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

[Lothian]

The guys are brownish looking, so it might have to do with Ham...

With so many moral stories and rules to pick from it is difficult. I am afraid it is not the story of Ham who sodomised his dad Noah in a drunken orgy. Genesis 9:20–25 refers.

 

[paximperium]

I'm picking the part where Jesus said, "Let the white dudes whip the brown slaves but do it nicely."

 

[Lothian]

I'm picking the part where Jesus said, "Let the white dudes whip the brown slaves but do it nicely."

Slaves. You are on the right lines.

 

[X]

I disagree there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity. Here is some evidence:

This should be fun...

1) the amazing and original words of Christ himself -- words that motivated Thomas Jefferson (a prolific reader in multiple languages) to cut 990 verses out of the bible and make a 83 page book with them and claim they are the most moral and sublime teachings in history.

Opinion. Also a dishonest attempt to imply that Jefferson believed in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the gospels.

2) Numerous examples of the life changing power of the Gospel that gets people off drugs, turns peoples marriages around, and gives many people a reason to live and hope. I personally have seen countless testimonies on TV about this "real" life changing power.

Anecdotal evidence from biased sources.

3) the absurdity of the current mainline scientific theory that all the 100 billion galaxies in the known universe (including all of its matter and space) came from something smaller than one atom and this happened by unintelligent random forces.

Willful ignorance.
(Willful, because this has been explained to you before)

5) the fact that the cowardly apostles who wouldn't even attend Christ's crucifixion, or stay awake with him for one hour when he needed them, or who (like Peter) did things like denying Christ to a lone woman 3 times, suddenly became bold evangelists willing to lay down their lives (11 or 12 actually did) and travel all over the known world with great hardships to themselves for their belief.

Option.

6)the unexplained empty tomb

Unsubstantiated claim and circular logic.

7) the numerous fulfilled prophesies of the Old Testament. (such as Isaiah chapter 53 and Daniel chapter 7 verses 9-14)

Unsubstantiated claim and circular logic.

8) the unparalleled growth by peaceful means in the brutal Roman empire with no modern transportation or communications.

Unsubstantiated opinion.

9)the fact that the author of Gospel of Luke, who has been called one of the world's great historians by a famous (formerly secular) archaeologist, reports 35 of Christ's miracles in the same matter of fact tone that he correctly reported 84 highly detailed facts (that have been historically and archaeologically verified)

Nonsensical non-sequitur.
I have addressed this opinion before.

10)Good historical evidence that the Resurrection actually happened.

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

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I could write a logic thesis on the fallacies contained on that one web page.
The argument that idiotic website puts forward depends on the New Testament being literally true. Which is what you are supposed to be demonstrating.

Yes, I disagree with your opinion that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity. There might not be definite proof of it (just as there is no definite proof that living cells can come from non-living material), but I would have to say there does exist definite evidence for the truth of it.

All your so-called "definite evidence" is nothing more than random opinions and unrelated issues, interpreted to fit with a pre-determined conclusion.
In short, it is bias at its best. And not evidence at all.

 

[Mr Clingford]

With so many moral stories and rules to pick from it is difficult. I am afraid it is not the story of Ham who sodomised his dad Noah in a drunken orgy. Genesis 9:20–25 refers.

Wow, that's creative interpretation - where do you get the sodomy from?! The text makes no mention at all of anything like that - it does say he brought the attention of his father's drunken nakedness to his brothers, though.

 

[DOC]

...3) the absurdity of the current mainline scientific theory that all the 100 billion galaxies in the known universe (including all of its matter and space) came from something smaller than one atom and this happened by unintelligent random forces...

Willful ignorance.

(Willful, because this has been explained to you before)

Yes, an "attempt" to explain it was made. But I would estimate 98% of atheists still have no idea of the science behind this "theory" and are believing it totally on faith.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3933986#post3933986

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, an "attempt" to explain it was made. But I would estimate 98% of atheists still have no idea of the science behind this "theory" and are believing it totally on faith.

So what? 98% of Christians probably have no idea how lift works, and yet they still purchase tickets to ride on airplanes.

 

[Lothian]

Wow, that's creative interpretation - where do you get the sodomy from?! The text makes no mention at all of anything like that - it does say he brought the attention of his father's drunken nakedness to his brothers, though.

Encyclopaedia wikipanica

The argument for sodomization from the text draws an analogy between “and he saw” written in two places in the Bible: With regard to Ham and Noah, it is written, “And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father (Noah)”; while in Genesis 34:2, it is written, “And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her (Dinah), he took her and lay with her and defiled her.” Thus this speculation deduces that similar abuse must have happened each time that the Bible uses the same language.

For what is it worth I don't believe it. The whole Noah story is ridiculous.

 

[DOC]

So what? 98% of Christians probably have no idea how lift works, and yet they still purchase tickets to ride on airplanes.

Yes, but they have seen airplanes take off many times and have often seen them in the sky, but I doubt if any of them have ever seen something smaller than an atom become 100 billion galaxies.

 

[joobz]

So what? 98% of Christians probably have no idea how lift works, and yet they still purchase tickets to ride on airplanes.

Lift is the result of god saying "Upsy Daisy!"

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, but they have seen airplanes take off many times and have often seen them in the sky, but I doubt if any of them have ever seen something smaller than an atom become 100 billion galaxies.

Sure they have, some simply deny it (as was demonstrated in that other thread).

 

[kmortis]

Yes, an "attempt" to explain it was made. But I would estimate 98% of atheists still have no idea of the science behind this "theory" and are believing it totally on faith.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3933986#post3933986

You're right. Every attempt was made to explain it to you, and you remain steadfastly immune to any infection of knowledge.

Argument from (willful) ignorance, anyone?

 

[joobz]

Yes, but they have seen airplanes take off many times and have often seen them in the sky, but I doubt if any of them have ever seen something smaller than an atom become 100 billion galaxies.

And I've never seen the dead come back to life. I've never even seen any thing that would require that conclusion.

But I have seen the evidence that supports the big bang.

 

[temporalillusion]

Yes, but they have seen airplanes take off many times and have often seen them in the sky, but I doubt if any of them have ever seen something smaller than an atom become 100 billion galaxies.

Ah, the trusty "the evidence isn't in front of me so I can observe it in about 5 minutes therefore it doesn't exist" argument.

Which if applied to anything Biblical defeats that too, but for some reason what one wants to believe is held to a different standard of evidence.

 

[Belz...]

This should be fun...

Copycat

 

[Belz...]

Yes, an "attempt" to explain it was made. But I would estimate 98% of atheists still have no idea of the science behind this "theory" and are believing it totally on faith.[/url]

Your estimate is incorrect.

Perhaps you'd like to review my response to your "evidence" ?

 

[Belz...]

And I've never seen the dead come back to life.

I've also never seen a woman spring from one of my ribs. Unfortunately.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Encyclopaedia wikipanica



For what is it worth I don't believe it. The whole Noah story is ridiculous.

Ta. Seems something of a stretch.

My The Oxford Bible Commentary suggests that Noah and wine has an aetiological aspect to it (to do with wine anyway). I find this understanding of a variety of Genesis stories especially as aetiological very plausible (eg Lot's wife and salt stacks).

 

[Mr Clingford]

I've also never seen a woman spring from one of my ribs. Unfortunately.

That could be misinterpreted!

 

[Simon39759]

Encyclopaedia wikipanica
For what is it worth I don't believe it. The whole Noah story is ridiculous.

By the way, is there any Biblical reason to correlate Ham to black people?
I thought he was only supposed to be Egyptian? Or is it just some more modern had hoc justification for racism?

I'm picking the part where Jesus said, "Let the white dudes whip the brown slaves but do it nicely."

Don't be ridiculous!
He never said nicely (First Peter 2:18.)

Could it be the construction of the temple of Solomon?
When the wise Solomon (given Yaweh's wisdom, no less) decided to enslave the foreigners in Israel to construct his temple (you know, like what they were bitching about Pharaoh doing in Exodus)?