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

[DOC]

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.

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.

Since you two are making derogatory statements like the ones above, I have the right to post the thread and let people decide for themselves:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

Now, back to this topic.

 

[paximperium]

Since you two are making derogatory statements like the ones above, I have the right to post the thread and let people decide for themselves:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

Now, back to this topic.

Last post of that wonderful thread.

I've been monitoring DOC's threads for the last few months and there is pattern of behaviour that is not in the spirit of the Forum. I.e. DOC's threads fall off the front page of the section and he then bumps them by just regurgitating the same discredited opinions and information that have already been gone over literally dozens of times. Therefore I am closing this and the other threads.
Posted By Darat

 

[pakeha]

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.

And?

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.

I think DOC knows very well that isn't Hokulele's argument. Strawman?

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.

I'm sure that quotation will go down well in preaching, DOC. Was there a reason to posting it here?

You should critique arguments based on their logic, not the age of those arguments. Your "recent makes right" argument is not logical.

Again, the thread OP isn't about logic, it's about evidence.
Has DOC any to offer?

 

[Simon39759]

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.

But, knowledge improves over time.
The problem with your old sources is not as much as they are bad, is that they are based on the knowledge of the authors of the time... Knowledge which we now know, based on the vast amount of scholarship that has taken place since, to be inaccurate.
Simon Greenleaf may have been a fine intellectual in his time, but he based his conclusion on the assumption that the authors of the Gospels were indeed the apostles whose tradition name the Gospels after, direct witnesses. More recent scholarship has now shown this assumption to be extremely unlikely.
Furthermore, Greenleaf's time was before the discoveries of Psychology and neuro-psychology. He was not nearly as familiar as we now are with all the way one's brain can deceive one. Hence, we was putting much more credit in eyewitness testimony that we now do...

As for Geigler... That's an entire new problem altogether.
People in his thread has shown multiple times why his arguments were not only poor and illogical but often dishonest and purposefully misleading.

 

[DOC]

?That's a great point. So do you have ANY decent arguments or evidence at all? Any?

My 1100 posts in this thread are out there, if some people don't think the facts I have presented or the arguments I have made are decent then so be it. Even Christ could not convince everyone- that's why they nailed him to the cross. That should have been the end of the story, but here we are talking about it 2000 years later because of certain events that happened shortly after that crucifixion.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Are you sure? I've never heard of him. Is this another of your arguments from dubious authority?

 

[George 152]

My 1100 posts in this thread are out there, if some people don't think the facts I have presented or the arguments I have made are decent then so be it. Even Christ could not convince everyone- that's why they nailed him to the cross. That should have been the end of the story, but here we are talking about it 2000 years later because of certain events that happened shortly after that crucifixion.

Those 'certain' events are only reported in the bible...
Now were those events as extraordinary as claimed the Roman, Greek and Jewish historians of the time would have remarked upon them.
You just have to start dealing in fact and not belief

 

[pakeha]

My 1100 posts in this thread are out there, if some people don't think the facts I have presented or the arguments I have made are decent then so be it. Even Christ could not convince everyone- that's why they nailed him to the cross. That should have been the end of the story, but here we are talking about it 2000 years later because of certain events that happened shortly after that crucifixion.

DOC, you've yet to present any facts which provide evidence for anything, much less that the NT writers told the truth.

 

[zooterkin]

My 1100 posts in this thread are out there, if some people don't think the facts I have presented or the arguments I have made are decent then so be it.

"Some people"? Can you find anyone in this thread who thinks you've posted a decent argument or one piece of evidence?

Even Christ could not convince everyone- that's why they nailed him to the cross.

Comparing yourself to him? And didn't he have a prophecy to fulfil?

 

[DOC]

Again, the thread OP isn't about logic, it's about evidence.

Logical and philosophical arguments can be evidence:

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

A logical argument is a thing; and that logical argument can help me form a conclusion.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Since you two are making derogatory statements like the ones above, I have the right to post the thread and let people decide for themselves:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

Now, back to this topic.

Derogatory? They seemed factual to me. Just because they weren't favorable to your point of view doesn't make them derogatory.

 

[Mojo]

Since you two are making derogatory statements like the ones above...

If you don't like those suggestions, there is another explanation for your behaviour, but it is even less flattering than the suggestions that you don't read, or don't understand, what other people post in response to you.

 

[pakeha]

Logical and philosophical arguments can be evidence:

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

A logical argument is a thing; and that logical argument can help me form a conclusion.

Of course you're right, DOC, logical arguments are powerful, which is why they have to based on evidence.
And it's evidence we're trrying to discuss here.
The logical arguments and opinions you've offered thus far just don't seem to have base in anything except faith.

 

[six7s]

It is almost impossible to explain why Christianity is even in existence without the Resurrection.

Almost impossible?

For the willfully ignorant, perhaps

Please, DOC, at least try to:

1. think critically
2. resist the urge to post any more inane waffle

TYIA

 

[six7s]

When people make a post, I have a right to respond to it. If in my response the historical martyrdom of all but one apostle is a reasonable response to that post, I have the right to bring it up. And the historical martyrdom of 11 apostles is not a line it's history.

Funny how none of you complained when slavery was brought up probably over a hundred times, and several times when it had nothing to do with a post.

Just because you fail (to differentiate between what is and what is not relevant) doesn't mean we all have to

 

[AdinDraco]

Please, oh please don't do the "I've done 'x' number of posts" thing again. It's irrelevant. Other people can and have posted more and said even less. Volume does not equal evidence. Repitition does not equal evidenced argument. Between this and matyrs, I'm getting deja vu. Again.

 

[six7s]

Now, back to this topic.

Cool!

Do you have ANY evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

 

[Hokulele]

Logical and philosophical arguments can be evidence:

Only when they are based on valid premises, which is why Geisler's examples of circular reasoning are so pathetic.

*Cue Akhenaten's GIF*

 

[Hokulele]

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.

This assumes that the authors would have to be eyewitnesses to such shenanigans. I make no such assumption.

Or, what Elizabeth I said.

 

[pakeha]

Since you two are making derogatory statements like the ones above, I have the right to post the thread and let people decide for themselves:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

Now, back to this topic.

As paximperium has shown earlier, that particular thread shows a pattern of posting behaviour on the part of DOC, one that led to the locking of the thread.
What is a mystery is why DOC continues in the same vein.
Old habits die hard?