• 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.
Mr Clingford said:
There is no solid evidence for the resurrection. There are accounts/ stories, whatever, which certain communities have a high regard for and personal experiences. But it is only by knowing these people personally, IMO, that one can begin to gain an idea why they believe things which are contrary to the usual workings of nature as we see them.

The evidence for God etc for me is extremely contradictory and I am trying to get to the bottom of it all.
Click to expand...
So which parts of the Bible/God do you actually believe in? (And, I'm being serious, non-snarky with this...) Do you believe in the creation story? What about Noah/Job/etc or do you believe the supernatural stuff in the bible is made up and the rest is a collection of parables?
 
Akhenaten said:
There's not much doubt about what the real problem with this thread is, is there?
Click to expand...
My only real grievance is with the OP. After 1300+ posts on a thread promising "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.", he has steadfastly refused to deliver ANYTHING other than a steaming pile of bovine excrement
 
Akhenaten said:
I
Coming from the class clown, that's not a huge benefit to you, but there it is, out there to speak for itself and for all to see.


Cheers
Click to expand...

seconded. from worst, most morally reprehensible, least credible person on forum.

that is, cheers for clingford.
 
six7s said:
My only real grievance is with the OP. After 1300+ posts on a thread promising "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.", he has steadfastly refused to deliver ANYTHING other than a steaming pile of bovine excrement
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's bizarre, no mistake.

Why start such a thread and then, as you say, refuse to deliver?


I vote masochism, but only because I can't say what I really think.
 
Mr Clingford said:
Unfortunately, the tenor of these boards does not encourage the presence of theists. I prefer less 'in yer face' ways of talking, unless it is with people I know.
Click to expand...
Fortunately for us there are some theists who are brave enough to come here and seriously address the points made and to give a sensible Christian perspective. For what it is worth I respect and appreciate your opinions, even though you are wrong:D.

There is no solid evidence for the resurrection. There are accounts/ stories, whatever, which certain communities have a high regard for and personal experiences. But it is only by knowing these people personally, IMO, that one can begin to gain an idea why they believe things which are contrary to the usual workings of nature as we see them.
Click to expand...
Faith is personal but evidence is evidence. No amount of backstory changes faith into evidence.

I wonder if the 9/11 hijackers or the American Doctor killers would have done what they did if they understood that their beliefs were purely based on faith for which there is no conclusive evidence. Perhaps sermons should have something akin to a health warning.

The evidence for God etc for me is extremely contradictory and I am trying to get to the bottom of it all.
Click to expand...
Good luck with your descent.
 
amb said:
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.:)
Click to expand...


Not to derail the discussion (and Mr. Clinford is doing a good job, by the way, and I too have to mention how much I can respect his position, even if I happen to disagree with his conclusions) but, yes.
From what I read, some Christians sects -the Roman Catholics, for example- believe that life can exist on other planets (other, often more fundamentalist ones, disagree with that as they are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible and/or the Bible passage about giving mankind dominion over the world is perceived as applying to the whole universe.)

For these sects, conceivably, not all of these aliens life form might have committed the initial sin. Hence, Jesus was not necessarily required on every planet but, on the ones he would have been, yes, a similar figure should have been offered.
It is even, from what I read, one possible proof for the existence of the Christian God, if we manage to contact aliens and hear similar stories about a ET Jesus...

Interesting musing, to be sure.
 
Simon39759 said:
That's the way I see thing.

Also, that he did participate to the travels do not preclude for certain episode to be added to embellish a skeleton of truth (link stripped).

Finally, does the P.O.N.S.C.U.M acronym actually stands for anything?
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I will continue to be optimistic despite teh lack of response even though I am addressing a specific points raised. While the thread continues on following the irrelevant detailment.
 
Simon39759 said:
From what I read, some Christians sects -the Roman Catholics, for example- believe that life can exist on other planets <snip/> Hence, Jesus was not necessarily required on every planet
Click to expand...
Colour me - a (col)lapsed catholic - intrigued! :)

Please, if you have references/links/etc, tell me more
 
Simon39759 said:
What post? Mine?
Click to expand...


No, not so much Simon. I went back to your original post and it's OK when it has its original context.

Just the quote/post combination above didn't parse very well.

No biggie. I think I get the drift now. Nobody else is bitchin', so I guess it's just poor old Pharaoh having a 'seniors moment'.


Cheers Mate.
 
DOC said:
This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

http://searchwarp.com/swa413755.htm
Click to expand...

joobz said:
appeal to authority fallacy....check.

Logic 101 grade = D.
Click to expand...

Better to get a D than the F you would get for 2 reasons:

1)you didn't refute any of the arguments as to why Luke can be considered a Jew made by the rabbi.

2)The issue at hand is was Luke a Jew. You offered no attempt to answer that issue with sources of your own.

This is just another example of the frequent policy exhibited in my threads that the main focus is to attack DOC and the issue at hand is of secondary importance; and sometimes even as your post demonstrates, the issue is ignored all together.
 
DOC said:
Better to get a D than the F you would get for 2 reasons:

1)you didn't refute any of the arguments as to why Luke can be considered a Jew made by the rabbi.
Click to expand...

Actually, the "rabbi" (I see no evidence that "Rabbi Stanley" is actually an ordained rabbi) didn't make any arguments as to why he thinks Luke was a Jew. He just decided not to believe that Luke was a gentile.

There's no evidence of Luke being a Jew or gentile one way or the other. It's also rather irrelevant.
 
six7s said:
My only real grievance is with the OP. After 1300+ posts on a thread promising "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.", he has steadfastly refused to deliver ANYTHING other than a steaming pile of bovine excrement
Click to expand...

Another no information opinion that takes up space and offers nothing to the thread. And my 1300 posts (several hundred with information) show that I have a different opinion than you.

Why can't people just let my posts stand for themselves without continually taking up space offering their no information opinion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom