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

[Paulhoff]

How many of those were Messiahs? How many had historians write of them as actual people? How many had thousands of historical people die for them? And how many had almost all of the US presidents proclaim their belief in their teachings?

Now you believe what they are saying about Jesus, I bet you don't do that when they talk about anything else.

Paul

 

[Cleon]

It would seem logical to assume

So much for that "logic" stuff you were supposedly so good at.

that Messiahs from God shouldn't do embarrassing things.

Ah, so Jesus wasn't the Messiah after all, then, since Jesus did embarrassing things. Therefore, the NT isn't actually true.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ooh. That's a large trump card.

 

[Simon39759]

How many of those were Messiahs? How many had historians write of them as actual people? How many had thousands of historical people die for them? And how many had almost all of the US presidents proclaim their belief in their teachings?

Who cares?
Being elected didn't make them expert on theology, did it?
Also, remind me, did you not just make a post a few days ago about how Hitler proclaiming his own Christianity was irrelevant?
That flip-flop is especially interesting considering the fuhrer actually made more sacrifice than any other president, devoting several years studying at the seminar and preparing for a life of celibacy (he was Roman Catholic) devoted to Jesus.

 

[six7s]

... if the threads are garbage then the people responsible for the 100,000+ hits must like low grade garbage.

NO

Not must

Although I have an intense dislike of the crap that you incessantly spout, this isn't your thread - and I enjoy reading the posts of all the regulars who, by actively promoting critical thinking, combine to make this thread both entertaining and informative...

Shame you don't join in

 

[zooterkin]

And how many had almost all of the US presidents proclaim their belief in their teachings?

Almost all? Which ones are you excluding now?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Almost all? Which ones are you excluding now?

Knowing DOC, it will be that... that.... negro.

 

[pakeha]

Any chance of DOC posting up evidence unrelated to politicians, apologists or postcounts?

 

[six7s]

Any chance of DOC posting up evidence unrelated to politicians, apologists or postcounts?

There's a very high chance... after all, he can always go off on yet another tangent telling us P.O.N.D.S.C.U.M. atheists what we don't know about evolution

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by DOC
This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

http://searchwarp.com/swa413755.htm

Yeah, his website is hilarious.

It's a spoof site, right?
From the 'Healing' section:

...My friend was just a child but he saw his dad lay hands on a man who had no arm. When his dad laid hands on him the man grew an arm and all 5 fingers. That is G-d. It doesn't happen much anymore but I think there's a reason for that. I think G-d is allowing miracles to go more unseen at this time for some unknown reason to us. Not that it never happens but I think it's rare. Please don't write me and say "well this one's real and this was real etc". I don't have any way to refute you unless I was there or I know the people you're talking about. Here's the downside of healing. The Devil can heal too. The Devil can give sickness and thereby he can also remove it. It takes a discerning individual to be able to tell the difference so be careful. I've seen real healings and I'll tell you... there was something wrong. Everyone around me was saying "praise G-d etc" but I knew this was a deception. Not a fake healing... a real healing but not from G-d.] ...

 

[Niggle]

Well, mostly, yes.
They are transparently attempted at making some point in favour of Christian apologetism and fell far so far of the mark as to befuddle the usual laws of ballistic.

The current thread, to give you an example, appeared since the first page to be pointless and wrong-headed and its premise was debunked in but the two very first answers.
Since then, it has been moving along, running pathetically in every direction but the truth's, like a head-less chicken. People, alarmed by the gurgling clucks, have gathered around and tried to put the poor creature out of its misery. And yet, despite these efforts, you keep on resurrecting the thread like an foul, evil, necromantic colonel Sanders with an unspeakable fowl-related fetish.
It is quite sad, really and certainly not convincing.

I SO had to nominate this for pith!

 

[Niggle]

So to prove this point you are...


appealing to numbers.

If there was a grade lower than F for Logic 101, I would be forced to give it to you.

I did have a teacher once who resorted to a "Z" grade on a paper that was SO bad he couldn't even justify an F. No, it wasn't my paper. He couldn't even read it aloud to the class; it wasn't coherent enough (he tried).

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

How many of those were Messiahs? How many had historians write of them as actual people? How many had thousands of historical people die for them? And how many had almost all of the US presidents proclaim their belief in their teachings?

Well, the first three were literally sons of gods (or all of 1 god, I forget) or descended from direct sons of god, and I'm pretty sure one of the greatest and well known ancient historians, Herodotus, wrote in detail about them and their lineage.

In fact, ever since ancient times Herodotus is considered one of the greatest historians of all time. And he wrote about things that have been archeologically verified, have independent sources that confirm his reports and he reports unwelcome facts about several of his subjects including their faults.
So by your logic the greek gods existed, and several sons and daughters of gods have walked the earth.
After all, if some of the history in there is correct then all of it is true, right?

 

[amb]

Have theist ever thought that perhaps the god they believe in is way too small? I mean, the universe is almost infinite, with perhaps trillions of other planets out there that some may even contain intelligent beings somewhat like us. Has the son of god have had to be crucified in all the fallen other worlds as well? Or is it just on Earth that Adam and Eve ate an apple when told not to. Clearly, genesis is Earth centered. But Earth is but a bit of dust in the scheme of things in this galaxy, let alone the billions of other galaxies that we know about, and then some.
The theist argument does not compute when seen in this light.

 

[DOC]

Doc claims we don't quote his logical, er, slip-ups.

I'm quoting from his first post in this thread:

"The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves. For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards."

That they made self-deprecating remarks is typical of writing and speaking to further a cult or a cause: "I was the worst drunk in the entire city, according to the cops who arrested me many times, until I joined A.A. and now I am saved."

SO. NOT EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH OF THE N.T. Just evidence that to show oneself as depraved and then cured is a powerful way to win converts.

So you believe by portraying the apostles as cowards who didn't attend Christ's crucifixion to give him support and having the women (who at the time couldn't even testify in court or be counted as part of a crowd) attend his crucifixion and be the first to discover the empty tomb somehow furthered the cause? And that having Peter (the main apostle and future leader of the church) deny Christ 3 times to a lone woman at a campfire somehow futhered the cause. I would disagree with that contention.

 

[DOC]

Reason #10

"The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death."

This proves the NT writers themselves believed that Jesus was the Messiah, or said they did; it doesn't prove that Jesus WAS the messiah.

This is the sort of thing we mean when we say that the NT 'evidence' is just hearsay, and therefore not compelling.

You could say the same of Charles Manson's followers. They BELIEVED Manson could do miracles, and even described one: the flying jeep.

But their belief is not "Evidence for why we know the Charles Manson biographers told the truth".

It's only evidence that they CLAIMED TO believe in the miracle, or even DID believe in the Manson miracles.

But logic rules don't demand that I must accept their statements as proof.

To put it another way, Doc, since you don't understand the logical criteria we refer to, your statements are reasons why you believe in the divinity of Jesus.

They are just your reasons. Because they are not logical, we have no need to accept your reasons.

Well there is a difference. Charles Manson's life and teachings never had the power to be main part of the greatest selling book in history and the main part of the largest religion in the world.

And if Charles Manson had been put in the electric chair and killed and his followers knew he died and then they were separated and told at different times and and different places (like the apostles) either deny the "dead" Manson or you will be tortured and then put to death in the electric chair would they have denied Manson. I would suspect some of them would deny Manson to save there own skin. But we will never know that. So you're comparing two different situations.

 

[amb]

Granted christianity is one of the biggest religions in the world, but there are around close to 7 billion people on this planet, and the vast majority aren't christians.

Not to mention the 8 or so billion who have lived and died without ever hearing of this mythological religion since homo sapiens come on to the scene.
But, god loves you!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So you believe by portraying the apostles as cowards who didn't attend Christ's crucifixion to give him support and having the women (who at the time couldn't even testify in court or be counted as part of a crowd) attend his crucifixion and be the first to discover the empty tomb somehow furthered the cause? And that having Peter (the main apostle and future leader of the church) deny Christ 3 times to a lone woman at a campfire somehow futhered the cause. I would disagree with that contention.

...and the reason you would disagree is?...

ANOTHER no explanation post

'Tis a shame, really.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Have theist ever thought that perhaps the god they believe in is way too small? I mean, the universe is almost infinite, with perhaps trillions of other planets out there that some may even contain intelligent beings somewhat like us. Has the son of god have had to be crucified in all the fallen other worlds as well? Or is it just on Earth that Adam and Eve ate an apple when told not to. Clearly, genesis is Earth centered. But Earth is but a bit of dust in the scheme of things in this galaxy, let alone the billions of other galaxies that we know about, and then some.
The theist argument does not compute when seen in this light.

Are you asking this question in all seriousness?

Because of course theists have thought of this. With differing ponderings.

Have atheists ever thought that perhaps there are Xtians other than fundamentalists?

 

[Akhenaten]

"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.​

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

So you believe by portraying the apostles as cowards who didn't attend Christ's crucifixion to give him support and having the women (who at the time couldn't even testify in court or be counted as part of a crowd) attend his crucifixion and be the first to discover the empty tomb somehow furthered the cause? And that having Peter (the main apostle and future leader of the church) deny Christ 3 times to a lone woman at a campfire somehow futhered the cause. I would disagree with that contention.

OK, I'll accept that your first response was a joke answer to keep us all amused.

Would you care to have another go at a serious response.

Do you have any idea why the Reverend Professor Houlden is saying that all this drivel you post is UNKNOWABLE?

You ARE supposed to be on the same side, aren't you?


Waenre