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

[Lothian]

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?

Another no information opinion that takes up space and offers no evidence.

Why can't Doc just post some evidence without continually taking up space offering his post count update?

 

[joobz]

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.

Don't need to. It's an appeal to an authority. You must make the argument why his arguments are valid. You didn't. So Appeal to authority stands.
F--

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

Nope. I do not need to offer a counter argument to say your argument is flawed. Your wrongness was completey independant upon the rightness of any other argument.

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.

I attack poor logical arguments. The fact that you are the primary source of the poor arguments in this thread isn't my problem.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Read this - it contains information! ​

Why can't people just let my posts stand for themselves without continually taking up space offering their no information opinion?

Because they can.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder how many posts in this thread DOC is unable to see. I know of at least 200 201 202.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeesh. It's like your brain is shoved into a canopic jar or something.

Almost missed this in the flurry of evidence. Good one!

 

[six7s]

This is just another example of the frequent policy exhibited in my threads

For cryin' out loud DOC... for the gazillionth time:
They're NOT your threads

...the main focus is to attack DOC

There's one, exceedingly easy solution:

Present some arguments to be attacked, instead​

... the issue at hand is of secondary importance; and sometimes even as your post demonstrates, the issue is ignored all together.

Oh sweet jeebus...

Teh Irony... It BURRNZZZZZZZZ

 

[DOC]

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

Well here is some of the evidence I've brought into the thread.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4704978#post4704978

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4693173#post4693173

 

[Akhenaten]

Your links point to nothing. Your posts contain nothing. Your references contain nothing. 100 000 readers know this because your posts are out there for all to see and to speak for themselves.

Scary.

 

[sackett]

Doc isn't entirely wrong: People tend to focus on him rather than on his -- can I call them points? (As far as I can gather from this arid wilderness of a thread, Doc's arguments are actually borrowed, not really his at all. IOW, he's telling somebody else's lies.) As 6 Sevens points out, there's nothing really here except the question, What & hell is Doc actually up to?

What's his motivation? What is he trying to accomplish? I've speculated (yeah, I too have been sucked into this black hole; it was months ago; I stayed on the wagon as long as I could) that he wants to impress a girl, perhaps the plump alto in his church choir. (Or that purty little tenor boy? Hey, I don't judge anybody.) But candy and flowers work better, not to mention liquor, and I doubt that even a desperate 35-year-old virgin would keep trying this long.

Doc reminds me of nothing so much as a physics crank; see the Science subforum for Bjarne's antics. He displays that same immunity to logic and facts, if not as much irritability -- well, not quite as much.

I don't think the subject of this thread is what's really eating Doc. Honest to pete, I urge him, if he doesn't have me on Iggy, to go to Community and talk about his troubles. He'll get a sympathetic hearing. Should I say that he'll be shown Christian compassion?

 

[six7s]

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

Well here is some of the evidence I've brought into the thread.

Sigh

Is it that you just don't get it?

Or are you being wilfully stupid?

Either way... this is truly sad

--------------

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist By Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh
How many times are you going to post this Geisler et al crap?

It has, as you know, been thoroughly, comprehensively debunked each and every time you have used it to spam this thread

--------------

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell

For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

Yes.

You, DOC, know how it can be 'accounted for by any natural causes'. Please, stop pretending otherwise

--------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4704978#post4704978

» The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

Thread title is inaccurate. Should be The 25 Contrived Postdictions,... etc.

Enuff said

--------------

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Ahh, the old 'numbers out his ass approach' ... impressive.

Tends to get easier when you can retrospectively determine what the prophecies actually said in order to fit them to events. Even then there's a bunch they just missed, Egypt is still habitable, for example.

Enuff said

--------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php? ost4693173

Post #4107 of THIS thread

Let me be the first to say

PFFFFFFFFFT!

All those points have been raised, addressed and eliminated from consideration. Now, the only thing left is ridicule.

By now, even you know how it goes...

Please, stop lying for your messiah

 

[joobz]

Well here is some of the evidence I've brought into the thread.

which have all been addressed.

If you have nothing new to add, then it is clear that the thread is done.

I shall request that this thread be closed.

ETA: I think there have been several interesting discussions that have gone on. But most are not at all related to the OP.

 

[X]

<snip requests for examples>


So then you think these threads with over 100,000 hits each are low grade garbage?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

No, DOC. I don't think the threads are low grade garbage. A lot of very knowledgeable people have posted lots of interesting (and accurate!) information in them.

It is your posts that constitute the low-grade rubbish.

As BobtheDonkey wrote:

Ironic that you would ask for examples and then provide one immediately afterwards, no?

Of course you ignored the main purpose of my post which was to demonstrate the threads that should not be considered being low grade garbage and concentrated on me giving the post counts of two of them. This was done to show if the threads are garbage then the people responsible for the 100,000+ hits must like low grade garbage.

The threads I've posted in response to a person who criticized my threads speak for themselves, now back to this thread.

Bolding mine.

Again, you show a complete lack of logic and critical thinking.

Why the number of hits on a thread you started should mean anything about the people who post in said threads, or about the veracity of he thread subject, is a mystery to me, and anyone else with an understanding of logic. It is posts like this that make the rest of us certain that you have no ability to think critically about the garbage you trot out.

If you read those threads (and I remember them), you will find that most of the 100,000 posts are people trying (futilely, it seems) to explain to you why your arguments are unsound and unconvincing. And even still, you continually trot out the length of your threads as evidence of your greatness as an apologist. The mind boggles.

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 furthered the cause. I would disagree with that contention.

It is your contention that these things, the "embarrasing details", and other irrelevant bits of nonsense somehow are evidence that the New Testament can be taken as accurate concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The fact that you cannot see the problem with this logic proves my point about you being incapable (thus far) of applying critical thinking skills to your apologetics.

<about moderate Christians who, by and large, do NOT accept that:>

(1) Dying for your beliefs makes the belief more true.
(2) The New Testament writers including embarrassing details about themselves is evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible
(3) The theological views of the Presidents of America is proof of the resurrection

<snip>

These are your arguments he's re-stating, DOC.
Do you really not see why they are fallacious?
I'll help you out:

(1) unfounded premise, non-sequitur
(2) opinion, non-sequitur
(3) appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, non-sequitur

These are the fallacies present in the above arguments (which you have made). I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which parts of the argument correspond to which fallacies.

If we know [Luke] got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles [...] right.

Emphasis mine

The emphasized bit here is perhaps a slip on your part, but is nonetheless highly important.

You are correct. It is indeed a bias against the supernatural that prevents us from accepting supernatural claims.

The reason for this bias is simple: To date, no supernatural claim has ever been shown to have any substance beyond ignorance of the underlying causes.
Not one.

Why, then, should we accept claims of things that have never been demonstrated, never been shown as realistic?

You do, because you have FAITH.

You have FAITH that these things are real. Your so-called "evidence" makes sense to you because you have faith in these supernatural events being true.

Underlying all your claims has been this faith.

ANd you know whay?

I have no problem with you having faith.

If you wish to claim that you have faith in Jesus' resurrection, in Jesus being the son of God, in the New Testament gospels being authored by eyewitnesses who later martyred themselves, that's fine.

You are free to have faith. I can't touch it. And I won't try to stop you from having it.

But if you are going to claim to have evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth, it had better be able to stand up to critical scrutiny.

So far, not a single piece of "evidence" you have trotted out has even fit the proper definition of evidence, let alone pass a rudimentary application of rational thought.

If you want to claim that you take the New Testament as truth based on faith, do it. No one will attack you for it. They might call into question your reasons for your faith (to which you really don't need to respond, if you don't want), but they will not attack you for admitting that your belief is faith-based.

But this thread promised "evidence".

Either bring it up, or admit you have no evidence that does not relay on a pre-existing faith in the supernatural.

And if you insist on continuing to use the stuff brought up so far in this thread, you will receive only continued disrespect, mockery, and belittlement.
Why?
Because all the primary and supporting evidence you have brought forward to date has not stood up to critical scrutiny.
The reasons why the arguments have failed has been explained to you in patient detail.

DOC, it's time to stop pretending that American Presidents, supposed (and unproven) martyrs, opinions about what is embarrassing, and landmarks constitute evidence that Jesus' resurrection and miracles really happened as documented in the New Testament.


Because other works can also make these claims, as has been pointed out, forcing you into desperate "special pleading" mode where you bring out more irrelevant, illogical nonsense that gets torn apart and spit back at you. And then you get all huffy and "persecuted".

I repeat:
Either bring forward some real evidence (or sound arguments for why the stuff you've brought forward so far should be considered as such), or admit it is a matter of faith to you and that you have no solid evidence.

We are seeing plenty of obvious mistakes here. You can take the truth of the resurrection as a matter of faith. You can’t say that it definitely happened because the New Testament writers described it like other historical events: with a simple, unembellished account. An argument made in the O.P..

 

[Elizabeth I]

The evidence for God etc for me is extremely contradictory and I am trying to get to the bottom of it all.

And, again, when you say there is contradictory evidence why would you come down on the side of believing in a supernatural entity rather than just the nature of the universe?

2)The issue at hand is was Luke a Jew.

No, the issue at hand is, is there any evidence that the writers of the New Testament told the truth?

How many attempted derails does this make?

 

[Akhenaten]

No, DOC. I don't think the threads are low grade garbage. A lot of very knowledgeable people have posted lots of interesting (and accurate!) information in them.

It is your posts that constitute the low-grade rubbish.


<respectful snip>

Regardless of the reaction of the intended recipient of that message, it won't be wasted, as you are no doubt aware.

Thank you for taking the obvious time and effort that you did to produce it.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[pakeha]

This thread has certainly moved on since page 186.
We've decided the OP is thoroughly debunked; there is no evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.
DOC seems to want to engage in a "Was Luke a Jew?" discussion, which is fine.
Here's the website of rabbi Stanley, thus far his main authority:
http://mosaicministries.homestead.com/

 

[amb]

I'm not sure that it does lead naturally, of course, but I agree that critical thinking is more likely to be found in atheists.

I think that amb is letting himself down (as do you at times IMO) by using sloppy arguing.

But there is also another point. So often people here say that theists hardly, if ever, use critical thinking and possess solely blind faith. This is simply not the case and is an insult to a number of clever, thoughtful people I know. So I let it bug me when people do what they deride in others. Sloppy, arrogant atheism does itself or critical thinking no favours.

If he does mean that then I agree. Geo-centric is even perhaps too generous, as the earth was pretty much all there was in their thinking, apart from loads of watery chaos.

What else could I possibly have meant if not a Geo-centric universe as understood in the Bronze age when this myth was written down?
You also state, you doubt Jesus was a human being.
What is easier to digest? A magical god-man who came to Earth to die for some perceived wrong done by the first humans, or a fire and brimstone preacher like John the Baptist? Occam's Razor suggests the latter.

 

[amb]

How the hell could the N/T writers be telling the truth when they were writing hearsay, copying, translating, and in particular, each of these writers were writing for different people in different parts of the Roman Empire. Putting in their translations to the events circulating at the time. There is not a single eye witness. Only third and more hand hearsay's and myth at best. Even the the letters of Paul were at least10- 20 years after any event. Mark the first gospel to appear, 30 or more years after any event.
How anyone can have faith on such a hosh posh of sources is beyond my understanding.

 

[Akhenaten]

This thread has certainly moved on since page 186.
We've decided the OP is thoroughly debunked; there is no evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.
DOC seems to want to engage in a "Was Luke a Jew?" discussion, which is fine.
Here's the website of rabbi Stanley, thus far his main authority:
http://mosaicministries.homestead.com/

Pharaoh is not allowed to access that site, apparently.

 

[Simon39759]

Thankfully, I am a very mainstream Pastafarian...

 

[pakeha]

Alas, I see no way around that obstacle, o pharaoh.