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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then who created the most moral and sublime teachings ever preached to man (at least according to Thomas Jefferson) -- lying fisherman?
Click to expand...

You need to learn the difference between people repeating something they believe to be true which actually turns out not to be true, and lying.
 
DOC said:
Then who created the most moral and sublime teachings ever preached to man (at least according to Thomas Jefferson) -- lying fisherman?
Click to expand...

Elizabeth I said:
You need to learn the difference between people repeating something they believe to be true which actually turns out not to be true, and lying.
Click to expand...
Prexactly! I have little else but admiration for Thomas Jefferson. I subscribe to the idea that he was quite possbily the smartest man to sit in the Oval Office (becuase I said I believe it, does it make that true?). This does not, however, mean that the teachings that TJ was referring to were in any way accurate history. Hell, he took out the parts he didn't like and made his own version of the gospels, what does that tell you?
 
DOC said:
In case anyone doesn't know what non-canonical means, it means the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible.
Click to expand...
And if anyone want's to know why they aren't in the bible, it's because they didn't make it past committee because they contradicted the need for a catholic* church.


*catholic meaning single-universal....
 
DOC said:
Name two things in this thread that are funny and why specifically they are funny.
Click to expand...
This one was darn funny.


Hokulele said:
Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:
Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death
Click to expand...



Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.

Geisler's book from Ichneumonwasp's link said:
What does martyrdom prove? Does it prove Islam is true too?

Not at all. There are some similarities, but there's one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.
Click to expand...

Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?
Click to expand...



That's still a gem. Why is it funny?
Because it demonstrates that Geisler is an utterly worthless as an apologist. His arguments are terrible. The fact that you (DOC) present them as if they are gold is simply the funniest/saddest thing in these threads.

There are many examples like this, but this one is by far the funniest.
 
This argument gets funky when you think about the later Christian martyrs that couldn't have been eyewitnesses. What about them? Sincere but "No True Martyr"?
 
DOC said:
Name two things in this thread that are funny and why specifically they are funny.
Click to expand...

If the funny needs to be explained to you; you won't find it funny anyway...
That's fine if you don't see the funny Doc; every joke needs a straight man...
 
Or woman.
Click to expand...
As long as her hair is covered. Otherwise, you should shave her head. That's what Paul said to the Corinthians, and as Thomas Jefferson said "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
 
Lothian said:
For those not familar with Doc's habit of doing this I have found one or two examples
Click to expand...

You should of also presented the large number of times skeptics talked about post counts when the thread got around 10,000 and 11,000 posts as well as other times.

And by the way I noticed you stated false information about me in another thread and Six7s repeated your post later in that thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5369631#post5369631
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
Wow. DOC can't convince anyone here and he is deluded enough to believe that his nonsense would have convinced Sagan. That is just sad.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, probably never read post 11054 but something convinced them.
 
You should of have also presented the large number of times skeptics talked about post counts when the thread got around 10,000 and 11,000 posts as well as other times.
Click to expand...

You truly don't understand the concept of parody, do you?

If you can prove that you were parodying someone all nine hundred twelvety-seven elebenty million times you mentioned your post count in this thread, you might get a temporary pass on that particular annoying habit.
 
DOC said:
Well I'm sure Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, probably never read post 11054 but something convinced them.
Click to expand...
Yup, it sure wasn't your nonsense that convinced them so what makes you so deluded to believe that your nonsense would've convinced a retarded brain damage child much less someone like Sagan?
 
DOC said:
You should of also presented the large number of times skeptics talked about post counts when the thread got around 10,000 and 11,000 posts as well as other times.

And by the way I noticed you stated false information about me in another thread and Six7s repeated your post later in that thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5369631#post5369631
Click to expand...

Well since you wont address my points lets see how this goes. Here is what he said in the post you linked that was atributed to you position:

Lothian said:
What historical issues? The only issue is the one you have described in the thread title, 'was Jesus Resurrected?'

We know Doc's answer "Yes, because it is in the bible so it must be true."
Click to expand...

The whole point of this thread is that you are claiming that the Bible Story as it related to Jesus and the resurrection is true. That is what Lothian was saying was essentially correct in context of the discussion.

It is clear that you accept that the resurrection as factual and the biblical resurrection story is true as is written in the bible. Since you appear to be disputing what Lothian said it is unclear on what ground?

1. The Bible is not all true
Just the parts I happen to agree with​
2. It is true but not because the Bible says so, it just is.
Here is where we would need coroborating evidence outside the biblical texts of the events in question not juse the existance of Christians or opinions of famous people.​
3. It is the Bible (duh) it is the inspired word of God of course it is true
Then what is your beef with Lotian.​
 
DOC said:
In case anyone doesn't know what non-canonical means, it means the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible.
Click to expand...

It is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. But it is true, neither the Infancy Gospel of Thomas nor the Gospel of Thomas are in the Bible.

But that does not really matter, or does it? What we have, are either the authentic writings of the martyr St. Thomas, or we have texts falsely attributed to the martyr St. Thomas ... Take your pick, DOC.

Why would, however, whoever was the author of these non-canonical writing willingly take upon them the threat of persecution - and a persecution not only from Rome et al, no a persecution quite probably also from several of their "Christian" brothers and sisters - if it wasn't true?

From Geissler:
But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.​

DOC, could you please help me refresh the story of Doubting Thomas? (j/k) Does this not make him especially credible?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom