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

Status
Not open for further replies.
sonofgloin said:
Doc's point is valid, if you believe one set of ancient texts why not the next, given you can not qualify either and you are forming an opinion based on the veracity you place in the transcription.
Click to expand...

No. It's absolutely not. Even if there was no contemporary corroborating texts surviving, albeit they existed at some point, Doc conveniently forget that the many other lines of evidences for Alexander's live.
The coins with his face; the statue of him; the evidences of his conquests, including the establishment of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties or even the publication of maps that included information not previously known acquired only during Alexander's conquests... Jesus has none of these...
 
BobTheDonkey said:
But...what's so special about them being in this particular list? We (human-kind) had these values before the Ten Commandments and people who don't adhere (or have never even heard of) to this list after they were codified have these same values.
Click to expand...

Bob the only point I raise is in regard to your comment is the fact that our jails are full and we have preyed on each other as veraciously as we have preyed on every thing else. I don't have your faith that without moral subjugation we would play nice.

So, why should we attach any extra special weight to these passages (and thereby to the bible as well) when every Nation/society (not all societies are identified by their respective Nation - think Amazonian/Island tribes) has laws or codes (or whatever you want to call them) that promote these values?
Click to expand...

My point is that before civil government engendered the commandments that pertain to how we should treat each other into common law, they were in place through religious doctrines of all the major civilizations. Bob if you live in a christian society, you received the law that hopefully keeps your neighbour from killing you via the old testament.
 
Hokulele said:
Well, I will disagree with this bit. Saying that there is no place for logic in such a debate renders the entire idea of a debate moot.
Click to expand...

I should have qualified that finding no logic to the debates premise is a personal opinion. As I said it has been rockin and rollin for 2000 years so folks believe that there is contribution to be made, or is it defending personal principals in the end, self satisfying if you will.
 
sonofgloin said:
Bob the only point I raise is in regard to your comment is the fact that our jails are full and we have preyed on each other as veraciously as we have preyed on every thing else. I don't have your faith that without moral subjugation we would play nice.



My point is that before civil government engendered the commandments that pertain to how we should treat each other into common law, they were in place through religious doctrines of all the major civilizations. Bob if you live in a christian society, you received the law that hopefully keeps your neighbour from killing you via the old testament.
Click to expand...

Circular logic at it's best. The ten commandments make the bible important and the importance of the ten commandments depends on the importance of the bible.

Is your bible and the ten verses you are touting really imperative to the morality of the community in which I live? I doubt it. This false dichotomy ignores that many wars/murders have been committed due to differences in religion.

How about you address my point that people with no knowledge of your ten commandments adhere to similar standards of behavior.

Regardless, the need for the ten commandments (or a lack of need thereof) does not provide any evidence for the veracity of the NT.

Anybody have any evidence?
 
sonofgloin said:
I should have qualified that finding no logic to the debates premise is a personal opinion. As I said it has been rockin and rollin for 2000 years so folks believe that there is contribution to be made, or is it defending personal principals in the end, self satisfying if you will.
Click to expand...

Are you Doc in disguise? I swear that's the same argument he uses.

There are plenty of other wide-held beliefs that lasted longer than 2000 years. That doesn't mean any of them are true...
 
Simon39759 said:
No. It's absolutely not. Even if there was no contemporary corroborating texts surviving, albeit they existed at some point, Doc conveniently forget that the many other lines of evidences for Alexander's live.
The coins with his face; the statue of him; the evidences of his conquests, including the establishment of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties or even the publication of maps that included information not previously known acquired only during Alexander's conquests... Jesus has none of these...
Click to expand...

Valid point, but the premise stands where texts are involved.
 
sonofgloin said:
Pakeha, there is none, nothing was transcribed at the time, all texts are after the event. Though the narratives do say that the Christians went into hiding, remember one denied Christ to the roman soldiers three times.
Click to expand...

:socks: ?

sonofgloin said:
Yes a sound observation indeed. The motive for my initial reply to the thread was the fact that an empirical statement was tendered to address an empirical question.

It is the self surety of being right that Hok mentioned to me in relation to Doc's stance in this forum. Given the subject matter and it's etherial and divine nature how can logic play a part in it, so it gets down to picking away at the validity of the text as an authority and that has been going on for 2000 years. So rather than defend or detract I question the reasoning of the statements made rather than the statement. Given we have discussed it for 2000 years with resolution nought the discusion has become a tennis match with no outcome envisioned by either side.

No there is no place for logic in a theological debate, it's gotta come from the psyche.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is a theological debate, as in order to have one of those everyone in the discussion would have to agree as to the existence of a Θεός.

In fact, a great many people in this thread have communicated their opinion that there is no evidence for a god, and that is the source of the disagreement.
 
sonofgloin said:
I should have qualified that finding no logic to the debates premise is a personal opinion. As I said it has been rockin and rollin for 2000 years so folks believe that there is contribution to be made, or is it defending personal principals in the end, self satisfying if you will.
Click to expand...


Age does not equal accuracy. Defending personal principles is fine, but DOC is taking this one step further and assuming that his principles should be mine as well. If he cannot offer any reasonable justification for this, why should I take his assertions as truth? I certainly do not hold him or anyone else to my personal standards.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Regardless, the need for the ten commandments (or a lack of need thereof) does not provide any evidence for the veracity of the NT.
Anybody have any evidence?
Click to expand...

Bob your talking to the wrong guy about this one, I came in on a tangent addressing a Waterford post that I thought was conjecture and not the subject matter itself. But seeing you ask, who knows, not anyone here.
 
sonofgloin said:
Bob your talking to the wrong guy about this one, I came in on a tangent addressing a Waterford post that I thought was conjecture and not the subject matter itself. But seeing you ask, who knows, not anyone here.
Click to expand...

So...now that you don't really have a solid response, you're going to claim that you don't have to answer since that's not really what you wanted to discuss in this thread anyway?

Is that how your discussions always go?
 
joobz said:
In other words, the whole point of your original post was to piss in the wind.
Click to expand...

No not at all. When when we discuss religion is it a discussion? it is if you are discussing it with others who are like minded. Otherwise we enter it with a bias that lasts all our lives. What camp we take and how fervently we barrack for our team has always intersted me. The "suspension of disbelief" that the faithful undertake interests me as does the zealot atheist. The proof of the authenticity of the NT is unresolvable and what I said initially must be somehow valid, so I could not have detracted from the debate...therefore it was not passing water in the jet stream.
 
sonofgloin said:
No not at all. When when we discuss religion is it a discussion? it is if you are discussing it with others who are like minded. Otherwise we enter it with a bias that lasts all our lives. What camp we take and how fervently we barrack for our team has always intersted me. The "suspension of disbelief" that the faithful undertake interests me as does the zealot atheist. The proof of the authenticity of the NT is unresolvable and what I said initially must be somehow valid, so I could not have detracted from the debate...therefore it was not passing water in the jet stream.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't realize that most of us who are involved in this discussion were quite religious at one time in our lives. We, therefore, have changed our bias ;)

You refer to atheists as zealots...but ignore that atheism, by definition, advocates truth above blind belief. If I'm a zealot for truth, then I wear that label proudly. At least I can provide evidence for the things I believe in.
 
sonofgloin said:
Otherwise we enter it with a bias that lasts all our lives. What camp we take and how fervently we barrack for our team has always intersted me.
Click to expand...
Many, many people have converted from one religion to another and out of religion entirely. Some have even gone the other way. So your assertion above is evidently false.
 
Hokulele said:
Age does not equal accuracy. Defending personal principles is fine, but DOC is taking this one step further and assuming that his principles should be mine as well. If he cannot offer any reasonable justification for this, why should I take his assertions as truth? I certainly do not hold him or anyone else to my personal standards.
Click to expand...

Hok this is the intersting thing about humanity, there is "us and them", and some people are only comfortable with "us and us" and work towards that goal. Folks that do not understand diversity are myopic, but that does not discount their myopic view, you evaluate and judge it, and know you are going to hear it over and over again, Thats the way it is with all zealots be they christian or otherwise. Theists and atheists have both made a commitment and neither employs an accomodating mind to the others thoughts.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I take it you don't realize that most of us who are involved in this discussion were quite religious at one time in our lives. We, therefore, have changed our bias ;)
Click to expand...

I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I would propose that the vast majority have made a religious preference or not by their late teens. With the few making decisions beyond that point moving from atheist to theist based on an emotional or life threatening experience, and the ones who have a western religion going all feng shui or orange.

You refer to atheists as zealots...but ignore that atheism, by definition, advocates truth above blind belief. If I'm a zealot for truth, then I wear that label proudly. At least I can provide evidence for the things I believe in.
Click to expand...

No Bob you are a zealot for self defined selective truths, as we all are. Being an atheist is easy, you can always find a contradiction given the shambles the passed down bible ended up as.
 
sonofgloin said:
I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I would propose that the vast majority have made a religious preference or not by their late teens. With the few making decisions beyond that point moving from atheist to theist based on an emotional or life threatening experience, and the ones who have a western religion going all feng shui or orange.



No Bob you are a zealot for self defined selective truths, as we all are. Being an atheist is easy, you can always find a contradiction given the shambles the passed down bible ended up as.
Click to expand...
Wow, I don't think you could have missed by a wider margin. But, that's ok. We'll work on correcting these misconceptions.

I was in my early-20's before I really let go of religion. I'd had my doubts for awhile, but they had more to do with "The Church" than religion itself.

As for my "self defined selective truths," apparently you don't fully understand the concept of science and logical reasoning. Nor do you understand that you are comparing a bronze-age mysticism with no evidence for it's supernatural claims to a system that is designed around reproducible evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom