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

[DOC]

You are mistaken. I doubt he actually reads and he has clearly stated in the past that he has never finished reading the entire Bible, just pieces of it.

I have never said I've read "just pieces" of the bible. I've read the entire New Testament and much of the Old Testament. And none of the 11 of 12 apostles who were martyred read the entire New Testament.

And your statement that you doubt I actually read serious hurts your credibility (even more then you being wrong about there being proof for unicelluar life coming from non-life), especially to people who have followed my many threads. Is it really possible to leave 1100 posts in a thread (like I have in this one) or to have threads like the following 74 page thread on Science if you don't read.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

 

[joobz]

Is it really possible to leave 1100 posts in a thread like I have in this one or to have threads like the following 74 page thread on Science if you don't read.

yes.

And this post by Ichneumonwasp explains why. Please address it.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by DOC
There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

Why has DOC shifted to the subject of unicellular organisms?
What does this have to do with the OP?
Or evidence for why we know the NT writers told the truth?

These people based their actions on more than Bronze Age writings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

I'm amazed DOC posted this.
Haven't we discussed the early martyrs this on this thread already?

 

[Hokulele]

Haven't we discussed the early martyrs this on this thread already?

And pretty much every other thread in which DOC has participated. It seems to be his favorite "I don't have an answer" response.

Speaking of answers, DOC, please address this post.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

 

[DOC]

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

This is what I said:

3) the current "unproven" life from non-life scientific theory.

And this is what you said regarding my statement:

(3) a liar, since you've been shown that this is not only wrong, but you've been shown it repeatedly so that you can only repeat this claim if you are willfully misrepresenting history.

I'll leave the choice to you. What are you? Ignorant? Idiotic? Or a liar? I'm afraid that I don't see many other options here.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts and talk only of evidence and not "proof". There is No Proof that Life came from Non-life {or in other words from non-living chemicals}. There are only theories.

You should apologize for wrongly calling me a liar.

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

Your rational for "calling me out" (as you say) has nothing to do with science's unproven life from non-living chemical theories.

But in response to your point -- the 11 of 12 apostles who were martyred in Roman occupied areas {except for Thomas in India} would disagree with you; as well as the Christians in Rome (30 years after the crucifixion) who were impaled, set on fire, crucified, or had animal skins tied on them and were torn apart by other animals... Also, later around 285 - 306 AD "thousands" of Christians were killed and/or tortured under the Roman emperor Diocletian.

 

[six7s]

Historical evidence is evidence plain and simple.

So what?

Historical errors are errors, plain and simple

Furthermore, they cease to be 'plain and simple' errors when complicated by delusions - willful or otherwise

 

[paximperium]

I have never said I've read "just pieces" of the bible. I've read the entire New Testament and much of the Old Testament.

So that's a YES on never having read the entire Bible.

And none of the 11 of 12 apostles who were martyred read the entire New Testament.

So says the New Testament...ooops.

And your statement that you doubt I actually read serious hurts your credibility (even more then you being wrong about there being proof for unicelluar life coming from non-life), especially to people who have followed my many threads. Is it really possible to leave 1100 posts in a thread (like I have in this one) or to have threads like the following 74 page thread on Science if you don't read.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

Yes. Your posting do show how ignorant and dishonest you actually are.

 

[six7s]

Please explain how morality works in society.

Before anyone tries to explain how morality 'works', please demonstrate that you have at least a tenuous grasp on what the term morality means

 

[six7s]

The N/T writers saw and thought what they were writing as the truth, but that doesn't mean it was not fantasy to an outsider. The originals were copied that many times that what we have today is nothing like the originals. Just as a person re-builds an old car. by the the time it's finished it may look the same as the original, but it's a completely other machine.

This here axe has been in the family for over 120 years... its had 19 new heads and 42 new handles

 

[six7s]

The "truth" that Christianity existed, sure.

So that's a continued no, when it comes to evidence of the magic super duper powers of Jesus?

So then you feel the Roman senator and historian Tacitus was wrong to report Christ suffered the supreme penalty under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

@DOC: your so-called arguments SUCK!

OK... so Tacitus may well have reported that Christ 'suffered the supreme penalty under Pilate'...

But...

But...

So freakin' what?

How on earth can you pretend that what you posted has - in any way whatsoever - ANY relevance with regard to evidence of 'the magic super duper powers' of your messiah?

 

[joobz]

I know understand you're completely bizarre problem, DOC. Ichneumanwasp was originally addressing your Point number 8. The point he bolded and said he will address.

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

I debated whether or not to respond to this fiasco, but unfortunately the evil demons won and I chose to answer it.......

I'm only first going to respond to the bolded part. You've been told repeatedly why this claim is wrong, so I will ask you nicely and then followed by a thoroughly un-nice means to remove this claim.

So, first, please remove this particular claim.

If you've read this far, then I'm sorry, but I feel the overwhelming need to call you either: (1) totally incompetent and ignorant of both Roman and Christian history invalidating any claim that you might want to make in this area; (2) a complete idiot since you've been shown time and again why this claim is simply wrong; or (3) a liar, since you've been shown that this is not only wrong, but you've been shown it repeatedly so that you can only repeat this claim if you are willfully misrepresenting history.

I'll leave the choice to you. What are you? Ignorant? Idiotic? Or a liar? I'm afraid that I don't see many other options here.

Had you not been shown worthwhile historical analysis I would have given you the benefit of the doubt; but since you have, there is no place for you to hide. So which is it? Should everyone call you ignorant, idiot, or liar? I will let you decide. You can only persist in such misrepresentations for so long.

I will let you decide if you really think that that the message you want everyone to get is that your religion can only defended by base lies such as this? Why should anyone bother with an idea that can only be defended by falsehood?

You selected his #3, as though he was addressing your point three, and said this:

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

The only way you could do this was if you simply skimmed his post and failed to actually read it. I think this is highly likely, as I am near 100% certain NO ONE ELSE thinks Ichneumanwasp's issue was with your abiogenesis derail.

read the context of his post and you'll see that he's flabbergasted that respond with something about abiogenesis when he was talking about the spread of early christianity.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

please reread his WHOLE POST to understand why he is upset. As many here are at your continual repetition of false information.

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

To this point your only close to ontopic response was:

But in response to your point -- the 11 of 12 apostles who were martyred in Roman occupied areas {except for Thomas in India} would disagree with you; as well as the Christians in Rome (30 years after the crucifixion) who were impaled, set on fire, crucified, or had animal skins tied on them and were torn apart by other animals... Also, later around 285 - 306 AD "thousands" of Christians were killed and/or tortured under Roman emperor Diocletian.

And it is exactly this repetition of skewed, dishonest facts that is infuriating. By repeating this, all you do is further destroy any respect one may have for you.

 

[paximperium]

And it is exactly this repetition of skewed, dishonest facts that is infuriating. By repeating this, all you do is further destroy any respect one may have for you.

What respect?

Edit: Fixed.

 

[joobz]

What respect?

I suggest fixing your quote link.

ETA:
Thanks

 

[DOC]

Why has DOC shifted to the subject of unicellular organisms?
What does this have to do with the OP?
Or evidence for why we know the NT writers told the truth?

There are only two alternatives, either Life was created by an Intelligent Being or Beings (as I obviously imply in this thread) or it was created by non-intelligent random forces. To occasionally bring up the only alternative is not inappropriate anymore then occasionally bringing up capitalism when talking about communism.

 

[Mojo]

Now you're trying to move the goalposts and talk only of evidence and not "proof". There is No Proof that Life came from Non-life {or in other words from non-living chemicals}. There are only theories.

Why don't you want to talk about Hitler, genocide, and Deuteronomy 7? It's no more off-topic than this.

 

[zooterkin]

There are only two alternatives, either Life was created by an Intelligent Being or Beings (as I obviously imply in this thread) or it was created by non-intelligent random forces. To occasionally bring up the only alternative is not inappropriate anymore then occasionally bringing up capitalism when talking about communism.

But why bring it up in this thread at all?

 

[paximperium]

There are only two alternatives, either Life was created by an Intelligent Being or Beings (as I obviously imply in this thread) or it was created by non-intelligent random forces. To occasionally bring up the only alternative is not inappropriate anymore then occasionally bringing up capitalism when talking about communism.

Reported for thread derail. Requested that abiogenesis be sent to science section.

 

[paximperium]

But why bring it up in this thread at all?

It has nothing to do with the OP at all. It is a irrelevant red herring when he has nothing relevant to say.

 

[Mojo]

There are only two alternatives, either Life was created by an Intelligent Being or Beings (as I obviously imply in this thread) or it was created by non-intelligent random forces.

Or it was created by Stupid Beings (testicles on the outside at kickable height is a bit of a giveaway, as is the organisation of the retina and its blood supply), or the process of natural selection is not as random as you think, or...

 

[paximperium]

There are only two alternatives, either Life was created by an Intelligent Being or Beings (as I obviously imply in this thread) or it was created by non-intelligent random forces.

Corrected into a 3rd "alternative" that is actual abiogenesis and not DOC's continued ignorance about it.