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

[paximperium]

Thank you for your opinion. And my opinion is they haven't been debunked so I guess people are going to have to read the posts themselves and make up their own minds. Maybe one day people will let the posts stand for themselves without interjecting their opinions every few pages, but I doubt that will ever happen.

NO. This is not YOUR forum or YOUR thread. Either defend your garbage or STFU.

In a way I'm encouraged by this behavior because it tells me that some people don't have the confidence to let their rebuttals or informative posts stand by themselves. They feel they have to continually make generalized opinionated statements in an effort to support them.

This is evidence that you are delusional or plainly stupid.

 

[pakeha]

Still waiting for a discussion by DOC about those debunked "10" sources.
Preferably one without the big fonts, please.

Seeing that DOC posted neither links nor explanations of the sources, leaving it for us to do so, I find this refusal to actually read the sources listed rather odd.
I only got DOC to acknowlege the dodginess of the Phlegon/Thallus debacle by asking his/her opinion about it as a source.
Is this why DOC wants to return to argument by lists?

 

[DOC]

Fantastic, DOC. Could you share with us why you think that those "10" sources weren't debunked?
The Mara ben Serapion letter, for example?
Or the Talmud?

The 10 non-Christian sources and 32 Christian sources (total 42) for the life of Christ speak for themselves just like the 9 non-Christian sources and 1 Christian source (total 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar speak for themselves also. Anyone who wants to look up and study those sources can.

If you say Tacitus, Seutonius, and Josephus, have been debunked you might as well throw out all ancient history. Using your rationale one could say Alexander the Great has been debunked too because there is no contempory historical account of him in existence.

You can't say the Talmud source has been debunked because it still adds some weight to the evidence for Christ. It might not be as strong as Tacitus, or Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ but Christians keep bringing it up as a source- Why? because it does add some weight to the total evidence. It might be a small weight but it still weighs something. In other word Christians would rather have it exist than not exist.

To make a blanket statement that it (or any of the sources) have been debunked is not being intellectually honest as long as they add one speck of weight to the evidence.

 

[KarlG]

The PhDs Norman Geisler and Dr. Hugh Ross have a different opinion than you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5281106#post5281106

___

I wonder when the next thread flooder and spammer will post another "Still no evidence, huh Doc?" post. Maybe it might of made sense to ask such a question on page 5 or 6, but to ask it on page 199 of this thread is laughable to any unbiased person who has read all 1300 of my posts.

I guess a person could have the opinion that there is enough evidence for them but to say there is no evidence I think seriously hurts the credibility of that person at this point in the thread. And this goes for the several people who keeps asking this and not just you Simon.
But this thread flooding will probably continue so I guess all you serious viewers will just have to put up with their non-informative repetitions.

Yes DOC, you've just admitted that it's just an opinion. Where is the evidence that their opinion is correct or more valid that the opposing opinion? Surely you must understand the difference between opinion and actual evidence by now.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No one has complained about the "flooding," lots of people have complained about the lack of evidence. Including me, now.

 

[pakeha]

A classic DOC rebuttal.

The 10 non-Christian sources and 32 Christian sources (total 42) for the life of Christ speak for themselves just like the 9 non-Christian sources and 1 Christian source (total 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar speak for themselves also. Anyone who wants to look up and study those sources can.

Right. The classic DOC derail, this time to Tiberius Caesar. No actual discussion of the "10" sources.

If you say Tacitus, Seutonius, and Josephus, have been debunked you might as well throw out all ancient history. Using your rationale one could say Alexander the Great has been debunked too because there is no contempory historical account of him in existence.

As we see, DOC uses the derail yet again, this time with Alexander the Great, not to mention the original use of a 'strawman' argument.

You can't say the Talmud source has been debunked because it still adds some weight to the evidence for Christ. It might not be as strong as Tacitus, or Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ but Christians keep bringing it up as a source- Why? because it does add some weight to the total evidence. It might be a small weight but it still weights something.

Fabulous. A classic DOC tactic is the argument by numbers and/or authority and here we have a choice example of it.
Explain how those Talmudic texts add weight to the evidence the NT writers were telling the truth, please, DOC.

To make a blanket statement that it (or any of the sources) have been debunked is not being intellectually honest as long as they add one speck of weight to the evidence.

Please support this idea with this 'speck' which you claim exists.
Phlegon/Thallus?
Mara ben Serapion?

DOC has taken it on faith his/her sources are accurate- it has been repeatedly posted up a great deal of evidence to show that is simply not the case, so why keep on repeating what has been rebutted, why not actually read the rebuttals and answer them, rather than repeating lists from Josh McDowell and cie?

There is a big difference between preaching and discussing.

 

[DOC]

Yes DOC, you've just admitted that it's just an opinion. Where is the evidence that their opinion is correct or more valid that the opposing opinion? Surely you must understand the difference between opinion and actual evidence by now.

Read the definition of evidence in post 13 and then read all my posts especially post 7667. If you still don't think there is any evidence then so be it, that is your right.

 

[Think_Tank]

To make a blanket statement that it (or any of the sources) have been debunked is not being intellectually honest as long as they add one speck of weight to the evidence.

...is not being intellectually honest as long as they...

...not being intellectually honest...

Trotting out the same discredited sources (for the debunking, please check earlier in the thread - damned if I will, life and dinner breaks are too short), and then making a statement like this?

 

[DOC]

Please support this idea with this 'speck' which you claim exists.
Phlegon/Thallus?
Mara ben Serapion?

This implies the other 8 sources add some weight, so you should amend your statement that all 10 have been debunked to 2 have been debunked in your opinion.

If I get the time I'll get some more info about the 2 you mention. But I have read something about them and let's put it this way, I'd rather have them in existence then not. In my mind that adds weight.

 

[AdinDraco]

Get off Alexander already! It's been explained again and again that it's not the same thing. If people tried to assert similar claims about Alexander as Jesus, then NO we wouldn't accept it without a bucket load of really good evidence.

 

[pakeha]

Read the definition of evidence in post 13 and then read all my posts especially post 7667. If you still don't think there is any evidence then so be it, that is your right.

DOC, this supposed to be a discussion, not a sermon.
And asking new posters to the thread to simply go read your posts rather sounds as though you imagine you've done anything more than post up lists from Josh McDowell and cie.
Why not take the opportunity to refine your arguments, rather than derail and reiterate?

Now, back to the Talmud, Mara ben Serapion and Phlegon/Thallus.
Won't you please explain how they provide evidence the NT writers were telling the truth?

 

[pakeha]

Yet another classic DOC response.

This implies the other 8 sources add some weight, so you should amend your statement that all 10 have been debunked to 2 have been debunked in your opinion.

This one's hilarious. Didn't you read my posts expalaining how the ten were debunked? I repeat the Mara ben Serapion and the Phlegon/Thallus examples for a good reason, DOC.

If I get the time I'll get some more info about the 2 you mention. But I have read something about them and let's put it this way, I'd rather have them in existence then not.
In my mind that adds weight.

I suppose there's some reason to quote sources you've never read, let alone understood.
Hint: they are three sources, not two, otherwise it would be "nine" rather than "ten" nonChristian sources Josh McDowell and cie mention.
And, yes, please explain why these three sources add weight to the idea the NT writers told the truth.

 

[six7s]

This implies the other 8 sources add some weight

NO

You infer that it adds weight

Only the author can say what it implies

Maybe this explains why - and you alone - cling to your delusions

In my mind that adds weight.

Nature abhors a vacuum

 

[DOC]

The classic DOC derail, this time to Tiberius Caesar...

So you believe mentioning that there are only 9 non-Christian written sources for Tiberius Caesar (the Roman Emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry) whereas there are 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ is a derail, I would disagree.

 

[DOC]

pakeha, you should correct your post 7952 so it accurately portrays who said what.

 

[six7s]

So you believe mentioning that there are only 9 non-Christian written sources for Tiberius Caesar (the Roman Emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry) whereas there are 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ is a derail, I would disagree.

So?

You are (in)famous for disagreeing with anything and everything that threatens your delusions

Anyhoo...

About that 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'...

Ya got any?

 

[Cleon]

You can't say the Talmud source has been debunked because it still adds some weight to the evidence for Christ. It might not be as strong as Tacitus, or Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ but Christians keep bringing it up as a source- Why? because it does add some weight to the total evidence. It might be a small weight but it still weighs something. In other word Christians would rather have it exist than not exist.

To make a blanket statement that it (or any of the sources) have been debunked is not being intellectually honest as long as they add one speck of weight to the evidence.

100% garbage. I can say that the Talmud "source" has been debunked, because it's been demonstrated conclusively that the "Yeshu" mentioned in the Talmud is not the same person as the Christian Jesus.

Saying otherwise is not intellectually honest because it is lying.

The irony here is that, again, you present a self-defeating argument. If the Talmudic Yeshu were Jesus, the story is so completely different from what's presented in the New Testament that it proves that the New Testament writers didn't tell the truth.

Which, if you'll recall, was the original point of this thread.

 

[DOC]

.I suppose there's some reason to quote sources you've never read, let alone understood.

Of course this is false, I have read them.

 

[DOC]

100% garbage. I can say that the Talmud "source" has been debunked, because it's been demonstrated conclusively that the "Yeshu" mentioned in the Talmud is not the same person as the Christian Jesus.

Which post was it conclusively shown?

 

[six7s]

.I suppose there's some reason to quote sources you've never read, let alone understood.

Of course this is false, I have read them.

Maybe you have read 'em...

Seems you've 'read' a lot...

Shame you don't understand what you read...

Or write...