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

[Akhenaten]

Welcome Waterman.

You now have .0083 Proof Points™

You require 1195 more posts to be out there for all to see in order to win.

Please insert coin to continue playing.



Welcome to Circus Evidence, the Greatest No-Show on Earth.

 

[joobz]

...The apostles who lived with Jesus for 3 years would have needed some evidence that Jesus in fact did rise from the dead. The fact that 11 of them were martyred at different times and places and none of them recanted when it could have saved their lives (especially after they demonstrated uncertainty and cowardice pre-Resurrection) shows me that those 11 apostles did in fact witness a Resurrected Christ.

---

So let me get this straight... according to your infromation above even the apostles who lived with 'god incarnate' for 3 years prior to the crucifixtion were uncertain and skeptical about the fact that he was who he said he was. They had direct face to face access and were still not convinced. It took not only the cruxification but the resurrection AND physical proof that he was not only who he said he was but that he has been stabbed with a mortal wound. Geesh you'd have thought that being an eyewitness miracles for 3 years would have been enough for most people.

Now you are here tell me that I should belive in the Jesus of the Bible based on contradictory and obviously alter old book that is around 1700 years old and constructed by a committee (and looks like it too) when even the Bible itself states that the eyewitnesses were doubtful until shown proof? Are we to belive based on less evidence than was provided to the apostles, the 'eyewitnesses' to many of the events, but seemed to be by your own statements still on the fence about this whole 'son of god incarnate' thing?

DOC,
Here's a great question. Perhaps you'd like to explain it?

Let's put things more simply.
If Doubting Thomas were alive today (and not then), would he believe in Jesus?

 

[paximperium]

DOC,
Here's a great question. Perhaps you'd like to explain it?

Let's put things more simply.
If Doubting Thomas were alive today (and not then), would he believe in Jesus?

If Jesus was alive today, would he believe in god or take his medications?

 

[sonofgloin]

So let me get this straight... according to your infromation above even the apostles who lived with 'god incarnate' for 3 years prior to the crucifixtion were uncertain and skeptical about the fact that he was who he said he was. They had direct face to face access and were still not convinced. It took not only the cruxification but the resurrection AND physical proof that he was not only who he said he was but that he has been stabbed with a mortal wound. Geesh you'd have thought that being an eyewitness miracles for 3 years would have been enough for most people.

Waterman, what a positive response to your first post, you must be proud. Bringing a logical interpritation to the actions of a hand full of simple souls from 2000 years ago to discredit something that that you know has no defendable base except faith. Like shooting ducks in a barrel, you can't fail.

Consider the time and place of the events. The Romans are hunting Christians, messiah's are arriving and departing like a Chinese meal and your leader has been crucified. After his death in this climate of failure could not the faithful consider that all they had seen was a conjurers tricks, I would. It is the resurrection and the appearance that Christ made to his most faithful that inspired the belief in them of the validity of his words, not the miracles.
Why did Jesus appear to his best mates, because he understood the frailty of humanity, and that frailty is based upon mortality, and the victory over mortality is the only salient example of a god that humanity would accept then and now as proof positive of a power greater than us.

The texts are about as valid as Wiki will be in 2000 years, who wrote it, did they have an agenda, can I believe it. At the end of the day texts and forced indoctrination do not sway your thoughts, as you make up your own mind, but you must consider there are possible alternatives to any thoughts where the defying of logic and physics is primarily involved in the arguement. Such as god and utility bills.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Waterman, what a positive response to your first post, you must be proud. Bringing a logical interpritation to the actions of a hand full of simple souls from 2000 years ago to discredit something that that you know has no defendable base except faith. Like shooting ducks in a barrel, you can't fail.

Consider the time and place of the events. The Romans are hunting Christians, messiah's are arriving and departing like a Chinese meal and your leader has been crucified. After his death in this climate of failure could not the faithful consider that all they had seen was a conjurers tricks, I would. It is the resurrection and the appearance that Christ made to his most faithful that inspired the belief in them of the validity of his words, not the miracles.
Why did Jesus appear to his best mates, because he understood the frailty of humanity, and that frailty is based upon mortality, and the victory over mortality is the only salient example of a god that humanity would accept then and now as proof positive of a power greater than us.

The texts are about as valid as Wiki will be in 2000 years, who wrote it, did they have an agenda, can I believe it. At the end of the day texts and forced indoctrination do not sway your thoughts, as you make up your own mind, but you must consider there are possible alternatives to any thoughts where the defying of logic and physics is primarily involved in the arguement. Such as god and utility bills.

And the reason god hasn't performed any true miracles in any centuries since the Bible was written to provide evidence, much less face-to-face?

And the reason god's word, the Bible, either encourages a level of morality that we find reprehensible or is erroneously translated?

Quite an all-powerful god you have there

 

[sonofgloin]

And the reason god hasn't performed any true miracles in any centuries since the Bible was written to provide evidence, much less face-to-face?

Bob I agree, it would make it easier for the faithful.

And the reason god's word, the Bible, either encourages a level of morality that we find reprehensible or is erroneously translated?
Quite an all-powerful god you have there

As I said Bob you translate the texts to your own satisfaction, we all do. What you mean by moral reprehensity is beyond me, the ten commandments are gems. If we employed them, and all religions have their own parrallel sets, things would be great, no need for a here after (except for the immortality bit),and that is the carrot. Please have the good manners not to trot out Hagar slew the Theodolites and other such old testiment history lessons, they were barbaric times and that is exampled in the barbaric theme of the texts, but none of that smite the sons of Benites is in the new testament. The old testament is a history of the trials and victories of the Jews and my opinion is that the ten commandments is the only tranferable lesson in it.

Bob you seem to take the position of a protagonist to me, I expect based on the theme of theist and atheist, I have not proclaimed a faith, or position on the question of a god. But what I have done is example the simplicity of the negative arguement, it is indeed as simplistic at base as the positive view in regard to qualifying a position given the subject is etherial.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob I agree, it would make it easier for the faithful.



As I said Bob you translate the texts to your own satisfaction, we all do. What you mean by moral reprehensity is beyond me, the ten commandments are gems. If we employed them, and all religions have their own parrallel sets, things would be great, no need for a here after (except for the immortality bit),and that is the carrot. Please have the good manners not to trot out Hagar slew the Theodolites and other such old testiment history lessons, they were barbaric times and that is exampled in the barbaric theme of the texts, but none of that smite the sons of Benites is in the new testament. The old testament is a history of the trials and victories of the Jews and my opinion is that the ten commandments is the only tranferable lesson in it.

Bob you seem to take the position of a protagonist to me, I expect based on the theme of theist and atheist, I have not proclaimed a faith, or position on the question of a god. But what I have done is example the simplicity of the negative arguement, it is indeed as simplistic at base as the positive view in regard to qualifying a position given the subject is etherial.

I'm only antagonistic towards the belief that the Bible is worthy of being a source of morality.

FYI, there's a thread in these very forums on the morality of slavery based on the New Testament teachings of Christ. So, really, your sole defense of the Bible as a source of morality is a single passage, the Ten Commandments. Note that the Ten Commandments are listed differently in 3 different locations in the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments). So, which 10 commandments are we supposed to use? And what about the differences between the Christian commandments and those of other religions? Isn't that one of the reasons for religious fighting?

And since many people don't believe in any god, much less the Christian god - what commandments should they adhere to? What makes Christian morality superior to atheist morality to the point that we should all just automatically accept it? You do recall that the first three commandments require belief in multiple gods (in order for there to be no gods before the Christian god, there must be other gods...), right?

Here's another good read on the Ten Commandments: http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

 

[Hokulele]

As I said Bob you translate the texts to your own satisfaction, we all do. What you mean by moral reprehensity is beyond me, the ten commandments are gems. If we employed them, and all religions have their own parrallel sets, things would be great, no need for a here after (except for the immortality bit),and that is the carrot.

I disagree. Half of the Ten Commandments are simple statements of insecurity on the part of the powers-that-be. Between not worshipping other gods, not creating idols, keeping the sabbath holy, not coveting various items owned by others (strongly implying that women are property), and blasphemy, the only rules that could be applied to modern life, as well as other major religions, seem to be the ones against murder, theft, false witness, adultery, and honoring one's parents.

And even those I wouldn't consider "gems" so much as simple societal dynamics. I would go even further and argue that adultery is not necessarily a moral wrong. It depends on the culture and the partners in the marriage.

Please have the good manners not to trot out Hagar slew the Theodolites and other such old testiment history lessons, they were barbaric times and that is exampled in the barbaric theme of the texts, but none of that smite the sons of Benites is in the new testament. The old testament is a history of the trials and victories of the Jews and my opinion is that the ten commandments is the only tranferable lesson in it.

Even the New Testament includes morally questionable actions. Having Ananias and Sapphira drop dead for not buying into the idea of communism seems to be a bit of an overreaction.

Bob you seem to take the position of a protagonist to me, I expect based on the theme of theist and atheist, I have not proclaimed a faith, or position on the question of a god. But what I have done is example the simplicity of the negative arguement, it is indeed as simplistic at base as the positive view in regard to qualifying a position given the subject is etherial.

I am not sure what this means. Can you please explain a bit more?

 

[joobz]

Waterman, what a positive response to your first post, you must be proud. Bringing a logical interpritation to the actions of a hand full of simple souls from 2000 years ago to discredit something that that you know has no defendable base except faith. Like shooting ducks in a barrel, you can't fail.

Consider the time and place of the events. The Romans are hunting Christians, messiah's are arriving and departing like a Chinese meal and your leader has been crucified. After his death in this climate of failure could not the faithful consider that all they had seen was a conjurers tricks, I would. It is the resurrection and the appearance that Christ made to his most faithful that inspired the belief in them of the validity of his words, not the miracles.
Why did Jesus appear to his best mates, because he understood the frailty of humanity, and that frailty is based upon mortality, and the victory over mortality is the only salient example of a god that humanity would accept then and now as proof positive of a power greater than us.

The texts are about as valid as Wiki will be in 2000 years, who wrote it, did they have an agenda, can I believe it. At the end of the day texts and forced indoctrination do not sway your thoughts, as you make up your own mind, but you must consider there are possible alternatives to any thoughts where the defying of logic and physics is primarily involved in the arguement. Such as god and utility bills.

that's a long winded and rather snarky way of saying nothing.

 

[sonofgloin]

I disagree. Half of the Ten Commandments are simple statements of insecurity on the part of the powers-that-be. Between not worshipping other gods, not creating idols, keeping the sabbath holy, not coveting various items owned by others (strongly implying that women are property), and blasphemy, the only rules that could be applied to modern life, as well as other major religions, seem to be the ones against murder, theft, false witness, adultery, and honoring one's parents.

Hokulele, if you take out the three commandmewnts that directly refer to god, then you are left with the reason we have police and laws to punish the contravention of the rest. If we followed the other seven we would not need police or laws, so how can you dismiss the rest as solicial caveats rather than principals towards a betterment of society.

And even those I wouldn't consider "gems" so much as simple societal dynamics. I would go even further and argue that adultery is not necessarily a moral wrong. It depends on the culture and the partners in the marriage.

I expect you can come up with a couple of more dynamic commandments yourself, let's hear them then.

Even the New Testament includes morally questionable actions. Having Ananias and Sapphira drop dead for not buying into the idea of communism seems to be a bit of an overreaction.

I was quite specific in what I said, and I asked Bob not to quote me back refuting points about the swinging moral values sometimes exhibited in the wider Christian texts. My comment is specifically about the ten commandments, they of themselves are plain and evident.

I am not sure what this means. Can you please explain a bit more?

You are refering to my non commitment to my religious ideologue, if any, well that is personal, and if I were a Christian or a Moslem or a Budist or whatever, is that not the primary beef of the atheist, the fact that the zealots and some faithful want to share their opinions and values with others.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, if you take out the three commandmewnts that directly refer to god, then you are left with the reason we have police and laws to punish the contravention of the rest. If we followed the other seven we would not need police or laws, so how can you dismiss the rest as solicial caveats rather than principals towards a betterment of society.

We would still need police, as the Ten Commandments do not cover all of human interaction by any means. Domestic abuse, rape, and assault are all crimes in most modern societies. At best, the Ten Commandments are a fine example of moral relativism.

I expect you can come up with a couple of more dynamic commandments yourself, let's hear them then.

"Do not do unto others what you do not want done to you."

I was quite specific in what I said, and I asked Bob not to quote me back refuting points about the swinging moral values sometimes exhibited in the wider Christian texts. My comment is specifically about the ten commandments, they of themselves are plain and evident.

You appeared to contrast the rest of the OT against the NT. I was simply demonstrating that the NT isn't always perfect either.

You are refering to my non commitment to my religious ideologue, if any, well that is personal, and if I were a Christian or a Moslem or a Budist or whatever, is that not the primary beef of the atheist, the fact that the zealots and some faithful want to share their opinions and values with others.

No, the "primary beef of the atheist" is when they are expected to conform to ideological values contrary to current morals. For example, DOC wants us to believe that only men can be the moral head of a household due to his religious beliefs.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hokulele, if you take out the three commandmewnts that directly refer to god, then you are left with the reason we have police and laws to punish the contravention of the rest. If we followed the other seven we would not need police or laws, so how can you dismiss the rest as solicial caveats rather than principals towards a betterment of society.



I expect you can come up with a couple of more dynamic commandments yourself, let's hear them then.

I was quite specific in what I said, and I asked Bob not to quote me back refuting points about the swinging moral values sometimes exhibited in the wider Christian texts. My comment is specifically about the ten commandments, they of themselves are plain and evident.

I take it you missed my post? Regardless, I fail to see how Hok's points are any less valid because your post wasn't directed specifically towards her. After all, aren't you stepping into this thread in response to a post that was directed towards Doc, not yourself?

You are refering to my non commitment to my religious ideologue, if any, well that is personal, and if I were a Christian or a Moslem or a Budist or whatever, is that not the primary beef of the atheist, the fact that the zealots and some faithful want to share their opinions and values with others.

I'm going to step out on a branch (I don't generally speak for groups) and say that the primary beef isn't that theists speak about their beliefs, it's that A) they attempt to forcibly impose their beliefs/morality on everyone else and B) they accuse science and atheists of immorality and being dishonest, yet are remarkably dishonest themselves when asked direct questions.

 

[sonofgloin]

that's a long winded and rather snarky way of saying nothing.

Long winded perhaps but not snarky, it is a statement of fact. It is no accomplishment to draw the obvious observation that the Jesus followers failed in their faith given they needed the re assurance of seeing that Jesus was still around after they watched him perish. But as I added as another scenario also based on no factual evidence:

"Consider the time and place of the events. The Romans are hunting Christians, messiah's are arriving and departing like a Chinese meal and your leader has been crucified. After his death in this climate of failure could not the faithful consider that all they had seen was a conjurers tricks, I would."

I simply see no accolade in one guess over another, especially when a scenario as I presented would come to you as a opposing position to your own thought direction, or perhaps that is the only thought that Waterman had on the subject, the most obvious one to suit his position

Crown him make him king of your logic stream if you like, but I must say as I will.

 

[Simon39759]

Hokulele, if you take out the three commandmewnts that directly refer to god, then you are left with the reason we have police and laws to punish the contravention of the rest. If we followed the other seven we would not need police or laws, so how can you dismiss the rest as solicial caveats rather than principals towards a betterment of society.

What do you mean?
That the other, useful comandments, are only needed because nobody follows the first three?

I expect you can come up with a couple of more dynamic commandments yourself, let's hear them then.

I would start with something against rape, and child molestation.
Seems like a good one to start.

Maybe something about assisting the poor and disfavoured... Well, I guess there is already quite a better set of rules available...

 

[sonofgloin]

I take it you missed my post? Regardless, I fail to see how Hok's points are any less valid because your post wasn't directed specifically towards her. After all, aren't you stepping into this thread in response to a post that was directed towards Doc, not yourself?

Bob I do appologise, I did not miss your post, I meant to direct the post to both you guys, but Hok's was meatier and covered your ground plus. In regard to my in point to the thread, Bob does it matter, it is a public forum, are you suggesting the only way I can participate in the forum as a newbie is to start my own thread, I have to talk to someone first, they don't know I am alive.

I'm going to step out on a branch (I don't generally speak for groups) and say that the primary beef isn't that theists speak about their beliefs, it's that A) they attempt to forcibly impose their beliefs/morality on everyone else and B) they accuse science and atheists of immorality and being dishonest, yet are remarkably dishonest themselves when asked direct questions.

Bob I could not agree more.

 

[sonofgloin]

What do you mean?
That the other, useful comandments, are only needed because nobody follows the first three?

Yes it could be read that way, but I was responding to the comment that the ten commandments is no big thing. How long would a society last if civilization inherited the direct opposite to the ten commandments as the basis for their moral compass....not too long. Society is based on trust and fidelity, and these are the things we betray when we break the seven social commandments of the ten.

I would start with something against rape, and child molestation.
Seems like a good one to start.

Simon as I posed the question those are the ones that came to my mind as well, but on furter thought I had to get nit picky as most of the other stuff we get up to is covered in the seven.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob I do appologise, I did not miss your post, I meant to direct the post to both you guys, but Hok's was meatier and covered your ground plus. In regard to my in point to the thread, Bob does it matter, it is a public forum, are you suggesting the only way I can participate in the forum as a newbie is to start my own thread, I have to talk to someone first, they don't know I am alive.

Nope. I was calling you out on your duplicity

 

[pakeha]

Welcome to the thread.

...Consider the time and place of the events. The Romans are hunting Christians, messiah's are arriving and departing like a Chinese meal and your leader has been crucified. ....

Could you give a source for this, please?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

Consider the time and place of the events. The Romans are hunting Christians, messiah's are arriving and departing like a Chinese meal and your leader has been crucified.

<again>

Could you give a source for this, please?

Uh oh. Haven't we been here before?

 

[DOC]

You may "add" but no one gives a rat's ass as to your recommendations.

So you don't believe in miracles but you can read the minds of the 180 posters in here. Statements like yours show a very angry bitter person.