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

[paximperium]

DOC quotes from the bible, too...

Yes, and we can see how he misquotes, cherry picks and is completely ignorant about that too.

 

[joobz]

And please put all slavery references in joobz slavery forum. And by the way I"ve already shown that Luke 12:47 talks about servants not slaves. The word doulos that was used in the Greek was translated over a hundred times in the bible and it never was translated as slave only servant, or bondsman -- mostly as servant.

false. It is slave, not servant.

 

[X]

I'm gave people a URL to find large portions of Ramsay's book. I haven't read the whole book, but I've read enough to know Ramsay gives important evidence about the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts. The title of the book says a lot:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament

I find it interesting that the above post was preceded by the following post from Joobz:

fail.
a title doesn't equal content.
http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com./

Did you read Joobz's post, DOC?

Got any evidence that god exists? Scared of having to think for yourself?

What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews. Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else. Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.

Hiliting mine.
Is it just me, or is DOC admitting that thinking for oneself is a risky venture?





DOC, Here is the problem, as I see it:

You think your posting evidence, because all the stuff you post agrees with your pre-determied views. iit justifies what you already believe to be true.

Thus, you don't see anything wrong with apologetics that rely on opinion and supposition.

Saying "the writers of the New Testament included difficult instructions from Jesus" doesn't bother you, because it fits your beliefs that these instructions are difficult.

That fact that the word "difficult" is subjective doesn't bother you.

The problem it, not everyone here is starting from the belief in the truth of the New Testament.

Subjective arguments, statements resting on opinions of events and sayings, all that stuff containing words like "possibly", "probably", "likely", etc are all meaningless.

That are subjective.

Evidence should be objective.

While the apologetics of Geisler and Turek may seem spectacular to you, you must understand that almost all of it relies on opinion. It is subjective.

You, I think, do not notice this because it says what you want to hear.

But for a person approaching it from an unbiased standing, the subjectiveness makes it inadmissible as evidence.

The title of this thread makes it clear that the intent was to provide evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

Do you have any objective evidence of this claim?

If so, present it. (And note what I wrote above about the non-objective nature of Geisler and Turek)

If not, admit you don't have it, and that your belief in God and the veracity of the New Testament is based on faith, not evidence.

 

[DOC]

Your statement is not logical. If I didn't believe in God, that doesn't mean I would be a mass murderer. I might not have a desire to be a mass murderer for a variety of reasons. I might even believe it is wrong to be a mass murderer, but it would then just be an opinion without God, and I would have no right to tell someone else who believed mass murdering is OK they were wrong because without God and absolute morality they have just as much a right to their belief as I do to mine.

Of course you would. In the United States we do it all the time. We call them laws - rules and principles that our society decides will govern how we interact with each other.

They arise from logic and empathy. A great number of people say, "Gosh, I wouldn't like it if I were murdered, so it's logical to suppose that other people wouldn't like it either. Maybe we should stop people from murdering other people."

So your argument is if something is a law decided by society then it is right and moral. Then you would believe the laws of Nazi Germany which were popular with the majority were right when they said Jews can't marry non-Jews because the majority of the people thought they were right . And the laws against same sex marriages in some states are right because the majority of the people in those states believe they are right.

You have said that without God there is nothing stopping people from antisocial behavior...

I don't believe I ever said that.

Without God people could still think things are wrong and thus not do antisocial behavior. But they just wouldn't have any right to tell other people they are wrong to partake in antisocial behavior because without God and absolute morality everyone's moral beliefs are equally valid.

 

[joobz]

What if someone like Hitler thinks for themselves and determines it is OK to murder 6 million Jews.

And Hilter used GOD to justify his desire to kill Jews. So your god based morality never prevented that, did it?

Without the existence of a God it can not be argued the Holocaust was evil, because without God and absolute morality Hitler has just as much right to his beliefs as anyone else.

That's such utter nonsense. Multiple people have explained why genocide is amoral rationally without the need to invoke god.
Further, the bible describes multiple examples of genocide being permitted by god.

Geisler goes into depth about this in his book cited in the first post of this thread.

And he's patently wrong. But that's not really shocking. He seems to be fairly dumb. Like the silly claim in his book "University is a compound word of unity and divesity".

 

[DOC]

I find it interesting that the above post was preceded by the following post from Joobz:

​

Did you read Joobz's post, DOC?

No, I didn't. Sometimes I skip around, I do miss some posts at times.

 

[X]

No, I didn't. Sometimes I skip around, I do miss some posts at times.

Thank you for admitting that.

Do you understand why a title does not equal content?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So your argument is if something is a law decided by society then it is right and moral. Then you would believe the laws of Nazi Germany which were popular with the majority were right when they said Jews can't marry non-Jews because the majority of the people thought they were right . And the laws against same sex marriages in some states are right because the majority of the people in those states believe they are right.

Perhaps you should re-read what Elizabeth actually wrote and not what you seem to think she wrote. Her argument is not that "if something is a law decided by society then it is right and moral". What she said was that morality derives from logic and social interaction.

Arguing for bare cultural relativism -- that your interlocutors believe such a ridiculous position, especially when they tell you and directly show you that they do not -- is commonly known as straw man fallacy.

I will repeat. I have never met a single person who believes in that form of ethical relativism.

 

[DOC]

And Hilter used GOD to justify his desire to kill Jews. So your god based morality never prevented that, did it?

He also said the reason for the invasion of Poland is that some Poles made a raid on Germany. And he also signed a non-agression treaty with Chamberlain.

He also in private according to the book "Hitler Table Talk" which I read but no longer have that (paraphrasing) "after we take care of the Jews the Christians are next". And that "Christianity is a slave moral religion."

joobz you don't really believe that Hitler wouldn't say anything at all if it served his goals do you.

 

[Elizabeth I]

So your argument is if something is a law decided by society then it is right and moral. Then you would believe the laws of Nazi Germany which were popular with the majority were right when they said Jews can't marry non-Jews because the majority of the people thought they were right . And the laws against same sex marriages in some states are right because the majority of the people in those states believe they are right.

Yes, of course Hitler was right <---sarcasm That's why nobody in the world came forward to denounce him, or to stop him.

I have been thinking: you people who posit an invisible, inaudible - some say imaginary - authority for your beliefs and behavior are the truly dangerous ones, because you can say God told you to do any damn thing you want and no one can disprove it. If they say they didn't hear God say any such thing, all you have to do is to say that He spoke only to you. If they say it doesn't sound like anything God would say, you can reply that it's all part of His ineffable plan and their limited intelligences couldn't possibly understand.

The Spaniards said God told them to convert people to Christianity by torture and the sword. You say they are Not True Christians^TM, but why should we believe you and not them? Their God was just as invisible and inaudible as yours. True, they committed horrible atrocities, but it could have all been part of the ineffable plan.

But, you say, look at the Bible. What does it say? Well, according to your holy book God did - or encouraged - things just as appalling, so it makes sense that He would lead Spain along the same path. So we're left with the "God told me to" justification. And we can't prove he didn't.

There's a poster on this forum who says God has spoken to him and communicated His intention to destroy Los Angeles and San Francisco on September 30. Prove that poster wrong about God's speaking to him. You can't - according to him God speaks only to him, and you can't hear what God says.

See how that works? How is anyone to stop you doing anything your God tells you to do? After all, we can't prove you're wrong, because we can't hear what God says to you, and according to you, God is the source of all morality.

So much for moral authority that arises from religion. It authorizes and excuses anything and everything. Truly frightening.

 

[DOC]

There's a poster on this forum who says God has spoken to him and communicated His intention to destroy Los Angeles and San Francisco on September 30. Prove that poster wrong about God's speaking to him. You can't - according to him God speaks only to him, and you can't hear what God says.

Well we'll find out on September 30, but I predict he is wrong, and thus he did not really hear from God.

 

[joobz]

He also said the reason for the invasion of Poland is that some Poles made a raid on Germany. And he also signed a non-agression treaty with Chamberlain.

So? He convinced many German christians that they were doing god's work.

He also in private according to the book "Hitler Table Talk" which I read but no longer have that (paraphrasing) "after we take care of the Jews the Christians are next". And that "Christianity is a slave moral religion."

1.) I don't trust your "memories" on this.
2.) So?

joobz you don't really believe that Hitler wouldn't say anything at all if it served his goals do you.

I'm sure he would. But that didn't stop the PEOPLE from believing it was god's will.

Just in THIS VERY THREAD, religion had you argue that slavery is acceptable and moral. Rather than use your rationality that slavery (in NO CONTEXT) is moral, you argued that it was ok back then. You did this because you believe the bible to be infallible. Your desire to have an infallible bible was greater than your desire to hold to a decent moral code.

 

[joobz]

Well we'll find out on September 30, but I predict he is wrong, and thus he did not really hear from God.

So if a prophesy doesn't come true, we can assume that the prophesy wasn't from god?

 

[DOC]

Perhaps you should re-read what Elizabeth actually wrote and not what you seem to think she wrote. Her argument is not that "if something is a law decided by society then it is right and moral". What she said was that morality derives from logic and social interaction...

Well influential atheist and tenured Princeton professor Peter Singer says it is OK for people to have sex with dead people as long as the dead person said it was OK to do so before they died.

But it is obvious that if our society interacted on this they would find this behavior immoral. So using your and Elizabeth's argument Peter Singer has an immoral belief.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well we'll find out on September 30, but I predict he is wrong, and thus he did not really hear from God.

Nope.

There's always:

• I prayed for God to spare them and He relented.
  
• God told me He decided to wait a little longer to see if more people would repent and turn to Him.
  
• What God told me was right but I am an imperfect vessel and did not correctly understand Him. He actually said, "[fill in the blank]."

You can't prove any of it wrong, because God is speaking only to that person, and you can't hear what He is saying.

Come on, doc. Why should we believe your invisible, inaudible God and not someone else's?

 

[dafydd]

So then you only quote from books in which you have in your actual possession?

Yes,some of us have things called bookshelves on which we keep objects called books,and we also go to buildings called libraries.Keep 'em comin' Doc,you're a barrel of laughs.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well influential atheist and Princeton professor Peter Singer says it is OK for people to have sex with dead people as long as the dead person said it was OK to do so before they died.

But it is obvious that if our society interacted on this they would find this behavior immoral. So using your and Elizabeth's argument Peter Singer has an immoral belief.

OK. And?

 

[DOC]

He also said in private according to the book "Hitler Table Talk" which I read but no longer have that (paraphrasing) "after we take care of the Jews the Christians are next". And that "Christianity is a slave moral religion."

1.) I don't trust your "memories" on this.
2.) So?

"Hitler, the Jews, and Christianity His duplicity in public and private words" by Matt Brundage:

Quotes of Hitler

14 Oct 1941: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (Hitler 49-52)

13 Dec 1941: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery ... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (Hitler 118-119)

http://mattbrundage.com/publications/hitler-and-christianity/

 

[joobz]

Well influential atheist and Princeton professor Peter Singer says it is OK for people to have sex with dead people as long as the dead person said it was OK to do so before they died.

But it is obvious that if our society interacted on this they would find this behavior immoral. So using your and Elizabeth's argument Peter Singer has an immoral belief.

and the bible condones slavery, genocide and monarchies.

We have historical examples of people using the bible to condone being slave owners, commit genocide and be kings and hold fiefs.

So, until you can show me an example of people committing necrophililia and using Peter Singer as an excuse, your point is completely meaningless.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well influential atheist and Princeton professor Peter Singer says it is OK for people to have sex with dead people as long as the dead person said it was OK to do so before they died.

But it is obvious that if our society interacted on this they would find this behavior immoral. So using your and Elizabeth's argument Peter Singer has an immoral belief.

The fact that I sometimes find Peter Singer to say idiotic things is beside the point.

Defend your argument. You have responded to a challenge to think for yourself with pure moral relativism -- a position, by the way, that Peter Singer would find reprehensible.

Do you honestly think that when someone tells you to think for yourself that it is proper to answer with -- we let Hitler think for himself and look what happened?

Peter Singer is not a pure moral relativist. Elizabeth is not a pure moral relativist. I am not a pure moral relativist. I don't know anyone who is. So, stop suggesting that everything is permissable or that all ethical stances are mere opinion in the absence of an absolute moral standard. Such arguments are sophomoric at best.