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

[Akhenaten]

Lothian is doing a legendary job of keeping up.

I always feel that desperation is setting in when the machine-gun posting starts.

 

[Akhenaten]

it certainly is evidence (although not proof) when the famous historical person 11 apostles were following for 3 years died and was reported to have risen from the dead within their lifetime and in their hometown.

Name one person killed by a Christian in the first 300 years of its spread and growth from 12 cowardly apostles cowering in an upper room.

Could you decide how many apostles you want to claim? Is it Judas you are omitting in the first case? If so, why are you including him in the second?

And why are you limiting yourself to 11 or 12; what happened to the thousands converted at Pentecost?

Well . . .

 

[Simon39759]

There was (allegedly) 12 apostles, all cowards, apparently.
Of these 12, 1 did, according to Christian legends, betray Jesus, another one (according to hearsay) survived. So, 12 cowards that became, or so some believe, 10 martyrs [yeah the count is not right, Doc forgot about Judas, he is just such a serious Biblical scholar like that].


Of course, it's only hearsay we got from a biased source and, of course the characterization of the apostles as cowards is a bit sharp.
Sure, Peter, if you believe the myth, did deny knowing Jesus, but in the hours right before that, he physically threatened a whole Roman patrol all by himself and even wound the guy the Roman brought with him. Rash actions, to be sure, but not actually cowardly.
Come to think of it, this is a contradiction in the character of Peter as told by the Gospel story, really, these guys were more severely in need of an editor that Dan Brown himself.

 

[Lothian]

I can tell you 5 people are only one number away from completing a row. 3 of them are waiting for the same number. Everyone else has at least one row only needing two.

Note: I appreciate that there is a delay between the number getting up the shoot and the call. If you can see the number you can call Bingo. frist to call will win, you don't have to wait for the official shout. I am happy to verify both the call and card later.

 

[Akhenaten]

Do Hindus eat figs?


Just wondering.

 

[realpaladin]

Do Hindus eat figs?


Just wondering.

Yup. At least they serve them to me....

 

[RoboTimbo]

What was it that yrreg was always railing against? Buddhism? Why doesn't DOC? Does he know that Buddhism is the correct faith?

 

[realpaladin]

What was it that yrreg was always railing against? Buddhism? Why doesn't DOC? Does he know that Buddhism is the correct faith?

I know a lot of people who would scream "it is not a faith, it is just a way of life!".

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess it's up to DOC to create a post about it that is out there for all to see and to speak for itself.

 

[kmortis]

So what's the diff between evidence and proof?

likelystory,
Proofs are a mathematical construct. They are used in branches such as geometry to show that the statments that follow are true. For example, the SAS method of showing that two triangles are equivelant is a form of a proof. Understand that this is the most technical definition of the word "proof". There are other, more coloquial ones that make it seem to be equivlent to "evidence", but most of us who engage in debates try to separate them for reasons that I'll explain shortly.

Evidence is any manner of thing that provides data for a hypothesis. Evidence is used to help verify or refute a given claim. Some claims cannot be verified to 100% certainity (e.g. the origin of the universe) but the evidence leads us to a certain level of assurance.

So, the difference is that the word "proof" implies that 100% certainity. That is a luxury that we normally do not get, so we tend to shy away from the word. In shorthand, proof is a mathematical concept, we want evidence. And always bear in mind that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

I hope this helps.

 

[kmortis]

I guess it's up to DOC to create a post about it that is out there for all to see and to speak for itself.

But that's not one of the choi...OOOOHHH.


Heh.

 

[Mojo]

And what did those formerly cowardly and uncertain apostles have to gain if they they knew it was not true other than death, persecution, and torture.

There have been plenty of people from other religions who have been prepared to die for their beliefs, many much more recently (indeed, there are prominent examples within the last decade). What makes you think these religions are any less valid than yours?

 

[Mojo]

The bible also said Jesus said many things that were not recorded just before he was resurrected.

Wasn't he supposed to be dead just before he was resurrected? Are you saying that he was not really dead?

 

[Belz...]

Well, the existence of Christianity would be considered evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Is the existence of Raelians evidence for aliens ? Or merely evidence that they believe in aliens ?

 

[Belz...]

Coming thick and fast.
Two Dozen 24,
More than Eleven 37,
Once score 20,
8 Garden gate, and
Get Up and Run 31

1 | xx | 3 |xx | 5 | xx | xx | xx | 9 | 10
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx
21 | 22 | xx | xx | 25 | xx | 27 | xx | 29 | 30
xx | 32 | 33 | xx | 35 | xx | xx | 38 | xx | 40
41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50

Not sure I understand where you're going with this...

 

[paximperium]

Not sure I understand where you're going with this...

DOC Bingo. Didn't you get a card?

 

[Simon39759]

Is the existence of Raelians evidence for aliens ? Or merely evidence that they believe in aliens ?

It's a pretty strong evidence for the existence of Raël.
Raël's books are strong evidence that he claims to have meet aliens, and this testimony -contained in the book- is a (extremely weak) testimonial evidence for the existence of aliens themselves.

The presence of the Gospels themselves is evidence of a Christian movement in the late first to early second century.
The presence of a Christian movement at the time is evidence compatible with the existence a founder around the time described by the Gospels.
The testimony contained within the Gospels could be considered (extremely weak) hearsay evidence, even weaker as in the case of Raël: Raël's testimony was, supposedly, collected within days of the first encounter and was very likely collected by Raël himself. The gospels were collected decades after the fact by author unknown by most probably not eyewitnesses.

 

[joobz]

An Illustration of why Objective Morality results in immoral behavior

It has been a continuing argument of mine that Objective morality causes people to behave immorally. Often, it has been argued that because we are moral, those morals come from god. But if we accept that premise, we accept the idea that we only need to follow the god rule book to be moral. We do not need to consider what our actions are. We only need to know that this is what god wants.

It removes responsibility from the individual and passes it off onto another. If we do not consider the idea of a moral source, than we are fully responsible for our actions and the consequences of those actions. There is no one else to blame.


Now, look at what DOC did when confronted with the consequences of his actions:

If what you say is true, don't blame me blame Norman Geisler the author of over 60 apologetic books. And you can also blame apologist (and former skeptic) Ralph Muncaster author of the 605 page book "Examine the Evidence". And also Josh Mcdowell author of many apologetic and Christian books. For the most part I'm just the messenger of their books and some other websites.

And if what you say is true, can you tell me some of the exact posts that have made you lose your faith in God.

Did he take responsibility? Did he admit that there is a possibility he was wrong? No, of course not.

This is no accident. This is exactly the result of a mind set that is programmed to project moral responsibility on another party.

 

[carlitos]

to DOC

If what you say is true, don't blame me blame Norman Geisler the author of over 60 apologetic books. And you can also blame apologist (and former skeptic) Ralph Muncaster author of the 605 page book "Examine the Evidence". And also Josh Mcdowell author of many apologetic and Christian books. For the most part I'm just the messenger of their books and some other websites.

And if what you say is true, can you tell me some of the exact posts that have made you lose your faith in God.

Way to take responsibility for your own actions there, dude. No, I blame you and others who are unable to defend their faith-based belief systems. I haven't read those books but if your logical fallacies are based on them, there is no need. You live your life according to this religion, and you can't defend it better than this? Really?

No specific post, by the way. It's the totality of your (lack of) argument. Your IMPORTANT INFORMATION is no better that the 9/11 guy, the bigfoot guy, or the UFO guy. You all make giant leaps of faith and make arguments from incredulity.

 

[Belz...]

It's a pretty strong evidence for the existence of Raël.

No it isn't. The existence of Rael is attested by his goddamed birth certificate.

The presence of a Christian movement at the time is evidence compatible with the existence a founder around the time described by the Gospels.

It's compatible but not necessarily evidential. Or if it is, it's evidence of the weakest possible kind, which isn't much better than no evidence at all.