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

Status
Not open for further replies.
/me peeks in

May I ask you guys a question?

Why, knowing DOC, do you persist in this manner? You know he's not going to stop, you know he's going to convince no one, and you know that he's probably laughing his butt off in his dark basement under the bridge at the fact that you keep replying to his drivel so he can post it all over again and start the cycle anew.
 
In that case, I guess there are plenty of people having good fun.

No, seriously, there must be something that keeps on drawing people here. If only I could put my finger on what that might be ... .
 
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.
Click to expand...
No because when others talked about the length of the thread they were in no way suggesting that the quantity equated to quality. The reverse in fact.

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...
Ok tell me what is false about that answer. Provide evidence that the NT accounts of the resurrection are true, without giving the bible or its contents as 'evidence' in your reply.
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
I have checked the Vatican homepage.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850522en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19850710en.html

These are respectively on the gospels and proof of god.

It reads like the gospels are really inspiring and there are no proof of god but do not let that stop you from believing.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable. Yet 99.9% of babblical scholars all say none of the gospels were written by any of the mostly illiterate apostles. :p
 
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.
Click to expand...

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[/QUOTE]

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...
 
Toke said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

"The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterward they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" (DV 18).
 
Last edited:
amb said:
"The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterward they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" (DV 18).
Click to expand...

I see, I went through the articles rather quickly looking for any claims of the gospels being true.
It does look like the Vatican got their own interpretation of the bibles origin.:D
 
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...

Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought about Jesus ? So he said that about him. I can say that about Mickey Mouse, but it doesn't mean he was a historical character.
 
Waterman said:
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:



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?...
Click to expand...

Lothian said this in another thread in another forum that I have not entered:

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...

I have never said "if it is in the bible it must be true". This is a false statement about me and gives a negative impression.

Then later in that same thread Six7s brought in Lothians false statement about me again.

If you are going to say something that comes across as derogatory about someone behind their back, you need to be accurate. But at least something good came from it because when I googled my name to see if anyone was saying anything about me or my posts I came across that older thread that I never noticed before.

And cj123 brings up some very good points about history as it applies to Christ's life in his thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160952

I think to be fair Lothian should make another post in "that thread" and say he was incorrect in his comment about a another person who had not entered the thread.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Lothian said this in another thread in another forum that I have not entered:
Click to expand...


What??? You're posting quotes from a thread you've never visited. Does that actually make sense to you?

DOC said:
I have never said "if it is in the bible it must be true".
Click to expand...


It's pretty much all you've had to say from the start of the thread.


DOC said:
This is a false statement about me and gives a negative impression.
Click to expand...


It's completely true, no matter how damning it is.


DOC said:
Then later in that same thread Six7s brought in Lothians false statement about me again.
Click to expand...


I thought you never visited that thread?


DOC said:
If you are going to say something that comes across as derogatory about someone behind their back, you need to be accurate. But at least something good came from it because when I googled my name to see if anyone was saying anything about me or my posts I came across that older thread.
Click to expand...
my bolding


Why does this bizarre activity not surprise me in the least?


DOC said:
And cj123 brings up some very good points about history as it applies to Christ's life in his thread:
Click to expand...


It might come as a big surprise to you, DOC, but we aren't all stuck in this one dismal thread. That's how we manage to know so much more than you already.


DOC said:
I think to be fair Lothian should make another post in "that thread" and say he was incorrect in his comment about a another person who had not entered the thread.
Click to expand...


In terrms of conducting a logical discussion or honest debate, you wouldn't know fair if it bit you.
 
DOC said:
I have never said "if it is in the bible it must be true".
Click to expand...
Are you saying that is not an accurate representation of your position, or are you just quibbling that you didn't say those actual words? If the latter, then no-one is suggesting it is a direct quote, only a paraphrase of what you might say.
This is a false statement about me and gives a negative impression.
Click to expand...

It gives an accurate impression; if you think that's a negative one, then perhaps you should review your many posts here, because that's where the impression comes from.
 
Akhenaten said:
What??? You're posting quotes from a thread you've never visited. Does that actually make sense to you?
Click to expand...

Yes you need to reread my post again




It's pretty much all you've had to say from the start of the thread.
Click to expand...

Show the post where I said "If it is in the bible it must be true". You won't be able to.





It's completely true, no matter how damning it is.
Click to expand...

Then why can't you present a post where I said that if it is completely true.





I thought you never visited that thread?
Click to expand...

I did yesterday, for the reason I stated. I have never posted in that thread. But I do wish I would have seen it when it first came out months ago.
 
zooterkin said:
Are you saying that is not an accurate representation of your position, or are you just quibbling that you didn't say those actual words? If the latter, then no-one is suggesting it is a direct quote, only a paraphrase of what you might say.


It gives an accurate impression; if you think that's a negative one, then perhaps you should review your many posts here, because that's where the impression comes from.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about me or my opinions, its about cold evidence. If I give someone the impression I feel that way then Lothian should have said it is his opinion that Doc implies that that if something is in the Bible it must be true. Since he or anyone else can't back it up with my statement they shouldn't state it as fact -- especially in a thread where he knows I haven't posted in.

It is my opinion that some Skeptics want to make this thread about me, guess what it's not about me.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Yes you need to reread my post again
Show the post where I said "If it is in the bible it must be true". You won't be able to.
Click to expand...

As Zooter pointed out a few posts ago, that's not the point. The point is that, on the basis of your posts in this thread and elsewhere, it seems to sum up your position. Using scripture (and frequently only scripture) to support your arguments suggests that you regard it as entirely reliable.

Of course, if I am wrong, I'll happily withdraw this assumption. However, if I am wrong, which parts of the bible do you think are inaccurate and how do you differentiate between these and the rest?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom