• 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.
BobTheDonkey said:
Doc, do you even realize what Jefferson was actually telling Adams?

Here's the very first line of the Wiki page you linked to:



So, we have Jefferson discussing his own version of the bible that removes all the supernatural (resurrection/miracles/etc). Using Jefferson's version of the bible hurts rather than helps your argument. Obviously, Jefferson felt the NT writers had not told the truth and this is why he was editing his own "more truthful" version.

Again, the question becomes:

Are you willfully ignorant or do you honestly not see the holes in your "logic"?
Click to expand...

You might not be aware of it but I once had a thread on Randi called "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity"...

Yes I know Jefferson was a Cafeteria Christian (I'll take a little of this and a little of that), who did not believe in miracles or the divinity of Christ, but I think the fact that the main writer of the Declaration of Independence and a man who read extensively (and knew 4 languages) thought the teachings of Jesus were the most moral and sublime known to humanity is important. What Jefferson is saying is that Jesus' teachings on morality are superior to all he has read and that includes Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

Yes, it would have been nice if Jefferson (who called himself a Christian) was a mainline Christian who did not have a personal philosophy against the existence of miracles but I still believe his opinion that the teachings of Jesus were the most moral and sublime in the history of humanity adds more to my argument than takes away from it.

And by the way Jefferson was not perfect, according to Christianity there was only one who was perfect.
 
Ok, so, Jefferson thought the morality of Jesus was worth following (for the most part). That is no evidence that the NT is factually accurate.

That doesn't make the NT factual any more than arguing that Superman exists if Jefferson were to have believed that the morality of Superman is worth adopting.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
You might not be aware of it but I once had a thread on Randi called "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity"...
Click to expand...

Hey I remember that. That's the one that Ducky, then known as Fowlsound, completely destroyed in post #2 but managed to continue for pages and pages due to the inability of someone to comprehend.... well, anything.
 
Fitter said:
Hey I remember that. That's the one that Ducky, then known as Fowlsound, completely destroyed in post #2 but managed to continue for pages and pages due to the inability of someone to comprehend.... well, anything.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, that's also the thread where slingblade provided evidence that DOC's heroes had lied to him about students being arrested for praying, and DOC proved over several pages that he does not read the information people provide. He can't even claim it was a link he didn't follow, slingblade quoted and highlighted the relevant bit in the thread.
 
Hokulele said:
Ah yes, that's also the thread where slingblade provided evidence that DOC's heroes had lied to him about students being arrested for praying, and DOC proved over several pages that he does not read the information people provide. He can't even claim it was a link he didn't follow, slingblade quoted and highlighted the relevant bit in the thread.
Click to expand...

I'm tellin' ya, it's a bot. You wouldn't expect a bot to read posts and actually reply to them in any relevant manner, would you?
 
Nah, DOC has gotten upset with joobz and me enough times to convince me that there is a real person behind the keyboard. Just a real person who prefers not to read any evidence against his cherished beliefs...
 
I went around and read the 'Jefferson' thread.
Amazing to see it was from 2007.
Still.
About that new evidence, DOC?
 
Hokulele said:
Nah, DOC has gotten upset with joobz and me enough times to convince me that there is a real person behind the keyboard. Just a real person who prefers not to read any evidence against his cherished beliefs...
Click to expand...

You should post the evidence on a neo-Nazi website, so that he can accidently stumble across it.
 
Hokulele said:
Ah yes, that's also the thread where slingblade provided evidence that DOC's heroes had lied to him about students being arrested for praying, and DOC proved over several pages that he does not read the information people provide. He can't even claim it was a link he didn't follow, slingblade quoted and highlighted the relevant bit in the thread.
Click to expand...


He doesn't see pictures either apparently. I'm so wasted here.
 
Akhenaten said:
I'm so wasted here.
Click to expand...

If this is because you have been driven to excessive ingestion of alcohol or recreational drugs in order to cope with this thread, then perhaps you should consider dropping out. If it is just part of your normal routine then carry on :)
 
Blackadder said:
Hokulele said:
These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.
Click to expand...

Good point. no.. Excellent point.
Click to expand...

If it's an excellent point I must be terribly dense because I don't follow it whatsoever. These "NT writers" I assume are the ones that wrote those big testaments: Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. These are the guys that said, among other things, that they saw Jesus walk on water, that they saw him feed thousands of people with some sardines and wonderbread, and they even saw the dead come back to life.

Perhaps you can construct some fantastic ways that these things could seem true and yet not be true, but I think a far easier explanation is that it is made up to begin with. Or you could, like the OP, conclude the testaments are true. But to suggest that the testaments were pereceived to be true and faithfully transcribed, and yet are completely false, that requires quite a stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
If this is because you have been driven to excessive ingestion of alcohol or recreational drugs in order to cope with this thread, then perhaps you should consider dropping out. If it is just part of your normal routine then carry on :)
Click to expand...


I believe that as the forum is hosted in the USA I am entitled to plead the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Sadly, however, it is unnecessary, since this is my 'normal'. Pity me.


;)
 
DOC said:
Jefferson never said the bible was a pile of crap...

Jefferson in a letter to John Adams:

"There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill."
Click to expand...
Metaphor:
Printed book = bible.
Dunghill = pile of crap.

JEfferson called the bible a pile of crap.
 
Unalienable said:
If it's an excellent point I must be terribly dense because I don't follow it whatsoever. These "NT writers" I assume are the ones that wrote those big testaments: Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. These are the guys that said, among other things, that they saw Jesus walk on water, that they saw him feed thousands of people with some sardines and wonderbread, and they even saw the dead come back to life.

Perhaps you can construct some fantastic ways that these things could seem true and yet not be true, but I think a far easier explanation is that it is made up to begin with. Or you could, like the OP, conclude the testaments are true. But to suggest that the testaments were pereceived to be true and faithfully transcribed, and yet are completely false, that requires quite a stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Consider the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the same light as someone who writes a positive commentary on the Book of Mormon. Whoever the authors were (and they were almost certainly not the Disciples), they did not see the events in question, but heard the stories, were taken by them, joined the new religion, and became PR flacks for it. They believed what they were told.

Look at how rumors circulate now and grab the public imagination. It's not that different.
 
Unalienable said:
If it's an excellent point I must be terribly dense because I don't follow it whatsoever. These "NT writers" I assume are the ones that wrote those big testaments: Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. These are the guys that said, among other things, that they saw Jesus walk on water, that they saw him feed thousands of people with some sardines and wonderbread, and they even saw the dead come back to life.

Perhaps you can construct some fantastic ways that these things could seem true and yet not be true, but I think a far easier explanation is that it is made up to begin with. Or you could, like the OP, conclude the testaments are true. But to suggest that the testaments were pereceived to be true and faithfully transcribed, and yet are completely false, that requires quite a stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."
-Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, 1794
 
Hokulele said:
I still find it amazing that DOC cannot find any decent arguments from this century supporting his beliefs. None at all. Makes you think, doesn't it.
Click to expand...

The 420 page book written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek cited in the very first post of this thread was copyrighted in 2004 and examines such topics as Hawkings Imaginary time, the law of causation, Heidelberg's uncertainty principle etc.

Your argument is that if it is old than its not worth talking about. Funny how we're talking about New Testament writings and teachings that are 2000 years old. If modernism is what you want you should stay in the scientology threads and talk about Xenu.

John Wooden, probably the greatest sports coach that ever lived said the problem with new books is that they keep you from reading the old ones.

You should critique arguments based on their logic, not the age of those arguments. Your "recent makes right" argument is not logical.
 
DOC said:
The 420 page book written by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek cited in the very first post of this thread was copyrighted in 2004 and examines such topics as Hawkings Imaginary time, the law of causation, Heidelberg's uncertainty principle etc.
Click to expand...
She asked for decent arguments, not lies, misquotes and arguments from idiots.
Your argument is that if it is old than its not worth talking about. Funny how we're talking about New Testament writings and teachings that are 2000 years old.
Click to expand...
No. You use such old arguments because of the out dated authority behind them. For some reason, you think that plastering the names of century long dead old judges and archeologists makes their arguments magically true. Sorry but your judge is wrong and your archeologist is wrong. Modernity has long made their opinions irrelevant.
Many of your so called regurgitated arguments have long been shredded by other philosophers and reality. These arguments are old, boring and are a joke.
If modernism is what you want you should stay in the scientology threads and talk about Xenu.
Click to expand...
We are talking about YOUR bastardized "modern" version of Christianity, aren't we? We are dicussing how modernity has driven your fantasy stories further into myths aren't we?
You should critique arguments based on their logic, not the age of those arguments. Your "recent makes right" argument is not logical.
Click to expand...
That's a great point. So do you have ANY decent arguments or evidence at all? Any?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom