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

[Fiona]

You've have the right to your opinion but my 1100 posts in this thread say otherwise.

1100 posts can't be wrong?

I have never seen this argument before: we learn something new all the time

 

[Hokulele]

1100 posts can't be wrong?

I have never seen this argument before: we learn something new all the time

Considering that a substantial number of those 1100 posts are simply pointing out the number of posts he has made, technically they are right.

Pointless, but right.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You've have the right to your opinion but my 1100 posts in this thread say otherwise.

I have to hand it to you, DOC. The title of the thread is "Evidence for...". It says nothing about "real evidence", or "empirical evidence", or even "compelling evidence". Just "evidence", so you can trot out any old crap and call it evidence and there isn't anything anyone can do about it!

Touche, sir! Well played!

Who would like to start a thread titled "Empirical Evidence for the truth of the bible"?

 

[joobz]

Of course this is false,

My equation isn't false. If you have a problem with it, explain where.

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

Yes they have.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is what I said:

No. This is what you said and to which I responded:

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

I specifically bolded it and I specifically told you that I was responding to the bolded part.

To which you moved the goalposts and began to ramble in strange unaccountable fashion about abiogenesis.

I'm calling you out on your willful misrepresentation of Roman and early Christian history. You've been told where you were wrong before, so your continued repetition of the same claim -- one that has been shown repeatedly incorrect -- can mean that you are either ignorant, stupid or a liar. Which is it? Or should I add a fourth possibility -- that you are so blinded by ideology that you are not capable of seeing the truth?

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.

I moved no goalpost. I'm staying on topic.

You should apologize for wrongly calling me a liar.

Perhaps you'd like to show me where I called you a liar. I gave you the option of which category you want us to apply to you. I figure you would know better.

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

Finally you said something correct. Yes, my calling you out has nothing to do with any part of science.

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.

Hold up. We are not up to the point of discussing the legendary accounts of the apostles yet, but we'll get there.

The fact that a relatively small number of Christians were martyred is not controversial. It is also not evidence that can support the truth of New Testament writers.

You made the claim. To support it you need to supply evidence showing that the growth of Christianity was unprecedented (since you claimed that it was), that the Roman Empire was brutal (no one doubts their military and political brutality), and that this brutality would somehow have interfered significantly with the spread of Christianity. And, for bonus points, please explain how it is that this supposed brutality was the means by which Christianity spread more quickly according to Justin Martyr, yet you seem to find it amazing that the faith spread with all those martyrdoms occurring?

Lastly, you need to show that Christians were specifically targeted -- hint, they were not. They were persecuted for political reasons having to do with the way the Principate evolved.

We know all about brutal repression of ideas. The Romans didn't do that to any degree. They allowed all sorts of ideas, particularly religious ideas, to flourish. It was the Christians who suppressed religious ideas after they won the state religion lottery.

You said that it was amaz

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have to hand it to you, DOC. The title of the thread is "Evidence for...". It says nothing about "real evidence", or "empirical evidence", or even "compelling evidence". Just "evidence", so you can trot out any old crap and call it evidence and there isn't anything anyone can do about it!

Touche, sir! Well played!

Who would like to start a thread titled "Empirical Evidence for the truth of the bible"?

Actually he claimed evidence for the truth of the New Testament. That is a much stronger claim than the weak claim "but there is evidence".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually he claimed evidence for the truth of the New Testament. That is a much stronger claim than the weak claim "but there is evidence".

I know, he's been giving us the latter and then pulling a bait and switch to try to pass it off as the former.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I come back to this thread after months and it's still going on, with the same logic still being repeated ad nauseum?! Someone oghta... wait, what's this?

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

Keep to the thread topic or the thread will be closed.

Keep to the thread topic or the thread will be closed.

:tries to breathe and can't:

...the thread will be closed.

closed.
​

Closed.
​

CLOSED.
​

CLOSED.
​

CLOSED!
​

Pant... wheeze... pant... :recovers posture, clears throat, has revelation that he now knows how the French must have felt when the Allied tanks rolled through their villages in 1944:

So, guys... how about we have a chat about this here abiogenesis stuff, eh?

1100 posts can't be wrong?

I have never seen this argument before: we learn something new all the time

Are you new to DOC threads? "I have made x posts, x is a large number, and therefore I am right" is a favourite DOC tactic. He uses it when he cites sources, too - here's an example from last page:

No one is forcing you to believe the 33 Christian written sources and 10 non-Christian written sources for the truth of Christianity just like no one is forcing me to believe the 9 non-Christian written sources and 1 Christian written source for the life of the Roman emperor (during Christ's life) Tiberius Caesar.

DOC apparently believes that if a source is grandiose, it must be right. It is a mystery beyond my comprehension why and how he believes this after this logic has consistently failed to impress as much as a single person for 120 pages with nearly 6000 posts.

 

[six7s]

DOC apparently believes that if a source is grandiose, it must be right. It is a mystery beyond my comprehension why and how he believes this after this logic has consistently failed to impress as much as a single person for 120 pages with nearly 6000 posts.

DOC works in mysterious ways

 

[Simon39759]

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 were told before that the term 'proof' was not used in science outside of the field of mathematics.
You were also explained (at least once that I know of for having written that long post myself) why the expression 'there are only theories' means nothing, theory being the highest stage of demonstrability anything, outside of mathematics, will ever reach.

Yet, you keep propagating these misconceptions like you keep on recycling your long debunked arguments and pretending that they have any worth.
Yes, indeed, you are a liar for acting like the 'evidences' you provided have any degree of validity after being shown, times and times again, why they did not.


Edit: And what with the oversized fonts?
That's annoying, it reminds me of this week's SGU podcast when they were joking about needing a new kind of 'super-caps lock' for people even crazier than usual. Apparently, giant size fonts are the solution...

 

[arthwollipot]

This is going nowhere, and I've lost interest.

 

[pakeha]

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

Well, well, well.
Back to Josh, eh?
Perhaps it's time to start citing Josh's ex-ghostwriter.
I've not done so up til now as the man is a geologist, but if DOC's brutal derailment of his own thread produces a split off thread, it may yet be appropriate.

I notice that like kurious_kathy, DOC deletes posts after they've been answered, rather like the NT's retro-fitting of Jesus' life to 'fulfill' the Isaiah and Daniel prophecies. It looks as though DOC thought better of the 'goo to zoo to you' phrase, which probably goes over really well when preaching to his 'congregation' but annoyingly enough, not here.

Ah, yes.
Josh's website as source of wisdom.
OK, DOC
Let us know, once you've actually read the website, what parts of it you'd like to discuss in the light of your OP.

 

[Hokulele]

I notice that like kurious_kathy, DOC deletes posts after they've been answered, rather like the NT's retro-fitting of Jesus' life to 'fulfill' the Isaiah and Daniel prophecies. It looks as though DOC thought better of the 'goo to zoo to you' phrase, which probably goes over really well when preaching to his 'congregation' but annoyingly enough, not here.

He also has a habit of editing his posts after they have had a response. In one case, he tried to act all innocent and accused a certain poster of bigotry when she replied to a post he subsequently edited to remove the offensive passage.

I have learned to quote the more outrageous passages so he cannot pull that stunt as easily.

 

[eccles]

This is going nowhere, and I've lost interest.

Me too







Robert

 

[pakeha]

I rrepeat the reccommendation of the link posted below. Although the Isaiah prophecies are mentioned a little before 3. 30, more like 3.20.

Perhaps we're too demanding on DOC about the NT.
These people also had problems with the script:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1951420-mr-deity-and-the-scripts-the-atheist-blogger

Just by one of those coincidences, the census and the fulfilled prophecied are mentioned about 3.30 into the video.

I'm still really impressed by DOC's insistence on going anywhere but on-topic with this thread.
What value this thread has is in the amount of information that the posters are sharing on a lot of subjects (bravi tutti), none of it, unfortunately, posted by DOC, but there you go- can't have everything.

I'm also impressed by DOC's blind faith in Josh McDowell.
We've dismantled several of Josh's assertions here, yet DOC goes back to Josh, hoping to find refuge in his wisdom. Why?

So. Lucas has been shown to be less than unerrant.
The numbers of the early martyrs are, at the very least grossly expanded to impress possible converts.
The 'empty tomb' has been shown to be a tourist marketing ploy (how sly fr Conners is!).
The 24,000 manuscripts evidence is almost as meaningless as you can get. I'm surprised Josh's present ghostwriters (if he still uses ghostwriters) haven't tweaked that into a more seemly shape.
Matthews' first take on 'Thriller' (zombies entering Jerusalem after the death of Jesus on the cross) is hopelessly absurd.
The Gospels were written by people who had never seen Jesus or talked to him. And at least a generation after he died.

Anyway, DOC has chosen to go back to Josh as the source of evidence.
I'm looking forward to see what DOC will post up from there to support his OP.







And on and on.

 

[amb]

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.

Hearsay.He was writing hearsay not a historical story. In any case, he was not a witness neither did he know one.

 

[Belz...]

Baleeted (off-topic)

 

[Belz...]

There is not "proof" of the resurrection but there is evidence, as I have already pointed out.

You seem to ignore a lot of responses to your posts.

How about this:

If the empty tomb, for which we have no evidence, is evidence for the divinity of Jesus then the Golden Fleece is evidence for greek mythology.

 

[Belz...]

You've have the right to your opinion but my 1100 posts in this thread say otherwise.

What's the magic number of posts in a thread by a single person in order for that person's opinions to be proven true ?

 

[Belz...]

The fact that a relatively small number of Christians were martyred is not controversial. It is also not evidence that can support the truth of New Testament writers.

Buddhist monks set themselves on fire. Since no one could possibly do that unless their beliefs were true, Buddhism is true.