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

[six7s]

The rapid growth of Christianity in the dangerous Roman Empire in itself would not be enough to convince me of its truth, but the existence of that fact does support my belief more so than if Christianity didn't grow much. Therefore it meets the definition of evidence (see post 13) because it is a thing that is helpful in my forming a judgment.

So? We already know that you are willing to accept nonsense as evidence in support of your delusions

However, the title of this thread is 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.' and most of us don't accept such bollocks

Please, do try harder

 

[truethat]

So is Harry Potter interest. In fact the numbers are increasing every day. So much so that they are building a Hogwarts theme park. Guess that means JK Rowling is the second coming of Christ.

 

[Hokulele]

But Christianity is on the rise worldwide. It's numbers are increasing.

Humanity's numbers worldwide are increasing, so it is up to you to prove that Christianity is rising higher and faster than any other belief system in order for your argument to be true.

Not that it really matters, as argument from popularity is still a fallacy in the real world.

 

[DOC]

So? We already know that you are willing to accept nonsense as evidence in support of your delusions

However, the title of this thread is 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.' and most of us don't accept such bollocks

Please, do try harder

Actually the wording of "we" was in the title of chapter 11 of the book cited in post #1. He could have been referring to himself and his co-author or he could have been referring to Christians as a whole.

This whole thread was a spur of the moment thing. If I had to do it over I would probably give this thread a different title. Maybe something like "Evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth".

 

[six7s]

This whole thread was a spur of the moment thing. If I had to do it over I would probably give this thread a different title. Maybe something like "Evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth".

You'd have more chance of a thought-provoking discussion with a title like 'Evidence that the New Testament is a collection of fictitious delusion-reinforcing woo'... but then I suspect you're not here to be involved in a discussion, let alone one that makes you think

 

[DOC]

Humanity's numbers worldwide are increasing, so it is up to you to prove that Christianity is rising higher and faster than any other belief system in order for your argument to be true.

Not that it really matters, as argument from popularity is still a fallacy in the real world.

Strawman -- I never said Christianity's rapid growth in the brutal Roman empire proved it was true. I said it can be considered evidence because it is a fact that is helpful in my forming a judgment. (see post #13 for definition of evidence).

 

[Hokulele]

Strawman -- I never said Christianity's rapid growth in the brutal Roman empire proved it was true. I said it can be considered evidence because it is a fact that is helpful in my forming a judgment. (see post #13 for definition of evidence).

Failure to understand my point - You have to prove that Christianity is displaying a rapid growth, not make a bare assertion that it is doing so. Only if this can be shown to be a fact can you consider it any sort of evidence (even poor evidence must rely on facts).

 

[X]

The rapid growth of Christianity in the dangerous Roman Empire in itself would not be enough to convince me of its truth, but the existence of that fact does support my belief more so than if Christianity didn't grow much. Therefore it meets the definition of evidence (see post 13) because it is a thing that is helpful in my forming a judgment.

Yeah.

Evidence that the belief system in question was popular, not evidence that it is true.

As such, it is neither evidence that Christianity is true, nor that the New Testament writers told the truth, and has no place in this thread.

 

[paximperium]

DOC is using such a broad an completely arbitrary definition of "evidence" that anything that HE decides support his view is "evidence", no matter how illogical or nonfactual it is.

A nice fairy tale or drug high meets his criteria.

 

[Elizabeth I]

But Christianity is on the rise worldwide. It's numbers are increasing.

So are Islam's numbers.

 

[joobz]

Actually the wording of "we" was in the title of chapter 11 of the book cited in post #1. He could have been referring to himself and his co-author or he could have been referring to Christians as a whole.

This whole thread was a spur of the moment thing. If I had to do it over I would probably give this thread a different title. Maybe something like "Evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth".

And yet you can't provide such evidence. Strange.

 

[joobz]

Well, the Mormon church wouldn't even be in existence without Christianity -- it's an offshoot. And what is your source for your first sentence?

And Joseph Smith, founder of the offshoot religion didn't claim he was going to be raised from the dead, whereas Christ did. The resurrection of Christ is the whole essence of Christianity and it doesn't make sense for it to grow so quickly if it didn't happen -- especially when Christ's followers exhibited cowardice and uncertainty before his death. On the other hand the principles of Mormonism could go on regardless of whether Joseph Smith existed or not. His existence was not central to the religion's principles as is Christ's resurrection central to Christianity.

And the Mormons had to flee to the middle of nowhere (Utah) to grow substantially (and also grew from within because of polygamy) whereas Christianity grew within the dangerous Roman empire its first 300 years.

But the fact Mormonism did grow can be considered "some" evidence or indication of its possible truth. Of course this fact alone wouldn't be enough to convince me, but it is more of a positive for the truth of Mormonism than if the church declined in numbers. There are many other factors that are needed to add weight to the totality of evidence but the growth of a religion can be considered some weight. The importance of that weight is subjective.

The rapid growth of Christianity in the dangerous Roman Empire in itself would not be enough to convince me of its truth, but the existence of that fact does support my belief more so than if Christianity didn't grow much. Therefore it meets the definition of evidence (see post 13) because it is a thing that is helpful in my forming a judgment.

So mormonism doesn't count becAuse? You are simply making a special pleading argument which exposes the weakness of the claim.

 

[DOC]

Failure to understand my point - You have to prove that Christianity is displaying a rapid growth, not make a bare assertion that it is doing so. Only if this can be shown to be a fact can you consider it any sort of evidence (even poor evidence must rely on facts).

History does prove rapid growth. We know that Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the fire in 64 ad. Rome is a long way from Jerusalem to be having an established church. We also know the main apostle Peter was in Rome. I would say that is growing fast in an age with no modern transportation or communication.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

And the bible tells us 3000 were converted on Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection and also 5000 were converted a short time after that. That sounds like very rapid growth to me.

Also we have Paul's 13 letters, many to churches already established.

 

[Hokulele]

History does prove rapid growth. We know that Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the fire in 64 ad. Rome is a long way from Jerusalem to be having an established church. We also know the main apostle Peter was in Rome. I would say that is growing fast in an age with no modern transportation or communication.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

And the bible tells us 3000 were converted on Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection and also 5000 were converted a short time after that. That sounds like very rapid growth to me.

Also we have Paul's 13 letters, many to churches already established.

Yay! Using the bible to prove the bible! Got any, you know, evidence or are you simply claiming it is true because you want it to be true?

 

[six7s]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Your posts are teh funny, DOC

But looks ain't everything

 

[kurious_kathy]

Failure to understand my point - You have to prove that Christianity is displaying a rapid growth, not make a bare assertion that it is doing so. Only if this can be shown to be a fact can you consider it any sort of evidence (even poor evidence must rely on facts).

Have you ever researched and pondered why the church in places such as Africa and China have grown even more under such horrible persecution? It seems God poors out his spirit even more in places that are under total and complete oppression. In essence I believe it's safe to say Christianity has always suffered persecution and yet it continues to grow today, why do you think that is?

 

[Hokulele]

Have you ever researched and pondered why the church in places such as Africa and China have grown even more under such horrible persecution? It seems God poors out his spirit even more in places that are under total and complete oppression. In essence I believe it's safe to say Christianity has always suffered persecution and yet it continues to grow today, why do you think that is?

Because its core message is all about the good stuff that will happen to people who are currently miserable. It is sort of like offering garlic french fries to starving dogs. They will eat them, but it doesn't mean it will be good for them.

Of course people who are suffering want to hear that it is good for them in the long run. It does not make it true.

 

[six7s]

Have you ever researched and pondered why the church in places such as Africa and China have grown even more under such horrible persecution?

Yes

Have you?

It seems God poors out his spirit even more in places that are under total and complete oppression.

It seems that way to you, sure

But then you prefer belief over thought

In essence I believe it's safe to say Christianity has always suffered persecution and yet it continues to grow today, why do you think that is?

Because of some seriously clever marketing aimed at some seriously desperate people

Why do you think... oh... never mind...

 

[kurious_kathy]

Yay! Using the bible to prove the bible! Got any, you know, evidence or are you simply claiming it is true because you want it to be true?

Well I know it is the truth too because God has opened my spiritual eyes to it, but if he hadn't I would probably be exactly where you are today asking why I should believe it.

The question I have for you is how in the heck do you even think you can proove it's not the truth? I mean' you really cannot disprove the Bible isn't the true word of God; and everyone I have heard thus far trying to state it isn't true has not convinced me otherwise or even been able to put a doubt in my mind. So why do you side with mans wisdom over God's? This is truly where I see the true problem begins.

 

[six7s]

<mindlessWaffleSnipped/> So why do you side with mans wisdom over God's?

Probably for the same reason that you don't believe the Qur'an