• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abiogenesis is not what this thread is about. Keep to the thread topic or the thread will be closed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Darat said:
Abiogenesis is not what this thread is about. Keep to the thread topic or the thread will be closed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
Click to expand...
Agreed.

So DOC, do you any any evidence to support your OP at all?
Would you like to pick your best one to discuss?
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
This thread is about the New Testament which does not cover the creation of life. I can therefore only presume that you are talking about Jesus's daddy. Was it Joseph (Intelligent Being) or God (non-intelligent random force)? My vote is for the former.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
paximperium said:
Sure. Some fella named Christus got his ass whacked. So?
Where is this evidence of super duper magic man Jesus again?
Click to expand...
Would you like to start with this DOC?
Where does Tacitus say anything about the superduper magic powers of Jesus?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And I just gave you 10 pieces of historical evidence for the life of Christ from non-Christian sources. Sorry they didn't have CNN or film back then. Or even newspapers since paper wasn't invented yet.
Click to expand...



I know you read the following post, DOC.

You replied to part of it.


Please, re-read the section below:


X said:
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.
Click to expand...




Now, do you have any evidence that the hocus-pocus stuff in the New Testament is true?



ETA:
Beyond this, I'm done. For a while, at least.
It is painfully obvious that DOC is not here to debate or learn.
He's here to hear himself preach.

If he were truly interested in discussion, he would make an effort to understand the things he has been told, instead of ignoring them and repeating the same false and fallacious arguments ad nauseum.

I'd wish the rest of you stubbornly optimistic people luck, but I feel that would be a waste of it.​
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually it does, because if the "goo to the zoo to you" theory is true and life did originate from non-intelligent random forces it means that the NT writers were less likely to be telling the truth about the resurrection.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, so it is impossible for unlife to come to life? Thanks for falsifying your resurrection claim.

PS: Thanks for showing your continued ignorance about abiogenesis. Would you like to start a new thread in the science section or will you risk suspension by continuing to bring it up?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually it does, because if the "goo to the zoo to you" theory is true and life did originate from non-intelligent random forces it means that the NT writers were less likely to be telling the truth about the resurrection.
Click to expand...
Well at least you are talking about the resurrection. As you say you can read, I suggest that you read this thread to understand why the above is not evidence, and you can then try again. I will even give you the start.

We know the resurrection happened exactly how it is described in the bible* because........




*Given the conflicting stories you may prefer to pick one book here.
 
X said:
ETA:
Beyond this, I'm done. For a while, at least.
It is painfully obvious that DOC is not here to debate or learn.
He's here to hear himself preach.

If he were truly interested in discussion, he would make an effort to understand the things he has been told, instead of ignoring them and repeating the same false and fallacious arguments ad nauseum.

I'd wish the rest of you stubbornly optimistic people luck, but I feel that would be a waste of it.​
Click to expand...
He's fun to play with because of how incompetent he is. He's a great guilt free way of building up your post count. I'm one third the way to catch up with Hokulele.
 
DOC said:
Actually it does, because if the "goo to the zoo to you" theory is true and life did originate from non-intelligent random forces it means that the NT writers were less likely to be telling the truth about the resurrection.
Click to expand...


According to the Biblical scholar, and christian, Dr. Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Luke invented the census story to explain why a pregnant woman would be expected to travel to Bethlehem. Given the fact that historical data
1.) There was no census at the time of Jesus' birth
2.) Judea was an independant Jewish Kingdom during the time of Jesus' Birth

The story was "Complete nonsense".

Luke fabricated the story to make the narrative work. This is known as lying.


The single point destroys the entire argument made in the OP.
 
Lothian said:
Well at least you are talking about the resurrection. As you say you can read, I suggest that you read this thread to understand why the above is not evidence, and you can then try again. I will even give you the start.

We know the resurrection happened exactly how it is described in the bible* because........
Click to expand...

There is not "proof" of the resurrection but there is evidence, as I have already pointed out.
 
DOC said:
There is not "proof" of the resurrection but there is evidence, as I have already pointed out.
Click to expand...
Well, evidence is only evidence if it hasn't been discounted through other means. Given the fact that EVERY SINGLE POINT you have raised regarding the resurrection was disproven, you are left with zero evidence.

Let's write this algebraically

X = the number of evidentiary bits submitted by you.
Y = the number of evidentiary bits that have been disproven.

X - Y = Evidence.

Since we know that
X = Y
we can rewrite that expression as
X - Y = 0
Doing a quick substitution into our first equation, we have

0 = Evidence.

therefore, you have no evidence for the ressurection.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
According to the Biblical scholar, and christian, Dr. Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Luke invented the census story to explain why a pregnant woman would be expected to travel to Bethlehem. Given the fact that historical data
1.) There was no census at the time of Jesus' birth
2.) Judea was an independant Jewish Kingdom during the time of Jesus' Birth

The story was "Complete nonsense".

Luke fabricated the story to make the narrative work. This is known as lying.


The single point destroys the entire argument made in the OP.
Click to expand...

Actually the God believing Christian, Murphy O'Connor, said Luke guessed wrong. He has the right to his opinion, just like he has the right to his opinion that the empty tomb of Jesus is "very probably" under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Other Christian Scholars like the better known Norman Geisler, and also Ralph Muncaster would disagree with his opinion. Heck, even Pax read in a book by Sir William M. Ramsay that there was another census in 8 BC {and this census wasn't even reported by Josephus}.
 
DOC said:
Actually the God believing Christian, Murphy O'Connor, said Luke guessed wrong. He has the right to his opinion, just like he has the right to his opinion that the empty tomb of Jesus is "very probably" under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Other Christian Scholars like the better known Norman Geisler, and also Ralph Muncaster would disagree with his opinion. Heck, even Pax read in a book by Sir William M. Ramsay that there was another census in 8 BC {and this census wasn't even reported by Josephus}.
Click to expand...
So that's a continued no when it comes to evidence of magic superduper Jesus?
 
joobz said:
Well, evidence is only evidence if it hasn't been discounted through other means. Given the fact that EVERY SINGLE POINT you have raised regarding the resurrection was disproven, you are left with zero evidence.

Let's write this algebraically

X = the number of evidentiary bits submitted by you.
Y = the number of evidentiary bits that have been disproven.

X - Y = Evidence.

Since we know that
X = Y
we can rewrite that expression as
X - Y = 0
Doing a quick substitution into our first equation, we have

0 = Evidence.

therefore, you have no evidence for the ressurection.
Click to expand...

Of course this is false, there is a lot of historical and rational evidence in this website that has not been disproved:

http://www.leaderu.net/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
 
DOC said:
Of course this is false, there is a lot of historical and rational evidence in this website that has not been disproved:

http://www.leaderu.net/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Click to expand...
Circular.gif

So where was the evidence for superduper magic Jesus again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom