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

[realpaladin]

Yes but no, he already decided that the Bible as the literal inherent word of God and entirely true.
He's certainly not testing any of his hypothesis, he is not even seriously admitting that he could be wrong...

But exactly there's the thing. As I have seen with other DOC threads... no discussion makes any headway unless he starts questioning his faith, which seems unlikely.

I am willing to admit that I participate in threads like these (and in a math thread) because it is rather fun. It gives an 'us against them' feeling which is kind of bonding. But I know from the start that it will not have any real resolution.

Basically, this is a non-discussion... if the NT (or any religious text) really held any unbeatable 100% solid proof of the existence of (a) god then the churches would have rubbed it in our faces a long time ago; they have the cash and the determination to do so.

And I think most posters in this thread realise this from the moment they click on the link to read the OP.

 

[realpaladin]

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

IOW, the unpopularity of your position is not evidence of its veracity.

I do not believe I stated anywhere anything that has relevance to this...

Unless you mistake my taking it up for DOC being the same as taking on his ideas.

 

[joobz]

Got me there. I just wanted to say something nice. Sometimes I get that urge when it is many against one.

I understand, and I am happy to know that you feel that way. Indeed, I have much respect for your kindness.

 

[Akhenaten]

<polite snip>

Basically, this is a non-discussion... if the NT (or any religious text) really held any unbeatable 100% solid proof of the existence of (a) god then the churches would have rubbed it in our faces a long time ago; they have the cash and the determination to do so.

And I think most posters in this thread realise this from the moment they click on the link to read the OP.

Of course we do, but the thing is, this has been a fabulously informative and entertaining thread despite the OP. It's a lot of things, but 'non-discussion would be selling it short.

Besides, if you walk around in a shooting gallery with a bulls-eye painted on your chest, you are a target.

Besides besides, for any theist to complain that they're being picked on is kind of ignoring the situation that prevails outside our little sandbox here, isn't it.

In fact, it's almost hypocritical.


ETA: Having said that, I heartily agree with joobz' comments above.

 

[DOC]

Getting back on topic:
I would like to offer up this bit of information for DOC to consider:
Evidence that christianity or the bible, can't be the true religion.

1.) Slavery is immoral.
2.) Jesus condoned slavery.
3.) Ashoka the Great was the first Emperor to outlaw slavery.
4.) Ashoka was Buddhist.


As such, It is more likely that Buddhism is the true religion and not Christianity.

Slavery is on topic? What does that make about 50 slavery posts now? That's why a moderator made you form another thread on this topic which died out when I quit posting in there. I noticed your policy is to lay low for awhile and then bring the topic back when you think people have forgot. Oh, well, its your reputation.

Slavery is not immoral if the alternative is starving which is why many people in biblical times voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts. Joobz wants the people of that time to run before they could walk. Society takes time to change.

You've already stated you believed the armies of that time should let prisoners of war go free rather than make them slaves. Joobz you are not realistic about that time, place, culture and economy in the brutal Roman occupied land. And Paul did say slaves were equal before God which was light years ahead of the thinking of that time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967272#post4967272

 

[Hokulele]

I think this was 4, 16, 19, 26, and 39.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well about time.

Slavery is on topic? What does that make about 50 slavery posts now?

If the descriptions of slavery in the New Testament match the historical records of same, you might be able to use them as avidence that the writers were telling the truth.

So . . .

That's why a moderator made you form another thread on this topic . . .

You don't actually know how the Forum works, do you DOC?

. . . which died out when I quit posting in there.

Snork.

It died because nobody thought of Bingo back then.

I noticed your policy is to lay low for awhile and then bring the topic back when you think people have forgot. Oh, well, its your reputation.

Evidence of joobz laying low

Boom!

Slavery is not immoral if the alternative is starving which is why many people in biblical times voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts. Joobz wants the people of that time to run before they could walk. Society takes time to change.

I thought slavery was off-topic.

You an each-way punter are you DOC?

You've already stated you believed the armies of that time should let prisoners of war go free rather than make them slaves. Joobz you are not realistic about that time, place, culture and economy in the brutal Roman occupied land. And Paul did say slaves were equal before God which was light years ahead of the thinking of that time.

I'll bet you think a light year is a measure of time.

Two guesses left. And thank your lucky stars this isn't the Bridge of Death™

<something>

Numbers please!​

 

[Akhenaten]

I think this was 4, 16, 19, 26, and 39.

G'day Lightning Lass. Howzit?

 

[Hokulele]

G'day Lightning Lass. Howzit?

Stylin'.

Although I only got two hits, and they do not line up.

 

[likelystory]

These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.

What would be the evidence to support the writings of Scripture of so long ago?
Did the Roman Empire exist as history recalls?Or has history been modified with planted artifacts to hide real history events.

Are historical documents really trust worthy evidence? Or are we all being taken for a ride?

 

[Hokulele]

What would be the evidence to support the writings of Scripture of so long ago?
Did the Roman Empire exist as history recalls?Or has history been modified with planted artifacts to hide real history events.

Are historical documents really trust worthy evidence? Or are we all being taken for a ride?

Yay! Something on topic!

Anyway, there are bits of almost any historical document that can be verified by cross references to other documents, archaeological finds, and extrapolation from modern information (such as DNA evidence for "out of Africa" theories of human migration). Where this type of evidence is available, Jewish history, such as the building and destruction of the Temple, Roman history, such as many of the wars, and Christian history, such as the reach of the early church, can be tentatively put into the "true" category. However, Roman myth, such as Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf, Jewish myth, such as the Exodus, and Christian myth, such as Jesus being the son of God, can tentatively be put in the "not shown to be true" category.

As I said in the post you quoted from the very first page, it wouldn't surprise me if the early Christian writers believed that Jesus was resurrected, but without any further corroboration, there is no reason to believe it is true.

 

[Akhenaten]

Welcome aboard likelystory!





Protip: Read teh thread.

Captain's Log Supplemental: Lurk moar.

Sage advice: What Hokulele said.

 

[Lothian]

We start off with 39 Steps, Knock at the Door number 4, Pick and Mix 26, 19 Good-bye Teens & Sweet 16.

1 | 2 | 3 |xx | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | xx | 17 | 18 | xx | 20
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | xx | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30
31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | xx | 40
41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50

 

[DOC]

Posted by Hokulele

"These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true."

What would be the evidence to support the writings of Scripture of so long ago?
Did the Roman Empire exist as history recalls?Or has history been modified with planted artifacts to hide real history events.

Are historical documents really trust worthy evidence? Or are we all being taken for a ride?

Likelystory, here is how I responded to Hokulele's statement she made in post #3.

Sure it is evidence it was true; it is not proof it was true but it is evidence it was true. {Some} People in these threads tend to confuse the word evidence with the word proof.

 

[Akhenaten]

Posted by Hokulele

These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.

<a quote>

Likelystory, here is how I responded to Hokulele's statement.

<not sure>

You don't actually know how the Forum works, do you DOC?

Tragic. And after how many posts was it again, which are out there for all to see and to speak for themselves?

 

[realpaladin]

Seeing as DOC ignores me... DOC, hunting season is open again, I guess.

(Yeah, I am a hypocrite...)

 

[Lothian]

28 overweight, 34 Ask for more

1 | 2 | 3 |xx | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | xx | 17 | 18 | xx | 20
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | xx | 27 | xx | 29 | 30
31 | 32 | 33 | xx | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | xx | 40
41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50

 

[Simon39759]

Posted by Hokulele

"These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true."




Likelystory, here is how I responded to Hokulele's statement she made in post #3.

Sure it is evidence it was true; it is not proof it was true but it is evidence it was true. {Some} People in these threads tend to confuse the word evidence with the word proof.

That's because proof only exist in the realm of mathematics. Nothing in meatspace will ever provide you with a proof.
For example, you could have the written testimony of the apostle attesting that Jesus rose from the dead, you could have the written testimony of Roman physicians and soldiers, you could have consistent reliable account from contemporary chroniclers (rather than the likely forgery polluting Josephus) and still it would not be proofs, just very good evidence (they could all be forgery as likelystory mentions, or these characters could have been duped or mistaken).


The problem is not about having proof, nobody expect that regardless of the thread's title, the problem is about having good of even valid evidences.
So far, the ones you provided were found (by the quasi-totality of posters in his thread I might had as illustrated by Akhenaten's DIC) to be weak and unconvincing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Seeing as DOC ignores me... DOC, hunting season is open again, I guess.

(Yeah, I am a hypocrite...)

Gosh mate, I sincerely hope I didn't lead you to think my 'hypocrite' comment up there ^ was directed at you.

No way, and quite the opposite, I found your effort noble, despite believing it also to be futile.

I'm sorry for any offence I may have caused you.


Dave.

 

[Akhenaten]

28 overweight, 34 Ask for more

OOOOH!


OT (snort)

The little phrases that go with the numbers in your country are different to the Australian ones.

/OT