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

[Belz...]

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.

No, they don't. Tons of people die for their beliefs. It doesn't make them true, otherwise lots of otherwise mutually-exclusive religions would be true simultaneously.

Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place.

Indeed, and that's the only conclusion you can come to.

 

[Belz...]

If you knew who wrote the bible, you still wouldn't believe it, so why do you act like this matters to you.

Argument from... laziness ?

Of course this is false, there are several.

Name one unambiguous one.

Minor discrepancies

You'd call the two entirely different lineages given in Matthew and Luke MINOR ?

42 US. presidents and 2 billion people who claimed/claim to be Christians have found reasons.

Argument from popularity.

 

[AWPrime]

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

DOC, in my personal opinion you are a lair.

Referring to your post count doesn't change anything. It is the opposite of an argument, and is one of many actions that has reduced your credibility in the eyes of others to zero.

 

[six7s]

Hi Hilary and welcome!

These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible.

We have no way of knowing that they weren't merely insanely swallowing some middle-eastern Kool Aid

We do know that their accounts abound with significant contradictions

We do know that their messiah and god hasn't been seen or heard of since, despite promises of imminent return

Given that the ratio of 'errors, contradictions and inconsistencies' to 'meaningful, accurate info' is 100%:0%, why should anyone believe that "their testimony [is] better than" a Harry Potter book?

 

[six7s]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_608045fd3d3d0d455.jpg[/qimg]

Nommed!

 

[DOC]

And I've already brought in evidence that the eyewitnesses John and Matthew did write their gospels.

Since you haven't and have been told repeatedly that you haven't it is a lie.

And from post #3350

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.

Your original claim is very simple -- it's "Since you haven't and have been told repeatedly that you haven't it is a lie".

Earlier I said I have a feeling Pax won't apologize. I believe my feelings have been justified. He will not apologize for calling me a liar if I bring in the evidence (I said I brought in), and frankly I believe he does not have the ability to apologize to me for this.

This sounds like a person who can dish it out, but can't ...

 

[Lothian]

And from post #3350


Your original claim is very simple -- it's "Since you haven't and have been told repeatedly that you haven't it is a lie".

Earlier I said I have a feeling Pax won't apologize. I believe my feelings have been justified. He will not apologize for calling me a liar if I bring in the evidence (I said I brought in), and frankly I believe he does not have the ability to apologize to me for this.

This sounds like a person who can dish it out, but can't ...

Doc, It would be far simpler to bring the evidence here. Then if it is good evidence Pax will be forced either to apologise or look bad. The longer it takes you to get any evidence just makes you look bad.

 

[zooterkin]

This sounds like a person who can dish it out, but can't ...

finish his sentences?

 

[Hokulele]

Earlier I said I have a feeling Pax won't apologize.

Hmm, coming from someone who repeatedly complains about discussions of the posters rather than the issues...

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[paximperium]

And from post #3350


Your original claim is very simple -- it's "Since you haven't and have been told repeatedly that you haven't it is a lie".

Yes it is. That is the original claim

Earlier I said I have a feeling Pax won't apologize. I believe my feelings have been justified. He will not apologize for calling me a liar if I bring in the evidence (I said I brought in), and frankly I believe he does not have the ability to apologize to me for this.

I will apologize if you show me I was wrong for what I said above as I have said REPEATEDLY.

YOU are the one changing my original statement.

Still waiting liar.

 

[paximperium]

Doc, It would be far simpler to bring the evidence here. Then if it is good evidence Pax will be forced either to apologise or look bad. The longer it takes you to get any evidence just makes you look bad.

I agree. Please go ahead DOC.

 

[joobz]

Your original claim is very simple -- it's "Since you haven't and have been told repeatedly that you haven't it is a lie".

This is interesting. You are basically selecting one small, nearly incidental example of a lie claim and arguing against that rather than arguing against the multiple examples provided by me and others of your lies.

I wonder why you would ignore all of these other posts? Is it because you wish to pretend they don't exist? Or is it because you do not actually read posts that contain more than a couple sentences? Indeed, I suspect that you only skim sentences for key words like slavery and jesus condones slavery instead of actually reading the full text. I'm actually going to test this by writing slavery a few times in each sentence. I'm curious to see if you actually respond to the context of this post, and state why you ignore the posts which show you to be a liar, or if you will merely respond with your stock link since I have statements of Jesus and how he condoned slavery?


To get back on track: I'd like to know why you consider the empty tomb accounts to be "Minor" differences

But "There was one angel sitting atop the stone outside the tomb",

"There was one MAN sitting INSIDE the tomb",

"There were TWO men STANDING inside the tomb", and

"There were two ANGELS SITTING inside the tomb"

can all be right?

Can you imagine a DA using similar evidence to make a conviction.

Your honor we have 4 witnesses to the murder.
witness1: Yes the killer was a black man, and he was outside the building with a gun.
Witness2: Yes, there were two white killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Witness3: The killer was a white guy and he had a knife.
Witness4: There were 2 black killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Judge: YOur accounts do not agree, which one of you is telling the truth?
Witnesses: We all are. They are all true.
Defendant: Your Honor, we wish to file a motion to dismiss all charges on the grounds that the witnesses are retarded.

 

[DOC]

Doc, It would be far simpler to bring the evidence here. Then if it is good evidence Pax will be forced either to apologise or look bad. The longer it takes you to get any evidence just makes you look bad.

All he has to do is agree to apologize (for calling me a liar) if I bring it in. I'll bring in any evidence I have that Matthew and John wrote their gospels, but first I want to see if Pax will prove me wrong and agree to apologize.

 

[paximperium]

All he has to do is agree to apologize (for calling me a liar) if I bring it in. I'll bring in any evidence I have that Matthew and John wrote their gospels, but first I want to see if Pax will prove me wrong and agree to apologize.

And I already have. So DO IT ALREADY.

Man, DOC seems to really need my back pat. I'm really touched that he needs me so.

 

[Belz...]

Nommed!

Nah, I use it too often to be eligible.

 

[kurious_kathy]

This is interesting.


To get back on track: I'd like to know why you consider the empty tomb accounts to be "Minor" differences

Isn't it important to note the different reports were by different people and at different times? As far as I can recall each reported what they remembered so I see not fault with different reports, all were true according to each witness. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Hokulele]

Isn't it important to note the different reports were by different people and at different times? As far as I can recall each reported what they remembered so I see not fault with different reports, all were true according to each witness. Makes perfect sense to me.

Except for the fact that the report from the gospel of Mark is widely believed to be fabricated.

Oopsie.

 

[paximperium]

Isn't it important to note the different reports were by different people and at different times? As far as I can recall each reported what they remembered so I see not fault with different reports, all were true according to each witness. Makes perfect sense to me.

So they remembered Jesus being resurrected completely differently?

Was a stone over the tomb or not?
Were angels hanging by the tomb or not?
Who visited the tomb?
What time did they arrive?
Where and when was the resurrected Jesus sighted?

 

[Lothian]

Isn't it important to note the different reports were by different people and at different times?

True. The vastly different accounts of Mary's trip to the tomb were put together different people at different times. When stories are handed down in a game of Chinese whispers it is perfectly natural to end up with different versions that don't resemble the truth.

 

[DOC]

In these threads I have basically said that people call me a liar at the drop of a hat. I think this is an attack the messenger (ad hom) strategy. For example Pax called me a liar for saying that I have brought in evidence that Matthew and John did indeed write the gospels that have been attributed to them for almost 2000 years.

Well, yes, he was wrong. I did bring in evidence that Matthew did indeed write his gospel. I pointed out some of this evidence and a source in post #331:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4099592#post4099592.

I also brought in good evidence that the apostle John wrote his gospel. I did this in post #352:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4104554#post4104554

And here is the source I used in post #352

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm