• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heh, Belz... and I are tied at 67.



Oops, now I'm at 68. I guess that I'm more right than Belz..., but not as right as paximperium then?
 
Now, counting only the 10 most prolific posters, that's 846 posts by Doc and 2278 posts of people telling him that he is wrong.
I guess that by Doc's implied logic, this is proof he is wrong?


I notice that Doc got the definition of theory wrong again.
Theorizing one thing based on the logical extrapolation of known mechanisms (in the case of abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation that has been observed for all of the elements required for life -both amino-acids and nucleotide chains-) does not require faith.

The existence of Jesus does not require faith either. The existence of Christians in the first and second centuries is well documented and it is reasonable to assume that this movement emanated from one man and this man could very well have been Jesus.
Similarly, the idea that the story of Jesus would have been twisted and embellished and would have aggregated outside myths does not require faith either, it is a well documented phenomenon in human culture.
However, the idea that he was, as the Bible pretends, the Son of God, that he performed miracles and raised from the dead; THAT does require faith.


One thing left me puzzled once again, though. Why are creationists or literalists always trying to convince themselves that atheists also have faith? If faith such a dirty word for them that they can only respond with the tu quoque fallacy?
 
One thing left me puzzled once again, though. Why are creationists or literalists always trying to convince themselves that atheists also have faith? If faith such a dirty word for them that they can only respond with the tu quoque fallacy?
That's essentially what it is.

Atheists attempt to argue using logic, reason and evidence and in an attempt to discredit said argument, theists attempt to equivocate the arguments by claiming that atheists also require faith. They also attempt to strawman atheism into an active claim in an attempt to shift the burden of evidence as well.
 
Theists want to think that there is more to life then what one can see. This is true, but one does not have to bring magical beings into the picture. There are plenty of things that one can not see that are real things, like atoms, cells, galaxies that are far, far away and this list is very extensive and I have no need to list it all.

Also many theists will not take the time to understand and learn about the universe that is in and around them. For one thing, this understanding doesn’t make them the center of it all, they need to be one step from a so-called god or not many steps away from it. They need a plan to make it all mean something. All that dying, suffering, war, disease etc in the world must have a plan, well no it doesn’t, that’s life, deal with it. They also don’t like being related to apes, monkeys and other creatures on this world, but thru their actions they only prove that they are, just watch the news. My apologies go to all the apes, monkeys and to the rest of living things.

Theists in general like to think that their morals come from up high, but it is mainly just what they what to be true and their religion is just the vehicle they use to justify their so-called morals, we see a lot of that too on the news with people blowing themselves up and others. How many would be doing that if they know there was no magical afterlife. I’m not saying that there aren’t times that one shouldn’t sacrifice oneself for others, but it shouldn’t be for magical reasons like a pie in the sky. I think a hell of a lot more of a person that gives it all up, with no thought of heaven for others and/or loved ones, then for someone that thinks they are getting a big reward for dying.

If one uses religion and/or science to keep others down, to belittle them, to make them less then human, then they have no morals, their so-called morals are all just a veneer.

And the testament writers only told some of the truth about human nature.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Kitty says:

" Religion is about FAITH. If you need FACTS to have FAITH, then you don't have FAITH."

Sooooooooooooooooo, ideally, I guess, it's a sign you got a whole lotta faith if you have almost no facts at all.

So the great god Thetas I, who lives in a universe far far away and long in the future, but who can nevertheless affect your life very strongly by telekinesis and can visit you invisibly by teleportation and can bring your soul to bliss by teleologically drawing you into its vortex would require more faith than, say...

going the meet the actual flesh-an-blood Harold Klemp, in 1965 founder of Eckankar, a religion that leads members into bi-location excursions similar to those in the lives of saints of all faiths?

Or what?
 
It's to be in two places at one time. Like saints and other magic people, you know?
Know?

Well... now... yeah... sorta

Though not in the biblical sense

Apologies... I ain't overly familiar with you/your posting style... I take it your post was more 'ironical' than 'factual', right?
 
We are not looking at the original documents in any case. The original "writers" (transcribers of oral history) are unknown to history. The original documents do not exist. At the very earliest, we are still looking at copies of copies of copies.

Actually I've already given evidence in this thread that 2 of the writers Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.

And there are no original writings of any ancient literature. This is one reason we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.

You talk of copies (manuscripts). There are over 20,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings We have about 7 manuscripts for Plato and about 20 for the Roman historian Tacitus.
 
Actually I've already given evidence in this thread that 2 of the writers Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.
No.
And there are no original writings of any ancient literature. This is one reason we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.
So?
You talk of copies (manuscripts). There are over 20,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings We have about 7 manuscripts for Plato and about 20 for the Roman historian Tacitus.
So?

Still spewing the same BS? Nothing new at all? Sorry DOC there is no reset button for your bullcrap.
 
Actually I've already given evidence in this thread
And there are no original writings of any ancient literature. This is one reason we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.

I beg to differ, there are thousands of original biblical texts in existence, upon which the book was based.
Of course theyre writen on clay tablets and mostly written in cuneiform and were written for polytheists

:D
 
I beg to differ, there are thousands of original biblical texts in existence, upon which the book was based.
.

??? There are no originals, just copies, of the works in the bible. This is common for ancient writings. For example we have no writings that came from the hand of Plato, just copies.


Of course theyre writen on clay tablets and mostly written in cuneiform and were written for polytheists
What original biblical texts were written for polytheists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom