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

[Niggle]

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?

One reason the church in Africa is growing is because it has set itself up as a top bully, and people are joining up so they can be on top for once. The church in Africa is responsible for some of the most horrible crimes against humanity in recent history (burning "witches" and killing homosexuals, to name the subjects of a couple of recent threads).

In other words, the church itself IS RESPONSIBLE FOR some of the persecution going on.

 

[Niggle]

<snipped crap about personal knowledge that has no relevance to evidence>

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.

Well, actually, the fact that the bits of Bible we do have (and there is no complete version of the Bible that dates to the time Christians claim it was written) are attributed to various mortal human authors is evidence that those bits were not written by God.

Add the fact that many of those bits contradict each other (see the discussions earlier in this thread about the different versions of the same four Gospels that exist).

Add the errors in translation in modern English versions compared to the earliest manuscripts (see above discussion of servant vs. slave for only the most recent round).

Add the fact that the earliest available manuscripts are written in at least a half-dozen languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.), hence aren't likely to have been written by a single author at one time.

It's not looking good for your Bible. Either your god is a real klutz, or there was no god involved.

 

[Niggle]

If you read my 1400 posts maybe starting with post 7667 (pg. 192) you will find out. If you don't like the evidence then so be it.

Will you please stop spamming the thread with your post counts? It adds nothing at all to the discussion.

And, before you say it, no, the fact that you babble a lot and repeat yourself constantly is NOT EVIDENCE!!!

 

[Elizabeth I]

Yes, but when the highly detailed author of those verses (Luke) has been called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous archaeologist, it is just downright bias not to believe it likely occurred.

Here is what this great historian Luke wrote:

3000 were saved at Pentecost, Acts 2:41 (50 days after the resurrection)

Membership of 5000 men (not including the woman who were there) Acts 4:4

Turned the world upside down Acts 17:6 (within 25 years)

And if you don't like Luke we know from a secular historian (Tacitus) that Nero blamed the Christians in Rome in 64 ad for the fire that destroyed much of the city.

There is plenty of historical evidence that Christianity grew very fast.

And this excuses your use of circular argument how?

Don't forget that a HUGE reason Christianity grew so fast was...who was that guy again? Oh, yeah, the ROMAN Emperor Constantine, who made it the state religion.

So you find history funny??

No, just your "arguments" and "evidence."

why don't you tell us what this servant in the parable did to deserve receiving some lashes.

Nothing deserving a beating, that's for sure.

p.s. why do you hate question marks so?

I didn't remove anything. Joobz never mentioned beating. You're the one who added beating to my quote.

And you don't think it was just a le-e-etle dishonest to leave it out to begin with? What's the problem? Jesus seems to have approved of beating as a way to deal with slaves, or servants, so why would you sidestep the issue?

It must because you always use slaves instead of servants even though the vast majority of translations say servants.

So fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong? Just because a whole bunch of books get it wrong doesn't mean that what they say is right.

(For those of you keeping up with your fallacy Bingo cards, that was "appeal to popularity.")

And you never mention that the punished servant in the parable beat several maidens and several manservants.

And you bring this up because...?

Actually, I think it goes more like:

The bible says the bible is true, and since X number of "important" and X*10^100 "not-so-important" people feel that to be sufficient, you should as well because the bible says the bible is true.

Well yeah, but that's gonna be much harder to draw.

Could you graph it? You know, stack little people up one axis and...

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Cactus Wren]

I never understood this whole thing with changing other people's quotes like you and some others do but

why don't you tell us what this servant in the parable did to deserve receiving some lashes.

As I understand it, the one who received "many" lashes beat a fellow servant. The one who received "some" lashes was the one who made a mistake, and did something he hadn't been instructed not to do.

 

[X]

Yes, but when the highly detailed author of those verses (Luke) has been called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous archaeologist, it is just downright bias not to believe it likely occurred.

YOU ARE A LIAR!


No more explanation needed.

 

[six7s]

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

Your posts are teh funny, DOC

But looks ain't everything

So you find history funny??

Wow! Your delusions know no bounds, huh?

Your posts are funny as in peculiar, not humour

They're fantastical, not historical

Prove me wrong and post something that is both historically accurate/credible AND relevant to this thread

Go on! I double dare ya!

 

[six7s]

Funny how we turn to God when times are tough.

Funny as in peculiar and/or fascinating, right?

If so, you're right... it's bizarre how desperation is so often a cause for otherwise sane, capable people to adopt weird, superstitious nonsense

 

[Elizabeth I]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Truthiness.jpg[/qimg]

I like it! I don't understand it, but I like it!

 

[amb]

Funny how we turn to God when times are tough. The churches were packed after 911. And Lincoln mentioned God or Providence 11 times in his second inaugural address (during the Civil War).

What does that prove? That the vast majority of American Presidents were christians? The last poll taken has around 14-20 million Americans who are atheist, a minority. In the sciences though, the tables are turned. What's that say about Americans?

 

[DOC]

Where did they all go? How did they vanish without trace? Surely such a substantial nucleus of a church, of eyewitnesses, would have led to a thriving community of believers in the area; where is it?

deleted

 

[Akhenaten]

They were deleted? That's pretty harsh.

 

[DOC]

YOU ARE A LIAR!


No more explanation needed.

Another post without an explanation.

 

[DOC]

Wow! Your delusions know no bounds, huh?

Your posts are funny as in peculiar, not humour

They're fantastical, not historical

Prove me wrong and post something that is both historically accurate/credible AND relevant to this thread

Go on! I double dare ya!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633 and post 7667.

 

[DOC]

Where did they {those saved at Pentecost} all go? How did they vanish without trace? Surely such a substantial nucleus of a church, of eyewitnesses, would have led to a thriving community of believers in the area; where is it?

Luke writing in Acts 2:4 about the day of Pentecost where 3000 were converted (From the Gateway website)

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2&version=KJV

People from many countries were there on Pentecost. It would certainly make sense they went back to their country when there was civil war in the city for several years and then the Romans almost totally destroyed the city in 70 ad.

Description of the destruction of Jerusalem

From the article: The Destruction of the Second Temple

by Lambert Dolphin

"The countryside like the City was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City. (Ref. 3)"

http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html

A totally destroyed city is not conducive to a vibrant church community. And is also not conducive to leaving behind records of any community. Remember we don't even have Julius Caesar's signature.

And notice the attention to detail given by Luke when he names many of the different nationalities present at Pentecost.

 

[zooterkin]

Luke writing in Acts 2:4 about the day of Pentecost where 3000 were converted (From the Gateway website)

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2&version=KJV

People from many countries were there on Pentecost. It would certainly make sense they went back to their country when there was civil war in the city for several years and then the Romans almost totally destroyed the city in 70 ad.

Try again, DOC.

And did Galileans live in Jerusalem?


ETA:

And notice the attention to detail given by Luke when he names many of the different nationalities present at Pentecost.

I notice the lack of attention to detail in your reading of the scriptures. Perhaps it should give you pause for thought about what else you think they say.

ETA2:
I realise I had better spell it out. The 3000 speaking in tongues were Galileans. The people of various nations were the people hearing them speak. So, I return to my point. 3000 Galileans is a sizeable community. What happened to these people who experienced, apparently, the holy spirit at first hand?

 

[joobz]

And notice the attention to detail given by Luke when he names many of the different nationalities present at Pentecost.

Yeah, when people are prone to making up stories, they are often quite detailed. Read any fiction book to see this to be true.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yeah, when people are prone to making up stories, they are often quite detailed. Read any fiction book to see this to be true.

In fact, one of the biggest (fairly accurate) criticisms regarding J.R.R Tolkein's LoTR Trilogy is that he put too much detail into describing the world. Then again, he's also credited with creating his own fantasy world...sort of like Paul...

 

[X]

Yes, but when the highly detailed author of those verses (Luke) has been called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous archaeologist, it is just downright bias not to believe it likely occurred.

YOU ARE A LIAR!


No more explanation needed.

Another post without an explanation.

I figured the explanation was obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension. I said as much in my post.

But since you insist...



1) You have repeatedly trotted out Ramsay's "Luke as a great historian" line as evidence for the veracity of that book.

2) You have been repeatedly shown that this is a quote-mine. Quote-mining^WP is a logical fallacy and a dishonest practice. Lothian, for one, has shown you many times that the quote to which you refer with that line specifies that it is only in reference to Luke within the limits of science and nature.
See this post, for examples.

3) You are aware of the full quote. We know this must be true, because you have replied to the posts where people have shown you what Ramsay actually said on the matter. Again, see the post linked above.

4) Therefore, because you are aware of the actual quote, it follows unavoidably that your continued use of this quote-mine is intentionally dishonest. You know what the quote actually says, and you continue to apply Ramsay's words beyond the scope they were ever meant to be applied.

5) This form of repeated, intentional, intellectual dishonesty is LYING.

6) Therefore, you are lying.

7) Therefore, YOU ARE A LIAR!


There's your explanation, DOC.

If you couldn't figure that out for yourself, then maybe you're not cut out for debates.