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

[Tricky]

OK... I'll ask a mod to split this thread

This thread is far to large and eclectic to try to engineer any such split now. I recommend you start a new thread there, repeat any points from this one that you think are noteworthy.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Cactus Wren]

What does the evidence tell you, Cactus Wren?

That Moses was a figure of myth, and thus asking whether he was sane is as relevant as asking whether Pandora or the Hero Twins (from the Popol Vuh) were sane. But I'm trying to speak to DOC in his own language. Such as it is.

 

[dallasroofer]

I agree. And I love the Old Testament as well. Genesis is truly wise text.

 

[babbits]

JREF Nov 9/09 post #7616

I had said "[Just because] 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. "

Doc replied :

"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. ( Post # 7616)

It would depend on whether Manson's religion taught that if his followers were not prepared to die for their beliefs in this life, they would be tortured eternally for their 'betrayal'; and that the only way to see paradise instead was to suffer death rather than deny him. I don't recall that he taught them that.

Aside:

(Kinda makes you wonder why Jesus was so needy. Why was he prepared to see his followers tortured to death rather than be denied by them? He is the eternal all-powerful creator of the universe. And insecure? )

 

[DOC]

DOC it's you who have been typing that the story of Alexander may have been hearsay also. It's clearly not is it?

What is your source that there are contemporary historical accounts of Alexander the Great in existence?

 

[DOC]

I noticed that this entire time, you have avoided answering Hokulele's question.

I suggest that it is because you realize what the answer to that question would mean and you do not wish to expose your poor logic.

I don't answer secondary issues when someone calls my first issue illogical and won't explain why when I ask. When she explains why she thinks my first issue posted is illogical I'll answer her secondary question in which she added new material.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
But then Christ did tell one of his apostles to put away his sword because, "those that live by the sword die by the sword". Christ had a different way to get his message out. And it did get out against all odds.

I assert that this is a bald-faced lie. Do you have evidence to refute my assertion?

Matthew 26:52

Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back in its place, for all those who take up the sword perish by the sword."

 

[Hokulele]

I don't answer secondary issues when someone calls my first issue illogical and won't explain why when I ask. When she explains why she thinks my first issue posted is illogical I'll answer her secondary question in which she added new material.

You have never heard of the Socratic method?

Answer the following question, and I will be more than happy to explain the flaw in your logic.

If 100 people say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Friday, and 1 person says they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Saturday, on which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

And your failure to answer this simple question speaks volumes towards your desire to really know where your logic went wrong.

 

[DOC]

You have never heard of the Socratic method?

Answer the following question, and I will be more than happy to explain the flaw in your logic.

If 100 people say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Friday, and 1 person says they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Saturday, on which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

And your failure to answer this simple question speaks volumes towards your desire to really know where your logic went wrong.

And your failure to retract your obvious implication that my post was illogical says volumes about your credibility. Retract your statement and I'll answer your goal post moving question.

 

[Hokulele]

Matthew 26:52

Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back in its place, for all those who take up the sword perish by the sword."

Jesus also said in Matthew 10:14,

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."


And yet, you are still here.

 

[Hokulele]

And your failure to retract your obvious implication that my post was illogical says volumes about your credibility. Retract your statement and I'll answer your goal post moving question.

Show me where I claimed your post was illogical, or else retract your accusation here.

ETA: And now I know you never, ever, took a class in logic. Do you even know what "moving the goalpost" means?

 

[Akhenaten]

This thread is far to large and eclectic to try to engineer any such split now. I recommend you start a new thread there, repeat any points from this one that you think are noteworthy.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

I have no idea whether there is intentional humour in this post or not, but I pissed myself laughing anyway.

Sorry.

 

[Akhenaten]

What is your source that there are contemporary historical accounts of Alexander the Great in existence?

Maybe it will be posted in the Alexander the Great thread, which is NOT this thread.

I don't answer secondary issues when someone calls my first issue illogical and won't explain why when I ask. When she explains why she thinks my first issue posted is illogical I'll answer her secondary question in which she added new material.

Lolwut?

Originally Posted by DOC
But then Christ did tell one of his apostles to put away his sword because, "those that live by the sword die by the sword". Christ had a different way to get his message out. And it did get out against all odds.


Matthew 26:52

Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back in its place, for all those who take up the sword perish by the sword."

Where is your evidence that Matthew was telling the truth?

 

[Akhenaten]

And your failure to retract your obvious implication that my post was illogical says volumes about your credibility. Retract your statement and I'll answer your goal post moving question.

One extremely dark night, when the Moon was new and black clouds blotted out the stars, in a deep cave in a dim forest, the pot crawled a yard up the chimney, where he bumped into his old friend the kettle.

"You're black!", he noted.

 

[pakeha]

An interesting derail DOC is setting up.
Never mind the posts giving and seeking information on-topic, DOC has decided to show us his/her real focus: him/herself and his/her outrage and being called on very nearly every single point he/she has raised in the discussion.

DOC's excursion into 'debate rules' doesn't fool anyone here; it's obviously, at least from this side of my computer screen, an effort to avoid answering the arguments and objections raised against those 'lists' of non-Christian sources he's presented as evidence the NT writers told the truth.
Ah, well, at least we're headed toward 200 pages on this thread and sooner or later DOC will provide the promised evidence we're waiting for.

 

[amb]

What is your source that there are contemporary historical accounts of Alexander the Great in existence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Among many. No different to your sources.

 

[paximperium]

What is your source that there are contemporary historical accounts of Alexander the Great in existence?

Wouldn't it be nice if people just talked about the subject matter of my posts and not about me. But I know that is unlikely ever to totally happen on this system. Some people hope that by continually attacking me in any way possible they can discredit what I'm talking about. You might fool some people, but I think many people can see through all that and are instead focused on the material presented (and not DOC).

Hypocrite.

 

[Lothian]

This thread is far to large and eclectic to try to engineer any such split now.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Ooooo you are such a tease. Thanks for separating the thread.

I see that you have left this one to discuss Doc, logical fallacies and circular arguments but where have you split off the thread with the evidence?

 

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by DOC
But then Christ did tell one of his apostles to put away his sword because, "those that live by the sword die by the sword". Christ had a different way to get his message out. And it did get out against all odds.




Matthew 26:52

Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back in its place, for all those who take up the sword perish by the sword."

Wouldn't it be nice if people just talked about the subject matter of my posts and not about me. But I know that is unlikely ever to totally happen on this system. Some people hope that by continually attacking me in any way possible they can discredit what I'm talking about. You might fool some people, but I think many people can see through all that and are instead focused on the material presented (and not DOC).

Hypocrite.

Any evidence to support the OP?

 

[paximperium]

And your failure to retract your obvious implication that my post was illogical says volumes about your credibility. Retract your statement and I'll answer your goal post moving question.

Wouldn't it be nice if people just talked about the subject matter of my posts and not about me. But I know that is unlikely ever to totally happen on this system. Some people hope that by continually attacking me in any way possible they can discredit what I'm talking about. You might fool some people, but I think many people can see through all that and are instead focused on the material presented (and not DOC).

Hypocrite