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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
The logic is self evident, but actually I don't believe God/Jesus is subjected to the laws of science, I believe God created the Laws of Science.
Click to expand...
What logic?
This argument about levitation is more for skeptics as a purely intellectual argument than for people who already believers.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you understand what "intellectual argument" actually means.
 
DOC said:
The logic is self evident, but actually I don't believe God/Jesus is subjected to the laws of science, I believe God created the Laws of Science.
Click to expand...

Why then say that something discovered to be theoretically possible in a NASA lab now makes it more likely that the NT writers told the truth then? Why bring it up at all if you believe that Jesus didn't even need it?

This argument about levitation is more for skeptics as a purely intellectual argument than for people who already believers.
Click to expand...

So you were just trying to give some theoretical plausibility to the story of Jesus walking on water and ascending to heaven to make it palatable to critical thinking atheists?

Lying for Jesus, really?

DOC, you say you've taken a logic course. Please, be honest with yourself here. Can you make an argument without a logical fallacy in it? Do you recognize logical fallacies when you make them and just excuse yourself?

And this post is very well explained so please address the issues I've brought up.
 
DOC said:
Actually levitation has been proven possible if we are to believe NASA so skeptics should answer my simple hypothetical question by choosing Person A or Person B- who would you pick as being more likely to be telling the truth?

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/nasa-levitates-mouse
Click to expand...

DOC, it's not about whether or not the item is possible. It's about which person you trust.

Consider MY hypothetical:

Let's change your hypothetical to see why this is:
If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.

And person A claimed he ate a ham sandwich last night.
And person B claimed he ate a ham sandwich two weeks ago .

And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.


Which person do you believe is telling the truth about eating a ham sandwich? and why?
 
DOC said:
Another unexplained post.
Click to expand...
It's very self evident.
What "logic"?

You claimed it was an "intellectual argument" without any explanation or an actual intellectual argument therefore I really doubt you know what it means.
 
anyone else notice how DOC abandoned the
"slavery in Palestine argument'?
or has failed to defend the Psalm 22 prophetized Jesus argument?
Or has avoided addressing his selective arguments regarding the translation of "Hand" and the translation of "slave"?
 
The whole ridiculous set of quibbles about the meanings of biblical words, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, is a waste of time.

Christian apologists twist the words to mean exactly what they want them to mean. From one Christian site:

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/Crucifixion/Ps22.html

"A verse-by-verse exposition demonstrates that the psalm [22] points with great fullness and precision to Jesus' death on the cross."

Really? Great precision? These guys live in a fantasy world. And they lie like a cheap rug.

In fact psalm 22 doesn't make any sense. It's the ravings of a schizophrenic. What does the following have to do with the crucifixion?

"Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."

The unicorn is a mythical beast. What does the lion and the unicorn have to do with the crucifixion?

If you ask a Christian apologist, he might say something like "in the Greek (or the Hebrew, or the Aramaic), the word 'unicorn' meant 'rhinoceros'."

So? What the hell was a rhino doing in Jerusalem, attending a crucifixion? This is an example of "great fullness and precision " ?

Although in the context, what could possibly be "too" silly?

Well, maybe porpoises.

The prophecies that referred to 'piercing' of 'hands and feet' predated the crucifixion of Jesus by centuries. It does not say Jesus would be crucified. It says the hands and feet of this victim, whoeverhe was, real or imaginary, HAD BEEN pierced. Not "would be". Maybe with a sword or knife, as a means of crippling or torturing the victim. We can speculate about that.

But the Christian apologist does not admit that HE HIMSELF is speculating in order to 'save' the prophecy. He says that the Romans used nails through Jesus (hands and forearms, one unit) so that the prediction about pierced hands would be 'true'.

(I read somewhere that experiments with cadavers showed that nails through the palms would tear the flesh, and could not sustain the weight of a body.)

But find an unequivocal authority for the claim that a word for "hands and forearms" in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, was used originally in psalm 22? I don't think so.

This neologism was invented post hoc, by Christians.

Because what utility would such a word have, in ordinary speech? We speak of our hands, in one context, our forearms in another. If we refer to both, we say both. We don't have one word for "leg", one for "ankle", one for "foot", one for "leg and ankle" and one for "ankle and foot" and one for "leg and foot" and one for "foot, ankle and leg". If we want to refer to the combo, we might say 'lower limb' or some such inclusive (modified) term.

And modern English has over a quarter of a million words.

O.T. Hebrew has about 5,800 words; Hebrew-Aramaic about 15,000. Koine Greek was a trade patois, so didn't have a big vocabulary. As you can see, none of them wasted any words.

The only time we might pretend that 'foot' can mean 'foot and fibula-tibia" is if we're lying, to make a point: We want it to say 'fibula-tibia' but it says 'foot' so we say 'foot' meant 'fibula-tibia-foot' in those days.

Easy, when you know how.

So Jesus was crucified. How to make the prophecy fit?

Well, obviously, make up a bunch of stuff. First of all, who said crucifixions were done with nails? There was no mass production techniques in those days. Nails were hand-made, therefore expensive. Rope is much cheaper, and the victim can be very firmly tied to hang by the hands or arms from the crossbar, or even from an ordinary pole.

Show me one classical (as opposed to biblical) reference to crucifixion by nailing. (Josephus doesn't count. There's too much likelihood he was amended later to suit Christian doctrine.)

Why make it up? Well, to make the details of Jesus' death conform to the prophecy, of course.
 
babbits said:
The whole ridiculous set of quibbles about the meanings of biblical words, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
It's not worthless. It exposes the dishonesty, as you have so clearly done here.

babbits said:
Why make it up? Well, to make the details of Jesus' death conform to the prophecy, of course.
Click to expand...
It is not at all a small point to mention that only Christian bible translations of Psalm 22 claim the verse is "pierced hands and feet". Hebrew translations indicate mutilated hands and feet, as if mauled by a lion.
 
DOC said:
Actually levitation has been proven possible if we are to believe NASA so skeptics should answer my simple hypothetical question by choosing Person A or Person B- who would you pick as being more likely to be telling the truth?

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/nasa-levitates-mouse
Click to expand...

DOC said:
Actually levitation has been proven possible if we are to believe NASA so skeptics should answer my simple hypothetical question by choosing Person A or Person B- who would you pick as being more likely to be telling the truth?

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/nasa-levitates-mouse

Here is my hypothetical question again that has not been answered with person A or person B.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5524787#post5524787
Click to expand...

DOC said:
In which post did they answer either person A or person B.
Click to expand...

DOC said:
In which post did they answer either person A or person B.
Click to expand...

You know, saying things more than once doesn't make them any more true.
 
DOC said:
Since this article says scientists have said levitation of a person is possible in theory this greatly increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth when they reported Christ walked on water and Christ ascended into heaven.
Click to expand...

Nay DOC, if he levitated, he did NOT walk ON water... he hovered over it, moving his feet and pretended to walk on water.

Are you saying the NT says Christ was nothing but a 0-th century version of Chris Angel???
 
DOC said:
But some scientists say levitation of a person is possible in theory:
Click to expand...
It has not been done, as in using an anti-gravitation machine of some kind. That is why NASA uses a 5 million gallon water tank for practicing space missions.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
RoboTimbo said:
Why then say that something discovered to be theoretically possible in a NASA lab now makes it more likely that the NT writers told the truth then? Why bring it up at all if you believe that Jesus didn't even need it?
Click to expand...

Maybe Jesus chose to be subjected to the science he created that makes levitation possible. But he was certainly not restricted by those laws unless he chose to be while on earth.

We at least know levitation is possible in theory for humans so logically speaking that makes it more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth about Christ walking on water or ascending into heaven even if you don't believe that Christ was divine. If you do believe he was divine it really doesn't matter what science says about levitation. But most people in here don't believe Christ was divine so I brought it up as an intellectual argument.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Maybe Jesus chose to be subjected to the science he created that makes levitation possible. But he was certainly not restricted by those laws unless he chose to be while on earth.
Click to expand...
Like Doug Henning,
Jesus uses *MAGIC!!!* oOOOOoOOOooOOoOOoooOO It's an illusion!

 
DOC said:
Maybe Jesus chose to be subjected to the science he created that makes levitation possible. But he was certainly not restricted by those laws unless he chose to be while on earth.

We at least know levitation is possible in theory for humans so logically speaking that makes it more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth about Christ walking on water even if you don't believe that Christ was divine. If you do believe he was divine it really doesn't matter what science says about levitation. But most people in here don't believe Christ was divine so I brought it up as an intellectual argument.
Click to expand...

Maybe Christ did like this: http://www.xploremagic.com/Illusion/criss-angel-walk-on-water-revealed.html
 
DOC said:
Maybe Jesus chose to be subjected to the science he created that makes levitation possible. But he was certainly not restricted by those laws unless he chose to be while on earth.

We at least know levitation is possible in theory for humans so logically speaking that makes it more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth about Christ walking on water even if you don't believe that Christ was divine. If you do believe he was divine it really doesn't matter what science says about levitation. But most people in here don't believe Christ was divine so I brought it up as an intellectual argument.
Click to expand...

So even if you don't believe Jesus was divine, it's more likely than not he had access to a 21st century quantum physics lab in order to do his levitation stunt?

:boggled:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom