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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cleon said:
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:
Click to expand...
Using DOC's logic, since it is proven in modern times, I believe Jesus had access to plexiglass so that he could walk on water.
 
Cleon said:
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:
Click to expand...

No! Of course not! He had access to a 22nd century device which allowed him to slide between alternate realities.

One of these is what we call our reality. Jesus and the people in his reality all can levitate!
 
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...

Certainly? Do you have any evidence of that?
 
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...


Nice dodge. Actually, I take that back. It's a pathetic dodge. You know damn well what I meant, and what you initially meant. Back-tracking to change your meaning is dishonest.



DOC said:
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...


No, DOC. This has been answered.
The answer is simple: There is not enough information. Even if we assume that humans can levitate (prove it, and a short article about a mouse in a magnetic field does not count for human levitation), there is not enough information.

I realize you are having a hard time understanding why. Please read Joobz's counter-hypothetical:

joobz said:
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?
Click to expand...


Well, DOC? Who ate the ham sandwich?

I'll let you in on a secret: the answer is the same as in your hypothetical question.

But wait! Before you answer, READ THE FOLLOWING:

Just because a person is held to be an authority in some area, it does not mean their statements are necessarily valid. A statement rests on it's own supports, not the credentials of the one making it.

If a layman says "germs cause disease", is he less trustworthy on the matter than a doctor who says germs cause disease?

Similarly, if a layman says that the tower collapses on 9/11 (to choose a situation which occurs regularly on this very forum) were inevitable due to the physics involved, is he less credible than an architect who compares the towers to cardboard boxes, claiming that it was a controlled demolition?

If a person says "so-and-so" was a great historian, does that mean everything this "so-and-so" says is correct? Or even likely to be correct? Especially when this "so=and-so" starts blathering on about things which have never been documents except in highly biased reports, and which defy all modern understanding of physics, biology and chemistry?

Instead of telling you the answer to all three, DOC.,I'm going to ask you to tell me. What is the answer to the above three questions?​

Once you've answered the above bit, you should be ready to answer Joobz's question. And ready to understand out answers to yours.



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...


:drinkspit:

This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. How can you possibly be serious when posting this, DOC? That's more than a little scary.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
Does DOC=Dunderhead Organisational Committee? Because I'm finding it hard to believe one person could honestly be this thick.
 
So, who wants to be the first to point out to DOC that the Casimir effect that he is citing as evidence of levitation is essentially a "something out of nothing" proposition. The force (something) is a result of quantization of spacetime (nothing) or virtual particle pairs (also nothing, hence the use of the term "virtual").

In other words, this citation completely destroys the cosmological argument DOC tried to bring in earlier in this thread as evidence of the existence of god. Good job destroying your own arguments DOC!
 
Hokulele said:
In other words, this citation completely destroys the cosmological argument DOC tried to bring in earlier in this thread as evidence of the existence of god. Good job destroying your own arguments DOC!
Click to expand...
Why would this stop DOC?

DOC's argument of "hand" being mistranslated completely destroys his argument that dolous means servant in the old testament.

DOC's implied argument that slavery wasn't acceptable in Judea and therefore dolous couldn't mean slave completely destroys his defense against Father Murphy O'Connor's argument of Luke's census story being complete nonsense. You see, DOC argued that Rome was in control of Judea during Jesus' birth and Father Murphy O'Connor is wrong to claim that Judea was an independent newish nation. However, If they weren't an independent Jewish nation, how could Judea outlaw slavery?

DOC's statement that someone can be wrong about one thing but right about another completely destroy's the premise behind which he uses The Ramsay quote to bolster Luke's gospel.


It seems that all DOC has presented in this thread is a series of self-negating arguments. Why would one more make a difference?
 
Fitter said:
Does DOC=Dunderhead Organisational Committee? Because I'm finding it hard to believe one person could honestly be this thick.
Click to expand...
Another unexplained post. Anybody who has not read one word of the thread can make a post like this.

But there are advantages to not explaining something because then you don't have to worry about a counter argument.
 
Last edited:
DOC, multiple excellent posts directly challenging your arguments and your inability to defend them. And you post three "no explanation" posts.
 
DOC said:
What verse does Jesus approve of the selling of servants?
Click to expand...
.
Pay attention this time:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom