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

[amb]

Not really, there is an actual condition of sweating blood which can occur under great stress. This thus supports the truthfulness of the verse since it is rare, and not something likely to be made up.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2223

Your quoting apologetic press? Where's the credibility in that?
I can link a completely off topic article too, where's my credibility?

 

[joobz]

You heard correctly:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5256763#post5256763

I've also heard that some people claim Elvis lives, that the abdoer will shave pounds off my stomach, that extenz can increase the size of my penis, that there is a rich prince in Africa who is willing to give me millions of dollars if I simply forward him some cash now.


You can't believe everything you hear.

 

[six7s]

So, over 7,000 posts, and still no Evidence, none. Why is this so-called god so unpowerful, so unknowing, so.............., never mind, it is such a waste of time.

There are hundreds of my posts in this thread that say otherwise.

No

There are hundreds of your posts in this thread that categorically testify that Paulhoff is correct in saying that you have provided NO EVIDENCE

The good news is that they are out there for anyone who has the time and desire to read them.

Yes

This is correct.

Anyone, other than the terminally deluded, can see that you are lying

 

[six7s]

Oh, yea, I know, skeptics believe if it is in the Bible it's not reliable? But don't tell that to the professional historians and archaeologists who have used it for their research.

DOC, this is exceedingly boring!

It has been painstakingly pointed out to you that - although there are many 'professional historians and archaeologists' that use the bible as a source of information, only the crap ones use it like you do

Anyhoo... this is all beside the point...

You started this thread on the premise that you have 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth'. So far, you have yet to deliver ANY

Please, either put up or shut up

 

[Akhenaten]

There are hundreds of your posts in this thread that categorically testify that Paulhoff is correct in saying that you have provided NO EVIDENCE

Anyone, other than the terminally deluded, can see that you are lying

Well, in fairness, DOC did convince ONE poster out of 220.

I find the last point most interesting. The desciples stayed true to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of death. Athiests have difficulty in explaining that away. Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place. This is so important. These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible. They were actually there they saw His miracles and heard Him preach. Is not their testimony better than the opinion of someone writing 2000 years later who's intent it is to rubbish the gospel accounts. I think it is.

Hello everyone i'm new on here.

Oh, sorry. I missed the bit about 'terminally deluded'. Carry on then.

 

[sonofgloin]

You most assuredly did not "miss" it. You answered with a non-answer. I consider this to be sidestepping.

Posts: 119 Originally Posted by Hokulele
Which biblical one? The NT version where Jesus defines it as "looking at a woman with lust in your heart"?

Cactus I did have an attempt at defining adultery, below is my answer to Hok on Joobz question about adultery. Cactus I do not sidestep, if I don't know and can not find out I won't stretch half truths to fit the bill, ....again I say sidestep, schmidestep.

Sorry for not answering way back when. No I can not shape up if the "look with lust" was the minimum entry point to adultery, for my money it is the act. Although the sin is in the thought.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well, in fairness, DOC did convince ONE poster out of 220.

I didn't win myself over

Actually, no.

 

[Akhenaten]

<something>

That's some mighty fine quote work there, Lou

 

[Akhenaten]

I didn't win myself over

Actually, no.

Pathetic, isn't it? To be a blank space on the spreadsheet of one's own convictions.

 

[Cactus Wren]

There was probably 2. But one person could have noticed only one angel and not noticed the other one maybe standing 30 feet to her side or behind her. Whereas the other witness did notice both angels. It happens all the time where witnesses see different details.

And where were they?

 

[pakeha]

Appeal to number of posts....tick
List of matyrs....tick
Dude who said something about Luke....tick
Name of famous dude who believed....tick

****BINGO*****

You forgot the number of manuscripts, AdinDraco.
I think it's 5 elements for bingo here. I could be wrong, though; and it wouldn't be for the first time.

I never thought I'd be in a thread in a skeptics forum where unicorns, Winnie's Nobel and angels are mentioned in a discussion about evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.
Halloween magic at its best?

 

[six7s]

Halloween magic at its best?

Not quite...

This is another tradition, one that is commemorated every day of the year in every christian chapel, abbey, basilica, cathedral, every christian parish and every christian home around the world: lying for Jesus

 

[pakeha]

Quite, six7s.
You're right, of course.
I was distracted by a vision of unicorns cavorting about Winnie whilst he wrote that history of WWII.

Back to the evidence the NT writers told the truth.

 

[Paulhoff]

There are hundreds of my posts in this thread that say otherwise. The good news is that they are out there for anyone who has the time and desire to read them.

Nope, none at all, not one. You have no, none, not any idea of what the word "Evidence" means. Saying something is So a millions times makes it no more so then saying it once.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh, yea, I know, skeptics believe if it is in the Bible it's not reliable? But don't tell that to the professional historians and archaeologists who have used it for their research.

"It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . . theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story."

– J. L. Houlden, Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11​

The Rev. J. L. Houlden is Emeritus Professor of Theology at King's College, University of London.

How's your evidence coming along, DOC? No doubt the Reverend Professor would like a look at it too.

 

[pakeha]

An interesting find, O Pharaoh.

...the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . .

Off to read more by the man.

 

[DOC]

Nope, none at all, not one. You have no, none, not any idea of what the word "Evidence" means...

Sure, I do, and I even posted it in post 13 of this thread:

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

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

The things posted in my first post are helpful in my forming a judgment that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true.

 

[Akhenaten]

An interesting find, O Pharaoh.


Off to read more by the man.

Unfortunately, because Rev Houlden is very big in print, as you've no doubt discovered by now, very little of his work is on the webz.

I'll keep hunting for more quotes myself.

 

[Akhenaten]

Post #13? Geez you have some catching up to do.

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

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

Agreed. The thing is, you're claiming to have brought evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth, when in fact your evidence so far has demonstrated the opposite to be true.

The things posted in my first post are helpful in my forming a judgment that the NT writers were telling the truth.

As above. They are more helpful in forming a view counter to your own. This has been demonstrated.

And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true.

I'd normally put THAT picture here but for the sake of variety I'll just point out that you can't produce MORE of something until you've produced SOME of it. By order of the Universe.

 

[DOC]

First of all let me say the following information is relevant and important to this thread because if we can show an increased likelihood in the existence of God then that will certainly increase the likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.

So then you must believe in an absolute morality outside of individual reasoning because I get the impression that if Germany and Japan and Italy had won the war and taken over the world you would still believe the Holocaust was evil.

A: I don't know what absolute morality outside of individual reasoning is.

Absolute morality are moral laws that exist regardless of subjective human opinions. And if there are "no" absolute moral laws outside of humanity then if Germany, Japan, and Italy won WWII and taken over the world then the Holocaust would not have been evil.

So, if you believe the Holocaust was evil no matter who won the war then you believe in absolute moral laws. Now the problem becomes who made these absolute moral laws. Moral Laws are made by a Lawmaker or Lawmakers, they are not made by primordial swamp scum. So if you believe in absolute moral laws outside of humanity's opinion then you must believe in either a God or Gods who created those Moral Laws; or you believe that swamp scum (aka non-living physical material) can make moral laws.

B: I do not believe in absolute morality.

Then you believe that if Germany and Japan had taken over the world the Holocaust would not be considered evil throughout most of the world.

C: Whenever I hear the term "Absolute morality" I've only heard in context of religion, in that morality is absolute and it can only come from God, and absolutely no place else.

This is true unless you believe absolute morality can be created out of swamp scum or some other non-living material...

E: I believe any genocide is evil. Even when God does it.

Then since you do not believe in absolute morality this is just an opinion of yours and you have no more right to your opinion than Hitler had of his opinion.

__

So I contend that since almost everyone believes the Holocaust and things like slavery and genocide and murder are evil (regardless of what others think or say), then this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world and thus this is an argument for the increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists and that absolute moral lawgiver is either God or swamp scum (aka non-living physical material). Since it would seem impossible that swamp scum (aka non-living physical material) can create absolute moral laws this increases the likelihood that God exists.

And since I have shown the increased likelihood that God exists, I have shown the increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.