• 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.
Prophecy is a gift from God according to the bible. It is significant because it tells us Christ is who he said he was- the Son of God and the Messiah.
Stop it with the circular reasoning, DOC... it's really boring to read such stupid (so-called) arguments

Also, please resist the recurring urge to simply bury your head in the sand and post a link to a previous post of yours; everything - and I mean everything - that you have posted so far has been thoroughly debunked, ad nauseum

And... before you wank on about this being another post with no substance, ask your self WHY your posts are treated with such disdain

HINT: Its cos its mind-numbingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that you're spouting crap

Stop lying for your mesiah, DOC
 
I don't need to explain it. It's self-evident. You've consistently used poor logic and reasoning.
Give 3 post numbers where that is the case and why you feel I used poor logic.
DOC, You asked for 3 posts of poor logic. I'll go ahead and post 3 posts. I'll even give three of your posts since you've made this challenge. I do this because it will demonstrate quite conclusively that you have absolutely NO CLUE what logic and reasoning is. Afterall, one would expect that you would refrain (at least for a little while) from making poor logical arguments after issueing a challenge about you logical abilities.

And other authors conclude, that Yeshu was the famous Jesus. So what evidence does he have that the Yeshu of the Talmud lived 100 years before the famous Jesus.
An appeal to Authority and numbers mixed with an intentional ignoring of the counter evidence why Yeshu CAN'T be jesus of the bible.
See Pakeha's excellent response for this evidence you asked for:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5306608#post5306608


I (and many others) look at the NT and see fulfilled OT prophecy. That makes it more likely in our minds that the NT is true -- more so then if we didn't see fulfilled prophecy. If some others don't see that fulfilled prophecy then so be it.
Circular reasoning and appeals to unnamed numbers and authority.
You use the bible to prove the biblical prophecy fulfilled. THis is circular reasoning. The biblical accounts of jesus were written 30+ years after jesus by authors who were fully aware of the prophecies. The likelihood of them changing stories to fit these prophecies is exceedingly high.

Prophecy is a gift from God according to the bible. It is significant because it tells us Christ is who he said he was- the Son of God and the Messiah.
The worst form of circular reasoning one could imagine.


DOC, you've provided 3 examples of terrible logic in just just 13 posts after your "name 3 posts of faulty logic" challenge.
 
Some roads lead to Heidelberg, there is just no way to know which ones.

A few pages back, DOC mentions "baby Christians". What the hell is that? You can't be born christian, you may be born to christian parents, but you have to be..uh.. conditioned to be a "real christian".
 
[qimg]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images/silvio-berlusconi.jpg[/qimg]
Narrow eyes / sexual promiscuity proof.

Okay, you've commented on Berlusconi's narrow eyes; but where's the evidence of your sexual promiscuity?
 
Lothian : Thanks for the PM.

My wife will be out of town next weekend. Why do you ask?
 
Some roads lead to Heidelberg, there is just no way to know which ones.

A few pages back, DOC mentions "baby Christians". What the hell is that? You can't be born christian, you may be born to christian parents, but you have to be..uh.. conditioned to be a "real christian".
Indeed

DOC, I sincerely recommend that you at least try to read and comprehend what 'others' have to say with regard to your woo

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion said:
I think we should all wince when we hear a small child labelled as belonging to some particular religion or another. Small children are too young to to decide their views on the origins of the cosmos, of life and of morals.

The very sound of the phrase 'Christian child' or 'Muslim child' should grate like fingernails on a blackboard.

Our society, including the non-religious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them....

Please, please raise your consciousness about this, and raise the roof whenever you hear it happening. A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents.
 
But if someone is a baby Christian (new to Christianity) or has just accepted Christ there is no way in the world I would recommend that they come into these threads.
Not that I'm with DOC, but............

Paul

:) :) :)
 
That doesn't mean they're not out there. And this thread could cause some to do additional study on this topic.

But if someone is a baby Christian (new to Christianity) or has just accepted Christ there is no way in the world I would recommend that they come into these threads. They should spend a couple of years reading and studying the bible first, and should also have some knowledge of the scientific theories that are out there about the beginning of the universe and possibly take a logic course. Geisler's book in post #1 speaks logically about many of the things we've been talking about and also gives easy to understand explanations of many scientific theories. And of course it talks a great deal about the bible.
Now here is where you get it not quite right DOC, one should study science first, get all the logic strighten out in their head, then and only then read the bible, because then the bible will be shown flawed when it comes to the understanding of the universe.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
"But if someone is a baby Christian (new to Christianity) or has just accepted Christ"

I don't read these as equivalent statements. I do believe he meant "baby Christian" just as it is written and not as some type of newbie or fresh convert or else he wouldn't have stated "or has just accepted Christ". I may be totally wrong, but I'm a....
 
Some roads lead to Heidelberg, there is just no way to know which ones.

A few pages back, DOC mentions "baby Christians". What the hell is that? You can't be born christian, you may be born to christian parents, but you have to be..uh.. conditioned to be a "real christian".

Baby Christians are freshman fundies who are still susceptible to reason, and thus endangered. They need guidance, lest they stray from the garden path.
 
I have the same reading than Paul.
Which means that the sentence is but a repetition of three times the same idea.
The choice of the word 'or' is a bit confusing, indeed as it would implies that being a Christian and 'accepting Christ' are different concept.
 
Baby Christians are freshman fundies who are still susceptible to reason, and thus endangered. They need guidance, lest they stray from the garden path.
Yeah... yeah... that's all very well...

But what I want to know is this: are they best accompanied by a chianti, or a sauvignon blanc?
 
Got to hand to you DOC. Against all the odds, you are sticking to your story. Persistence like that is very hard to find. I know someone who is looking for a door to door encyclopedia sales man, Interested?
 
I'm grateful to you for these links, AdinDraco- those were two hours very well spent.

No worries. Real life for me gets in the way of detailed research but I get to be a podcast junkie during work so most of the best summaries of issues like this I get off various podcasts etc. My absolute favourite for religious stuff is The Atheist Experience - no matter what argument you've heard, it's been tried and demolished on this program and as everyone around me here doesn't want to even discuss religion, a good Matt Dilahunty rant can be very carthartic. (Non-Religious - Skeptic's Guide to the Universe - did you even have to ask?) Currently I'm running through the audio version of The Greatest Show on Earth - the idea of Dawkins writing a book with no other purpose then presenting the case for evolution has me drooling over a print version every trip to the bookstore.
 
Yes, I enjoy the Atheist Experience podcasts, too.
They make the once-a-week shirt ironing, shoe polishing and matching socks event easier to bear.
 
Prophecy is a gift from God according to the bible. It is significant because it tells us Christ is who he said he was- the Son of God and the Messiah.

So you know that prophecy is true because the bible tells you.

Strawman -- I know prophecy is true or accurate when the facts show the prophecy has come true or the facts show it more than likely came true.

And the prophecies (in the bible) being true prove the bible is true...

If we can be reasonably sure the facts in the NT are accurate because of such factors as many people dying for those facts within a short time of those facts, along with the fact that those facts were reported by someone like Luke who has been called one of the world's great historians, and those facts were prophecized in the OT then we have evidence that the prophecy is likely to have been accurate.

But prophecy doesn't have to be only in the bible. Jean Dixon had several well publicized prophecies come true. But according to at least one author I've read her accuracy level was not as good as the bible.

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4704978#post4704978
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom