• 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.
I think DOC's not saying anything he doesn't believe to be true. Hearsay IS evidence, it's just very poor evidence, and get worse the farther away you get from the original source. Nevertheless, it is evidence. DOC produces nothing contemporary supporting his assertion, but he does present the only evidence he does have, which is church tradition. Just because most skeptics will find his evidence almost ludicrously unconvincing and may have stronger evidence for the counter-assertion doesn't mean DOC is deliberately telling a falsehood. For that to be true he would have to understand that he is wrong and deliberately continue to make claims he knows are false. He doesn't believe his claims are false.
 
Last edited:
But being falsely accused as a liar does not stop there, Pax also called me a liar for saying that there are several independent sources for claims made by the bible.

I've already pointed out that there were 10 Non-Christian written sources for Christ and/ or Christianity within 150 years of Christ's life compared to only 9 Non-Christian written sources for Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor at the time of Christ.

Let me give you an example from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from the 10 "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} name James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources. So once again I've been falsely accused as a liar.
 
Last edited:
kurious_kathy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me, as well. But then, how can you tell what's true and what isn't ?
 
DOC said:
But being falsely accused as a liar does not stop there, Pax also called me a liar for saying that there are several independent sources for claims made by the bible.

I've already pointed out that there were 10 Non-Christian written sources for Christ and/ or Christianity within 150 years of Christ's life compared to only 9 Non-Christian written sources for Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor at the time of Christ.

Let me give you an example from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from the 10 "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

Possibly

2) He lived a virtuous life.

Probably

3) He was a wonder worker.

As were a number of itinerant holy men - Apollus was just as famous at the time.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} name James.

As a brother called James I find this easy to believe

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

By some not by others

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Pontius crucified a lot of people so this certainly is possible

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

The day matters?

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

Verified by who other than Matthew?

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

Indeed

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

Yes

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

Undoubtedly and eventually (hundreds of years later) it was chosen as the state religion and the rest is history.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Yes

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources. So once again I've been falsely accused as a liar.
Click to expand...

A number of the facts such as Christianity reach Rome are not in question. They are not direct verification for the existence of Christ but rather the existence of followers. There innumerable external references to Zoroastrianism and its believers also suffered for their faith does that verify that religion too. The facts confirm that a religious sect started in Palestine and made its way to Rome as all the religions of the Empire did. Isis was popular too (Egyptian) as was Mithras (probably Persian in origin) Not to mention the Greco/Roman pantheon.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Please, explain?
Click to expand...
Nogbad already said it best "They are not direct verification for the existence of Christ but rather the existence of followers."

However I would also emphasize they they are irrelevant/unremarkable or/and that the sources are christian and not as you claim "Non-Christian independent sources".


Geisler's book as an argument is stillborn.
 
DOC said:
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
Click to expand...
Read the multitude of post AFTER DOC's claim which demolish said claims and show them to be false. As I mentioned, "
paximperium said:
No you haven't. You can keep lying to yourself about that, but it does not change reality.

This claim is a lie. You are a liar as have been pointed out multiple times in the thread.
Click to expand...
I stand by my statement that DOC has not presented evidence and despite having his nonsense torn to shred and shown to not be reliable or even useful evidence. He has repeatedly lied about doing so despite being told multiple times that he hasn't made his case or presented any evidence. He has yet to do anything even close to supporting his OP.

DOC is a liar. That is a valid conclusion from DOC's behavior and the evidence that he has presented himself.
 
Last edited:
Nogbad said:
A number of the facts such as Christianity reach Rome are not in question. They are not direct verification for the existence of Christ but rather the existence of followers. There innumerable external references to Zoroastrianism and its believers also suffered for their faith does that verify that religion too. The facts confirm that a religious sect started in Palestine and made its way to Rome as all the religions of the Empire did. Isis was popular too (Egyptian) as was Mithras (probably Persian in origin) Not to mention the Greco/Roman pantheon.
Click to expand...
This has been repeated to him repeatedly. One needs to look at his own link to his "evidence" to show a the multitude of posts that has already told him that these claims are useless and invalid. it shows that Christians believe but he is unwilling to use the same standards for Islam or any other religions. His blatant double standards have always been openly flaunted.

His continue use of these same discredited claims shows either he did not read the multitude of posts that disassemble his claims, intellectual dishonesty, reading comprehension deficits or plain stupidity.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
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?
Click to expand...

Once again skeptics like you complain the bible accounts are too different. Then you turn around and say they are too similar and copied from Mark. Which is it -- are they too similar or too different?

And on the major points the 4 gospel accounts concur on the resurrection. 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."
 
Last edited:
Roman Cop: So who saw this Jesus person?
Witness 1: Hey, Jesus appeared to the women near the tomb.
Witness 2: Nah ah, He appeared in Gallilee a hundred miles away.
Wintness 3: No way dude, he appeared to the women later, near the city.
Roman Cop: Are you guys high or drunk?
Witnesses: Dude...

So DOC let's say you're the Roman cop and now need to write a report.

A little homework for you. Write a simple straightforward timeline of what happened during Easter. What happened first, second etc. and include times of days and places and peoples involved. Who were the witnesses? What are the details? Leave no details out from the Bible.

I believe you can't or will just ignore this challenge.
 
DOC said:
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."
Click to expand...

DOC said:
Once again skeptics like you complain the bible accounts are too different. Then you turn around and say they are too similar and copied from Mark. Which is it -- are they too similar are too different?

And on the major points the 4 gospel accounts concur on the resurrection. 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."
Click to expand...
Little Sir Echo, how do you do?
 
paximperium said:
Read the multitude of post AFTER DOC's claim which demolish said claims and show them to be false. As I mentioned, " I stand by my statement that DOC has not presented evidence and despite having his nonsense torn to shred and shown to not be reliable or even useful evidence. He has repeatedly lied about doing so despite being told multiple times that he hasn't made his case or presented any evidence. He has yet to do anything even close to supporting his OP.

DOC is a liar. That is a valid conclusion from DOC's behavior and the evidence that he has presented himself.
Click to expand...

Pax, why don't you just admit I did bring in some evidence -- it might not be proof, but it is evidence. You have the right to have your opinion about the evidence, but I did bring in some evidence. You would of had much more credibility if you would have said, "You know Doc, I was mistaken about what I said, but I don't think the evidence is that good." Instead you continue to call me a liar and I think your credibility suffers as a result. And I'm sure that when you call me a liar in the future it won't have much impact to many who have followed the last few pages, in fact I think it will have a reverse effect.

ETA: I've basically stated that some people in these threads throw around the term liar at the drop of a hat. I think the last few pages support that statement.
 
Last edited:
I find it simply hilarious that DOC asks "are they too similar are [or] too different?"

Surely, DOC, you know that you are lying for Jesus
Why risk being unable to repent in time and suffering eternal hell-fire as a consequence of your sinning?
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
I find it simply hilarious that DOC asks "are they too similar are [or] too different?"
Click to expand...

And I continue to ask skeptics: What is it, are the gospels too similar or too different? You should make up your mind.
 
AWPrime said:
Nogbad already said it best "They are not direct verification for the existence of Christ but rather the existence of followers."
Click to expand...
So then you believe the Roman/Jewish historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Christ on two separate occasions.
 
DOC said:
And I continue to ask skeptics: What is it, are the gospels too similar or too different? You should make up your mind.
Click to expand...
DOC, you have asked what is in essence the same question repeatedly

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean you have an excuse to spam this thread with inane arguments from incredulity

Given your abysmal track record of obfuscating and dodging, my hunch is that you have now - in desperation - woven your tangents into a rope with which you are trying to hang yourself

It would be much simpler and far more straightforward to dispense with your strategy of lying for your messiah and simply admit that the source of your fundamental arguments is, in fact, your fundamental orifice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom