• 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.
Do you have evidence of the existence of souls? Or do you have evidence that some people believe in such things?
 
DOC said:
If I could give evidence of the existence of the soul would that be evidence that increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth?
Click to expand...
Buddha, Brahma, Guru Nanak, Prophet Muhammad etc. will be most pleased since that would be more evidence that they told the truth.
 
DOC said:
You're phony to say talking about the existence or non existence of the soul in a New Testament thread is a derail

Jesus and Paul talked a lot about the soul in the NT.

If you can prove the soul doesn't exist, like some in here implied then that would be extremely important to your arguments.
Click to expand...

Phoney, perhaps, but pertinent.
This thread is based on the subject of evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.
Or so I thought.

If you can prove the soul doesn't exist, like some in here implied then that would be extremely important to your arguments
Click to expand...

Calling on posters to prove a negative seems like thread derailment to me, especially when the demand is based on a post made over 7 months and 100 pages ago.
 
DOC said:
If I could give evidence of the existence of the soul would that be evidence that increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth?
Click to expand...

No.
In fact, almost the contrary, since there is ample evidence that during the last 2,000 years, Christian atrocities have been committed to 'save' the victim's soul.
And continue to be committed.

So no.
Anyway, back on topic?
 
DOC said:
So the existence or non-existence of the soul that Jesus talks about is not an important factor in the NT?
Click to expand...

Speaking of souls, do you think animals also have a soul? If not, why not?
We are after all animals too. We evolved from the same ancestor as did the chimpanzee. When was it we acquired this soul do you think? While we were still half savages or just slightly after when we started to live in groups?
What's the babble have to say about all this? Please don't give me the Adam and Eve tale as that can't be right as it is plagiarized from Sumerians myths.
 
This is a just another example of how many times the main priority is to try to make me look bad in some way rather than the issue in question.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's right...this whole forum, every thread in it, all the posters talking about politics and sports and goats...the only point is to make you look bad.

There's a word for that kind of thinking, and people who indulge in it are usually advised to seek professional help.
 
Yes, sooner or later that subject must be broached.
If it were one instance or even a dozen, I'd be thinking it's probably a likkered up poster, no worries, give the guy a break.

But this is a pattern over years, as can be seen in the forum archives. :(
 
DOC said:
So then if your brain says slavery is evil like you have many times that is strictly because of chemical reactions in your brain. All someone would have to do is change the chemistry in your brain somehow and then it would be possible to make slavery no longer evil.
Click to expand...

Yes! You can change peoples beliefs/personality by changing their brain. Brain injuries have been shown time and time again to radically change personalities (remember the most famous case that started it all - the guy with the rod through his head). Some forms of seizures induce religious feelings. Imbalances in brain chemistry causes people to murder, rape etc etc.

btw if you knew enough about brain chemistry/physiology (and I'm talking probably science fiction levels - not there yet), you could indeed alter a person's beliefs and morals.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Yep, that's right...this whole forum, every thread in it, all the posters talking about politics and sports and goats...the only point is to make you look bad.

There's a word for that kind of thinking, and people who indulge in it are usually advised to seek professional help.
Click to expand...


I know you addressed that to Doc, but it was me that you were talking about, wasn't it? You're always talking about me, you people. And you say bad things too. Everybody does. It's not fair. I'll bet they're even talking about me in that other thread while I'm distracted over here.

Anyway, it's all a thread derail, just like you people are always doing. Now, back to the topic.

As I've clearly proved in my previous 48,517,984,571,987,529,834,792,387,409,283,564,092 posts on this topic which are out there for all to see, Lord Greystoke, the world's most athletic historian, has categorically demonstrated what's going on here with his most memorable utterance, "Cheetah!"

You people need professional help. You're obviously all quite mad, and maybe even fruitcakeses.

Go away.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If I could give evidence of the existence of the soul would that be evidence that increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth?
Click to expand...

Technically, no. This is for the same reasons that you could prove an intelligent creator of the universe and it wouldn't be proof for any known religion without a evidenced chain linking them.
 
Soul Evidence

I'm interested enough in finding out what evidence Doc has for immortal souls that I would be willing to grant it as a point for his other claim. The existence of souls is at least consistent with the NT being true, and he strongly implies the evidence is really good. Why would he withold evidence for the existence of souls contingent on us agreeing it would be evidence for the NT unless the evidence is really convincing? :cool:
 
DOC said:
So then if your brain says slavery is evil like you have many times that is strictly because of chemical reactions in your brain.
Click to expand...
Oversimplified, but basically yes.

DOC said:
All someone would have to do is change the chemistry in your brain somehow and then it would be possible to make slavery no longer evil.
Click to expand...
1.) We have evidence of this happening. People with brain tumors, which results in vastly augmented brain chemsitry have vastly augmented personalities, sense of morality...
2.) My reason for calling slavery evil isn't simply a matter of opinion. It is a logical conclusion based upon empathy and the ability to reason. IF you were to augment my ability to reason, then you would change my ability to consider slavery evil, but that wouldn't make those arguments any less valid from a objective standpoint.
 
AdinDraco said:
Technically, no. This is for the same reasons that you could prove an intelligent creator of the universe and it wouldn't be proof for any known religion without a evidenced chain linking them.
Click to expand...
This is right, but if someone could show a God or a soul is "likely" to exist it, it would increase the probability that the NT writers were telling the truth.
 
paximperium said:
Buddha, Brahma, Guru Nanak, Prophet Muhammad etc. will be most pleased since that would be more evidence that they told the truth.
Click to expand...
So then you agree that increased evidence that the soul exists would be more evidence that the NT writers were telling the truth.
 
DOC said:
If you can prove the soul doesn't exist, like some in here implied then that would be extremely important to your arguments.
Click to expand...

You can't prove a negative.
I can not prove the non-existence of souls any more than you can prove that the invisible dragon in my basement is not real.
However, one can notice that so far no evidence for a soul has been discovered, quite the contrary, plenty of evidences exist that, far from being some kind of metaphysical eternal ether, one person's conscience and personality is the product of brain activity and subject to physical and chemical contingencies.
In short, there is less evidences for the existence of souls than for the existence of Big-foot.


And, even if the souls were proven to exist, it would not change anything about Jesus, as he did not 'discover' the concept. He just reflected the predominant beliefs in his society. You would expect any first century Jew to 'know of' souls, it is not any more surprising that them knowing of wine or fish... It just reflects the intellectual make up of this population, that this make-up is right is quite irrelevant.

The only way it would be relevant would be if Jesus displayed some insights that would not normally be available to him.
Accurate and uncontroversial predictions would be great but even some scientific insights, mentioning the DNA double-helix, for example, of the heliocentric system and Matthew 21:21 would have been a great opportunity to add a little titbit about plaque tectonic...
At any rate, the opportunities were many for an all knowing God to casually prove that he was special...

Instead, we have a few vague, short term prophecies that either had already happened by the time the Gospels were written done (postphecies) or just plain did not happened (Luke 9:27). We have factual errors (Matthew 13:31-32) and misremembering of the Bible itself (forgetting about Elijah in John 3:13).
All that that would be expected from a purely human, if charismatic, first century prophet but not from the all knowing incarnation of God...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom