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

Status
Not open for further replies.
In case you haven't noticed this thread has very little to do with faith. It's about such things as history, archeology, and logic.
In case you haven't noticed, you have failed to show any history or archeology evidence even any logic in supporting your OP.

You have presented, conjecture, opinion and some of the stupidest apologetic and logical fallacies anyone has ever seen. Reading your post history is a study in logical fallacy and dishonest debating tactics.

That's why I assume it was taken out of the religion section and put in the history section.
No. It was put here on the assumption based on the OP that it has to do with history. So far it is sorely lacking. It should be dumped in the Conspiracy Theory section.

Your Arguments from Incredulity/Ignorance/Popularity continue to be invalid garbage.
 
Brief derail, do Jews believe in a fire and brimstone, Kathy-type hell?
It seems not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Judaism
Judaism

Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Judaism does not have a specific doctrine about the afterlife, but it does have a mystical/Orthodox tradition of describing Gehenna. Gehenna is not Hell, but rather a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life. The Kabbalah describes it as a "waiting room" (commonly translated as an "entry way") for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 11 months, however there has been the occasional noted exception. Some consider it a spiritual forge where the soul is purified for its eventual ascent to Olam Habah (heb. עולם הבא; lit. "The world to come", often viewed as analogous to Heaven). This is also mentioned in the Kabbalah, where the soul is described as breaking, like the flame of a candle lighting another: the part of the soul that ascends being pure and the "unfinished" piece being reborn.

According to Jewish teachings, hell is not entirely physical; rather, it can be compared to a very intense feeling of shame. People are ashamed of their misdeeds and this constitutes suffering which makes up for the bad deeds. When one has so deviated from the will of God, one is said to be in gehinom. This is not meant to refer to some point in the future, but to the very present moment. The gates of teshuva (return) are said to be always open, and so one can align his will with that of God at any moment. Being out of alignment with God's will is itself a punishment according to the Torah. In addition, Subbotniks and Messianic Judaism believe in Gehenna, but Samaritans probably believe in a separation of the wicked in a shadowy existence, Sheol, and the righteous in heaven.
 
Yes, and a lot of people accept (on faith since they don't understand the specifics) this vague "theory" called the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory isn't vague, it's extremely detailed. It made large numbers of predictions about observable phenomena, such as the existence of the Cosmic Microwave background, and the power spectrum that the CMB should have, all of which have since been observed to be exactly as the theory predicted. The Big Bang theory has passed every test that it's been given with flying colours. It's one of the best tested theories of modern science, and one of the most accurate predictors of scientific phenomena ever known.

Vague? Not even close. And why put theory in parentheses? Oh, I guess you don't understand the scientific meaning of the word theory. :rolleyes:

But I still maintain that most people don't understand that all the matter of about 10 billion trillion stars including all the "space" in the universe came from something "smaller than one atom" according to the theory.
If they paid attention in high school science class then they certainly do understand that.

Since they don't understand the specifics of this, their belief is based on faith just like most Christians belief is based on faith.
Different kind of faith.

Christianity deals with faith in something intangible and unknowable. Belief in scientific knowledge is based on trust that the scientists doing the maths and taking the measurements are well trained and know what they're doing. They are and they do. And furthermore, the data and evidence are available for anyone to study and review if they so wish.
 
Yes, and a lot of people accept (on faith since they don't understand the specifics) this vague "theory" called the Big Bang. But I still maintain that most people don't understand that all the matter of about 10 billion trillion stars including all the "space" in the universe came from something "smaller than one atom" according to the theory. Since they don't understand the specifics of this, their belief is based on faith just like most Christians belief is based on faith.

It's not vague, it's quite specific. I believe it even makes some predictions.
 
(boldness added)
In case you haven't noticed this thread has very little to do with faith. It's about such things as history, archeology, and logic.
But you just said that christianity is only at best equal to science in that some people believe in science without evidence. EVERYONE believes in christianity without eviedence for it.
 
Ah, DOC's classic fall-back defence when cornered on a scientific topic - find a simple non-scientific phrase in the argument, and demand a source that includes that exact phrase, and when no source can be found with that exact phrase he'll claim victory on the basis that someone used a turn of phrase that isn't in any source, all the while completely ignoring all other arguments and evidence. :rolleyes:

Truly sad, not to mention dishonest.

DOC reminds me of Chris, a guy I debated on Usenet some years ago: once I quoted him as saying (in response to a "You seem to be arguing X" statement) "What seems to be and what is are often two very different things".

Chris argued that he had never said "What seems to be and what is are often two very different things".

This was true. What he had actually said, at various points in the discussion, was:

"What seems to be and what is are often different";
"What "seems" to be, and what is are often different";
"What "seems" to be and what is are often two different things";
"What "seems" to be and what actually "is" are often two different things";
"What "seems" to be, and what actually is often are 2 different things";
"What seems to be, and what actually is are OFTEN different";
"What "seems" to be, and what actually is are often different".

For a moment I thought DOC might actually be Chris, but Chris had at least a facade of education which DOC lacks: fully a third of Chris's postings consisted of quoting back someone else's entire posting and adding only "Ad hominem" or "Ignoratio elenchi". (I damn near fell off my chair laughing the time he accused another poster of resorting to "prestige jargon".)
 
Yes, and a lot of people accept (on faith since they don't understand the specifics) this vague "theory" called the Big Bang. But I still maintain that most people don't understand that all the matter of about 10 billion trillion stars including all the "space" in the universe came from something "smaller than one atom" according to the theory. Since they don't understand the specifics of this, their belief is based on faith just like most Christians belief is based on faith.

First off, that's a fallacy, both an appeal to popularity and equivocation.

And, no. It's not faith-based. Even a person who doesn't understand a theory can understand a vulgarised explanation of it.
 
Yes, and a lot of people accept (on faith since they don't understand the specifics) this vague "theory" called the Big Bang. But I still maintain that most people don't understand that all the matter of about 10 billion trillion stars including all the "space" in the universe came from something "smaller than one atom" according to the theory. Since they don't understand the specifics of this, their belief is based on faith just like most Christians belief is based on faith.

Wrong,wrong wrong.There is proof of the Big Bang,I know I've seen it.There is no proof of the existence of god or the divinity of Jesus.just because you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang does not mean that nobody else does.
 
You can't even say that Doc has the wrong end of the stick,he hs no end of the stick.
 
Wrong,wrong wrong.There is proof of the Big Bang,I know I've seen it.There is no proof of the existence of god or the divinity of Jesus.just because you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang does not mean that nobody else does.

So are you saying we can now stop calling it the Big Bang "Theory" because there is now "proof" of it?

But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean God didn't cause it to happen. And actually it would seem more plausible to me that an intelligent being would cause such an incredible event than for it to happen by non-intelligent random forces.
 
So are you saying we can now stop calling it the Big Bang "Theory" because there is now "proof" of it?
Define "theory" and "proof". I really doubt you know what you're talking about.
But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean GodTranscendal Fairies/Ymir/ Amaterasu/Bob the Celestial Troll/clashing branes/quantum fluctiations/magic didn't cause it to happen.
Corrected it for you.
And actually it would seem more plausible to me that an intelligent being would cause such an incredible event than for it to happen by non-intelligent random forces.
Your Argument from Incredulity continues to be vacuous nonsense. Your ignorance and lack of imagination does not make your claims magically true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom