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

[paximperium]

My bolding, QED.

He doesn't get it.

 

[Cleon]

My bolding, QED.

Hok...It's DOC. You have to spell things out, and even then, he's not going to get it.

Yes, DOC. they were extraordinary events--in other words, extraordinary claims. And because they were so extraordinary, the burden of proof must be similarly extraordinary. And "this really old book says so" really isn't up to par.

 

[DOC]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

From the article "Blessed Are Those Who Believe

Matthew 27:62-28:9, 18-20" by Rev. Byrn MacPhail

"Perhaps you still have doubts. The trouble is, we will not get the same evidence that the disciples got. That is why Jesus said, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed"(Jn.20:29). There remains for us, however, an expectation to believe in the risen Jesus--even without the physical evidence.
The disciples would not take Mary's word for it. Thomas would not take the disciples' word for it. But we MUST take their word for it .To be fair, we have much more than the words of a small clan of disciples--we have their legacy. We can examine how their faith and their lives changed radically after the Easter event. After seeing and believing in the risen Jesus, the disciples were never the same.
We all know the famous commissioning from the risen Jesus, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you"(Mt.28:19, 20).
That statement is so familiar to us that it often sounds ordinary. But remember their skepticism. Remember how, for a week, the disciples huddled together in locked rooms . They were frightened for their lives. But Easter changed that."

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/matt28.html

ETA:

And we also have this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4233468#post4233468

 

[joobz]

From the article "Blessed Are Those Who Believe

Matthew 27:62-28:9, 18-20" by Rev. Byrn MacPhail

"Perhaps you still have doubts. The trouble is, we will not get the same evidence that the disciples got. That is why Jesus said, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed"(Jn.20:29). There remains for us, however, an expectation to believe in the risen Jesus--even without the physical evidence.

Then why even make a thread about evidence?
If it's not needed, then it's not needed.

The disciples would not take Mary's word for it. Thomas would not take the disciples' word for it. But we MUST take their word for it .

why? That's not fair, is it?
But it is consistent. God is hardly fair. Afterall, he condones slavery and thinks it's ok to punish people for violating unknown laws by beating people with a whip.

To be fair, we have much more than the words of a small clan of disciples--we have their legacy. We can examine how their faith and their lives changed radically after the Easter event. After seeing and believing in the risen Jesus, the disciples were never the same.

people who lose a loved one are never the same.

 

[paximperium]

From the article "Blessed Are Those Who Believe

Matthew 27:62-28:9, 18-20" by Rev. Byrn MacPhail

"Perhaps you still have doubts. The trouble is, we will not get the same evidence that the disciples got. That is why Jesus said, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed"(Jn.20:29). There remains for us, however, an expectation to believe in the risen Jesus--even without the physical evidence.
The disciples would not take Mary's word for it. Thomas would not take the disciples' word for it. But we MUST take their word for it .To be fair, we have much more than the words of a small clan of disciples--we have their legacy. We can examine how their faith and their lives changed radically after the Easter event. After seeing and believing in the risen Jesus, the disciples were never the same.
We all know the famous commissioning from the risen Jesus, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you"(Mt.28:19, 20).
That statement is so familiar to us that it often sounds ordinary. But remember their skepticism. Remember how, for a week, the disciples huddled together in locked rooms . They were frightened for their lives. But Easter changed that."

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/matt28.html

ETA:

And we also have this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4233468#post4233468

I think you are mixing up Circumstantial with Extraordinary.

 

[DOC]

Then why even make a thread about evidence?
If it's not needed, then it's not needed.

Christ didn't say evidence was not needed- why do you think he appeared to the scared and doubting apostles after the Resurrection. Don't you think He knew they were scared and doubtful. If no evidence was needed, it wouldn't have been necessary to appear to them...

The whole premise of the book cited in post #1 is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian if you look at all the scientific, historical, and philosophical/logical evidence we have. Christians don't have perfect evidence just like science doesn't have perfect evidence. Without perfect evidence both theists and atheists require faith. Norman Geisler's book argues that atheism requires more faith.

 

[paximperium]

Christ didn't say evidence was not needed- why do you think he appeared to the scared and doubting apostles after the Resurrection. Don't you think He knew they were scared and doubtful. If no evidence was needed, it wouldn't have been necessary to appear to them...

And evidence of this story ever occurring is?
And oh yeah, which apostles did he appear to;how, where, when and how many of them at a time?

The whole premise of the book cited in post #1 is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian if you look at all the scientific, historical, and philosophical/logical evidence we have. Christians don't have perfect evidence just like science doesn't have perfect evidence. Without perfect evidence both theists and atheists require faith.

One teeny little problem with your continued dishonest attempt at a False Equivocation.

Scientific evidence works. Religious faith does not.
Scientific evidence can be verified. Religious faith does not.

Norman Geisler's book argues that atheism requires more faith.

And we know how wrong Geisler has been in just about all of his "arguments". Why are you still trying to peddle such a pathetic apologist anyway?

 

[Hokulele]

So the final evaluation is that the apostles needed evidence, but we are just supposed to believe them.

Hm.

 

[joobz]

Christ didn't say evidence was not needed- why do you think he appeared to the scared and doubting apostles after the Resurrection. Don't you think He knew they were scared and doubtful. If no evidence was needed, it wouldn't have been necessary to appear to them...

So, only we need to take it without evidence. ok. Then why start a thread claiming to have evidence?

The whole premise of the book cited in post #1 is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian if you look at all the scientific, historical, and philosophical/logical evidence we have.

Only if you are a complete idiot like Geisler. Do you want to know the best argument against Geisler?
His book.

Christians don't have perfect evidence just like science doesn't have perfect evidence. Without perfect evidence both theists and atheists require faith. Norman Geisler's book argues that atheism requires more faith.

I'd settle for ANY evidence. Actual evidence. Not circumstantial fairytales.
Provide proof that resurrections are possible, and you'd be a step in the right direction.

 

[Simon39759]

But the writers of the gospels were not extraordinary; they were normal people- one a fisherman, and one a tax collector, and one a physician. You want them to be supermen but they were just normal people reporting on extraordinary events.

So your argument is that the Gospels were the written word of mere humans.
Therefore; you reject the idea of a divine inspiration? And the Gospels, being the products of humans, are just as likely as any human testimony to be messed up and confused and mistaken.
Considering that they were written three decades after the events and from second hand accounts and that the authors obviously had an agenda.... Any human account would be pretty unreliable.
Considering these unreliable account contradicts what we know of the world and the law of Natures, considering that these contradiction do feet very well within the pattern of other myths and that their evolution through time, as seen in the various Christians accounts, from the epistles to the various Gospels, fits into that of myth building the safer and most logical assumption is that they indeed are myths.

Christ didn't say evidence was not needed- why do you think he appeared to the scared and doubting apostles after the Resurrection. Don't you think He knew they were scared and doubtful. If no evidence was needed, it wouldn't have been necessary to appear to them...

And yet only the apostles (and a few Saints if you believe these accounts) got actual evidences.

The whole premise of the book cited in post #1 is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian if you look at all the scientific, historical, and philosophical/logical evidence we have. Christians don't have perfect evidence just like science doesn't have perfect evidence. Without perfect evidence both theists and atheists require faith. Norman Geisler's book argues that atheism requires more faith.

Except that it does not.
Christianity has a few weak evidences supporting it and just about as many evidences contradicting it (contradiction in the Gospels, accounts such as the massacre of the innocents or the trial of Jesus or the choosing between Jesus and Barabas that is contradicted by what we know of history or the first century Jewish society).
Sciences, on the other hand, needs a lot of strong evidence (to graduate into a bone fide theory) and absolutely no contradictory evidences, that's an integral part of the scientific method.
Equivocating the two is simply disingenuous.

 

[six7s]

From the article "Blessed Are Those Who Believe

Matthew 27:62-28:9, 18-20" by Rev. Byrn MacPhail

"Perhaps you still have doubts. The trouble is, we will not get the same evidence that the disciples got. That is why Jesus said, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed"(Jn.20:29)

So... an old book says that your messiah was a 'spin doctor'... So what?

You promised "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."


Ya got any?

 

[amb]

From the article "Blessed Are Those Who Believe

Matthew 27:62-28:9, 18-20" by Rev. Byrn MacPhail

"Perhaps you still have doubts. The trouble is, we will not get the same evidence that the disciples got. That is why Jesus said, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed"(Jn.20:29). There remains for us, however, an expectation to believe in the risen Jesus--even without the physical evidence.
The disciples would not take Mary's word for it. Thomas would not take the disciples' word for it. But we MUST take their word for it .To be fair, we have much more than the words of a small clan of disciples--we have their legacy. We can examine how their faith and their lives changed radically after the Easter event. After seeing and believing in the risen Jesus, the disciples were never the same.
We all know the famous commissioning from the risen Jesus, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you"(Mt.28:19, 20).
That statement is so familiar to us that it often sounds ordinary. But remember their skepticism. Remember how, for a week, the disciples huddled together in locked rooms . They were frightened for their lives. But Easter changed that."

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/matt28.html

ETA:

And we also have this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4233468#post4233468

I doubt many here will read what a preacher has to say in matters of god.

 

[pakeha]

Well, thanks for bringing in those 68 pages by legal scholar Simon Greenleaf that are in the public domain. I hope everyone reads them.

What I hope is that at last, DOC will read that chapter.
Since DOC had neither the courtesy nor the honesty to link to a text which is in the public domain, it was something left for others to do.

I'm still awaiting DOC's replies to the several objections to this out-dated curiosity.
And, no, a brush-off is not a reply.
Nor trying to limit a discussion to a legal presentation circa 1847.

 

[pakeha]

From the article "Blessed Are Those Who Believe

Matthew 27:62-28:9, 18-20" by Rev. Byrn MacPhail

.... Remember how, for a week, the disciples huddled together in locked rooms . They were frightened for their lives. But Easter changed that."

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/matt28.html

Why is DOC presenting some preacher's sermon as evidence of something?
Other than that preachers, like mullahs, preach?

Huddled in locked rooms for a week?
I'd like chapter and verse on that one.

 

[dafydd]

So... an old book says that your messiah was a 'spin doctor'... So what?

You promised "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."


Ya got any?

I'm still waiting for some too.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm still waiting for some too.

There will be some in the next 150 pages. Of course, it will be DOC caliber evidence.

 

[six7s]

... DOC caliber evidence.

Point 666?

 

[pakeha]

Nice one.

In any case, I'm sure DOC will rise to the challenge.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[pakeha]

An awesome example of gathering no moss, O Mighty One.