything about argumentative discussion, evidence, analytical support or logic. Appeals to authority and appeals to numbers as you are using them are logical fallacies. You repeatedly demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue, you have misrepresented, deliberately left out information, or deliberately lied to cover yourself. When directly confronted with your own contradictions, you slither away, while hypocritically clashing and reporting others for similar behavior.

I would be interested in an actual discussion of the evidence you have, if you would actually be open an honest within such a discussion. It's a shame that you're blinded by what you perceive is the truth and unwilling to enter into actual discourse where forum members could actually learn something.
 
Last edited:
Hilary Sinclair said:
I find the last point most interesting. The desciples stayed true to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of death. Athiests have difficulty in explaining that away. Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place. This is so important. These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible. They were actually there they saw His miracles and heard Him preach. Is not their testimony better than the opinion of someone writing 2000 years later who's intent it is to rubbish the gospel accounts. I think it is.

Hello everyone i'm new on here.
Click to expand...


Welcome Hilary. Although a few others have already commented on this, I would like to reiterate that there are three problems with your argument.

1) "Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways?"

Many of them did. Paul's letters are full of complaints about backsliding converts. You do not hear about them as much since they obviously didn't write anything included in the New Testament.

2) Many people are convinced to the point of death that something they believe is true. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, Heaven's Gate members were convinced that there was an alien ship following comet Hale-Bopp. They were so convinced that some were willing to castrate themselves (!) and even commit suicide because of their beliefs. Does this mean that there were aliens following Hale-Bopp?

3) It is unlikely that the authors of the New Testament were witnesses to a resurrected Jesus. Of the lot, Paul's letters are the earliest writings, and they sharply contradict parts of the gospels as well as Acts. There is a large volume of evidence that the gospels were a mash-up from several sources, with Mark being the most likely to be original work. Mark is also the gospel that originally said nothing at all about the resurrection other than ome women saw an empty tomb (no Jesus). The current ending of Mark in the KJV is thought to be a much later addition by many biblical scholars.

I do recommend reading some early Christian history, the Essene Jews (you will be amazed at the parallels), and Greek philosophy of the time (such as Philo). It is highly unlikely that the story many Christians believe about Jesus is literally true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom