• 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.
Hokulele said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, you said I could and DOC has avoided it again. My answer would be that a flying saucer was seen on both days. This of course is what was seen (or claimed to be seen - I assumed).

Btw, please DOC stop with the Alexander stuff. I don't accept dogmatically that Alexander existed exactly as I've heard, no-one is demanding that I believe every detail about his life, deeds etc is absolutely true and the claim that the person existed and did the things attributed to him is not an extra-ordinary claim (ok, maybe a little, but only a little). Trying to insist that we totally accept the stories of Alexander as true and ignoring the same level of evidence of Jesus is a complete strawman. If scholars reconsidered Alexander and said he probably didn't exist, I..wouldn't...care! If scholars said that Alexander was a son of an angel and magically slew enemy soldiers, then they'd better pony up some damn good evidence. The problem is that we ARE giving Jesus equal treatment and you don't like that. Not giving religion previliged treatment is NOT persecution.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
this is illogical.
The answer to the question will explain WHY your original argument was illogical. So to retract a statement that the question helps explain is simple stupidity.

I can see it. Hokulele can see it. Six7's can see it. Paximperium can see it. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that everyone (other than you) can see this. What I don't understand is why you can't see it.
 
joobz said:
this is illogical.
The answer to the question will explain WHY your original argument was illogical. So to retract a statement that the question helps explain is simple stupidity.

I can see it. Hokulele can see it. Six7's can see it. Paximperium can see it. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that everyone (other than you) can see this. What I don't understand is why you can't see it.
Click to expand...

Blinded by faith?
 
joobz said:
this is illogical.
The answer to the question will explain WHY your original argument was illogical. So to retract a statement that the question helps explain is simple stupidity.

I can see it. Hokulele can see it. Six7's can see it. Paximperium can see it. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that everyone (other than you) can see this. What I don't understand is why you can't see it.
Click to expand...
I think he sees it; hence his refusal to answer such a simple question and all the constant whining.
 
AdinDraco said:
Ok, you said I could and DOC has avoided it again. My answer would be that a flying saucer was seen on both days. This of course is what was seen (or claimed to be seen - I assumed).
Click to expand...


Thanks for answering. Your answer hinges on the actual existence of flying saucers, and that that is what was seen (known as begging the question). In other words, since the existence of flying saucers is under scrutiny, it cannot be stated as fact that flying saucers were what were seen. You seem to understand this with your parenthetical comment regarding claims versus reality.

If you were to have said that one could not assume that it was truly a flying saucer seen by those people (weather balloons, anyone? ;)), that would avoid a conclusion based on false premises.

This is basically the logical flaw in the OP, as was pointed out all the way back in post #3. This entire thread is based on a false premise and is essentially a 200 page example of begging the question and circular reasoning (using the premise to prove the premise). I posted a section of Geisler's book referenced in the OP somewhere in the first 10 pages or so (I can dig up a link if you would like), and it was a classic example of circular reasoning.
 
DOC said:
There is No Proof that Life came from Non-life {or in other words from non-living chemicals}. There are only theories.

You should apologize for wrongly calling me a liar.
Click to expand...

Well, interestingly enough, here is some evidence that it's more than a theory. Do you have anything remotely as convincing for why we know the NT writers were telling the truth?



ETA: I am of course ignoring the fact that you are equivocating in your use of the phrase, "only a theory".
 
Last edited:
One more reason why the argument about Alexander is BS is that, while we have plenty of evidences that he lived (many, many, many more than for Jesus), only a few of which are the accounts from historians, we do not accept every part of the accounts.

For example, it is sometime claimed that Bucephalus, Alexander's horse was untrainable until the king came along and touched it and that the horse immediately calmed down.
We have enough of evidences to accept Alexander really existed, but that has no bearing about this part of the myth.

Similarly, even if we accept that Jesus really existed, and, once again, he didn't have nearly as big and immediate an impact on his time and, hence, didn't leave nearly as many evidences of his passage, it would not have any bearing about the part of the myth were he really is the son of God and walk from death...
 
DOC said:
<snip whining about Hokulele not explaining her point in painstaking detail, instead forcing DOC to think. Bad Hokulele. You should have known better... ;)>

And you should also apologize for greatly implying that I believe the number of source proves the veracity of those sources. This is downright false and yet you guaranteed it was how I felt.
Click to expand...


Well, first off: Hokulele has finally spelled out the answer to why your post was illogical for you.
Read it, understand it.
If you don't understand how it relates to your post, then either:
a) take an introductory course in logic, or
b) take a metaphorical step back, and think critically and objectively about your posts




Finally, if you don't believe that the number of posts you make is indicative of their veracity, why do you SO FREQUENTLY refer to your post count in your arguments?









CLICKY, because you seem to have missed it, and the last bit is important.
 
X said:
Finally, if you don't believe that the number of posts you make is indicative of their veracity, why do you SO FREQUENTLY refer to your post count in your arguments?
Click to expand...
Teh Kittenz is Dead

Long Live teh new Kittenz

Its called padding... ideal for those who simply have to have the last word even (especially!) when they have nothing worth saying

DOC posted the OP with a promise to deliver 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth' and, although we know that he knows that we know that he knows he has none, he clearly feels some sense of ownership and perverse pride for this train wreck of a thread... maybe its his version of witnessing - his meal ticket to the Nirvana Café
 
I stopped by to see if DOC has adressed the question of the Torah as a non-Christian source for the veracity of the NT.
And also for the question of the Mara ben Serapion letter, ditto.
Any chance of a reply to OT material?
 
Hokulele said:
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.
Click to expand...
I haven't departed the house yet.

There are some who have received my words so that is good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
I stopped by to see if DOC has adressed the question of the Torah as a non-Christian source for the veracity of the NT...
Click to expand...

You probably mean the Jewish Talmud as a source for Jesus.

Here is what the Jewish Talmud says from the article:

The Historical Jesus -- Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
Select chapters by Gary R. Habermas

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward ad plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!(39)

Here we have another brief account of the death of Jesus. These two references to Jesus being “hanged” certainly provide an interesting term to describe his death. But it should be noted that the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in the same way. Jesus is said to have been “hanged” (Greek kremámenos in Gal. 3:13)...
From this passage in the Talmud we learn about (1) the fact of Jesus’ death by crucifixion and (2) the time of this event, which is mentioned twice as occurring on the eve of the Jewish Passover. We are surprisingly told (3) that for forty days beforehand it was publicly announced that Jesus would be stoned. While not specifically recorded in the New Testament, such is certainly consistent with both Jewish practice and with the report that this had also been threatened on at least two other occasions (John 8:58 59; 10:31 33, 39). It is related (4) that Jesus was judged by the Jews to be guilty of “sorcery” and spiritual apostasy in leading Israel astray by his teaching..."

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom