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

[kmortis]

Why not?
When people go and bring actual information, you pretend their post do not even exist...
Personal attack on you, at least, do not require efforts. There are also very justified by your tremendous intellectual dishonesty. And, they are just about the only thing that's bring an answer from you (remember, this place is an internet forum. It's designed for discussion; it is not an electronic reliigous tract).
If anything; I am surprised as how rare are the personal attacks on you thorough this thread. Can Kmortis, please, come forward and do his magic?

I'll try, but I am under the influence of decongestant.

DOC,
Seriously, this is the best you can do? Repeating worn-out arguments that were wrong when you introduced them 200 pages ago? Your arguments are what one would expect from a trilobite trying to provide evidence that it's really an armadillo. It's just stupid. This demonstrates a serious lack of between-the-ears gray matter on your part. I've recently come to the conclusion that your dendrites only have single connections and that your axons don't actually receive as much as just sit there, placidly, awash in their own filth.

I realize that you cannot possibly comprehend the preceding insult as it is an accurate portrayal of your mental faculties. So, I'll dumb it down. Your arguments lead one to come to the conclusion that you are a moron. One who is not even capable of realizing a logical statement when it is sitting on the counter top, with a large neon sign flashing "Logical Statement Here". You would probably misinterpret that to mean that it was a Fast Food joint and futilely try to order a double cheeseburger, large fry and jumbo diet cola. In short, I'm amazed that you have the intellectual capacity to get out of bed in the morning, let alone use a computer.

***

That's about the best I can do. My head is killing me, sinuses filled with some green, thick fluid, much like I picture DOCs brain to be.

 

[kmortis]

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?

While some skeptics are wasting time talking about me, I'm finding new information. Below is an example.

Then why did he spend the time cutting out bible verses with a razor and pasting them in a 82 page book. With each page averaging about 11 verses per page. So that is a least 880 biblical verses he spent time cutting out. Not only that but he put the Greek, Latin, and French translation of each of those verses next to the English translation. He never did anything like this for any other person (including Plato and Aristotle). This shows just how unique Christ's teachings were for a man like Jefferson to take all this time and energy to do this. But for some reason Jefferson just had a mental block about miracles (As Geisler points out, if God exists miracles are possible) But the ironic thing is Jefferson had no problem inserting in his book some of the times Christ mentioned hell. He also mentions at least one verse with an angel in his book. And I"ve only just skimmed a few pages of the book to get this info.



Ok, here are some of Christ's teachings that Jefferson put in his book on page 9. These verses are from Matthew chapter 5: 38, 47

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Does the above verses sound like something lying fisherman would think up.

Wow...and he wonders why I think his mental capacity isn't up to snuff. My post that leads off this quote-fest is from ~100 posts ago. I'm sure that we could go back and find at least five more just like it through the entirety of the thread. The important point to take away is that DOC doesn't actually read any of our posts.

A new theory: DOC is like the main character in Memento. He's got some serious short term memory problems and can't even remember that his "arguments" and "evidence" has been so thoroughly trashed that he is just making a larger mockery of himself than I could ever hope to.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Oh great, now I see a Hitler-Santa with bible passages tattooed all over his body, constantly waking up in front of a computer and copying random passages to forums.

 

[Lothian]

Then why did he spend the time cutting out bible verses with a razor and pasting them in a 82 page book.

It is obvious. It was far quicker to cut out the bits he liked than to cut the bits he didn't.

 

[kmortis]

Oh great, now I see a Hitler-Santa with bible passages tattooed all over his body, constantly waking up in front of a computer and copying random passages to forums.

Hrm...Hitler-Santa who was imperfectly read out of a book ala Inkheart. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[joobz]

Does the above verses sound like something lying fisherman would think up.

1.) we don't know who the authors were, so why assume they were fisherman?
2.) What do you have against fisherman? It seems like you think they must be stupid people.

 

[Elizabeth I]

This thread has become my favorite.

Am I losing my mind?

I'm sorry, we'll need some evidence that you had it with you when you came in here.

Do the above verses sound like something lying fishermen would think up?

Fixed that for you.

And once again, I point out: believing something that turns out not to be true is not necessarily the same as lying. No one here is saying that the authors of the Bible were liars, only that they believed some things that later turned out not to be true. Why do you insist on setting up that "lying fishermen" strawman? <-----see that? It's a question mark. You use it when you wish to ask someone something, even if it's merely a rhetorical question.

 

[Lucian]

Is it really possible to make 634 posts in an evidence thread like I have in this thread without any evidence. People really need to take time to think about that.

Unbelievable! I found this on page 73; the cognitive dissonance is through the roof with this guy.

Does anyone else feel nostalgic for the good ol' days when we were young and carefree and DOC only had 634 posts in this thread? The world just seemed so much simpler and innocent back then. Now everything's different, more difficult: the youth of today, with their long hair and rock and roll music, have no respect for the important things; there's still no evidence that the NT writers told the truth; and somehow, I swear, DOC's post count for this thread actually exceeds the total post count--which, I'm pretty sure is a sign of the apocalypse.

 

[Lucian]

Then why did he spend the time cutting out bible verses with a razor and pasting them in a 82 page book. With each page averaging about 11 verses per page. So that is a least 880 biblical verses he spent time cutting out. Not only that but he put the Greek, Latin, and French translation of each of those verses next to the English translation. He never did anything like this for any other person (including Plato and Aristotle). This shows just how unique Christ's teachings were for a man like Jefferson to take all this time and energy to do this. But for some reason Jefferson just had a mental block about miracles (As Geisler points out, if God exists miracles are possible) But the ironic thing is Jefferson had no problem inserting in his book some of the times Christ mentioned hell. He also mentions at least one verse with an angel in his book. And I"ve only just skimmed a few pages of the book to get this info.

So, what you're saying is....Thomas Jefferson desecrated the Bible? And not just one Bible, but several, in a variety of languages.




Thomas Jefferson: President, Founding Father, Slave Owner, Inveterate Desecrator of the Bible.

 

[Hokulele]

Someone went through and snipped all of the wisdom from this man's biography.

http://www.amazon.com/Notebooks-Lazarus-Long-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0876544731

Many people have copied these pearls and placed them on their own websites. Does this mean Lazarus Long lived for thousands of years across the galaxy and then some?

 

[Akhenaten]

Heh. I've been using quotes from that for years.

The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail is one of my favourites, being a Dave and all.

 

[zooterkin]

It came from here:

​

On Thursday night, I saw Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy), which was very enjoyable. My mum, who had won a pair of tickets for it, liked it too, despite not having seen much, if any, Monty Python, and being a Christian.

 

[Akhenaten]

On Thursday night, I saw Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy), which was very enjoyable. My mum, who had won a pair of tickets for it, liked it too, despite not having seen much, if any, Monty Python, and being a Christian.

Wow, what a winner! On a few counts.

I'd love to have seen that show. It was performed in Oz in 2007, I think, but only in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth, of all places. Perhaps Melbourne thinks it's too high-brow for the likes of the Pythons. Loserama!

As to the Mum situation, I can see that happening in my case too. I'm fairly sure my Mum has never even heard of Monty Python, so I'd have to trick her into thinking it was a David Attenborough wildlife spectacular or something to get her to go, but apart from that she'd be fine.

The Christianity thing would be even less of a problem. She sees herself as a bit of a born-again Christian, but because she wasn't a born-the-first-time Christian she gets most of it wrong. She sees god, jeebus and the spook as some kind of three-headed Santa Claus I think, but I really haven't pressed her for too many details.

She wouldn't be offended by Life of Brian or Not the Messiah, because she doesn't know the 'real' story well enough to recognise the others as parody, which I find rather nice actually, given that her ignorance/confusion about her own nominal religion is what allowed me to grow up as a nice, well-adjusted heathen.

I have, of course, gone out of adjustment since then, but by cleverly hanging out in threads like this, I mostly seem to get away with it.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Toke]

So he did actually find a sensible verse to cut from the bible.

 

[JimBrown257]

Well, I am up to page 80 now. I keep saying to myself that I am done with it but I just can't seem to kick the habit and keep coming back for more.

DOC, I have to tell you a few things: First, you KEEP mentioning the huge number of posts you have as if there is a point system based on that to tell who is winning; however, there is not. You KEEP saying that it is a good thing that all your posts are on record for anyone who might read this thread to see. I am that person reading the thread and I have to tell you that you have offered precisely zero units of evidence for ANYTHING.

The reason so many people have read this thread and kept it going so long is that the people who respond to your many fallacies are extremely informative. Hokulele in particular has taught me quite a bit. There is also a Christian named CW (or something similar) that knows his stuff, though I disagree with his conclusions regarding the divinity of Jesus.

The other thing I have to mention has to do with Thomas Jefferson. You keep bringing up the fact that Jefferson had some positive things to say about the message of Christianity. And that is true; in fact, I agree with Jefferson that there have been many good things to come out of it (granted many people have misused it for their own agendas and I don't care for the sexism and homophobia it has caused). But here is the thing: Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus. When it comes to that, Jefferson was like the critical thinkers who have been responding to you posts: we don't but it.

The issue at hand here is not what good might have come from Christianity but if the whole Jesus=god thing carries any weight. I will admit that for the common people, it has often been a good thing that they feel there exists a system of punishment/rewards in some afterlife. Like all atheists, I have been asked: "If you don't believe in god, what stops you from raping and killing!?" While I am shocked and disgusted by the utter stupidity of the question, the fact is that many of the common idiots in the world have that mindset and we need to trick them in to acting civilized with stories of hellfire.

However, here in a forum on Mr. Randi's webpage, you will not find the common idiot who can't or doesn't want to deal with reality as it is. That is what the issue is here: not what we want to be true but what really is true; no easy answers or comfortable delusions, just the cold, hard truth. So when it comes to the question not of Chtristianity being good or useful but actually true like the NT says it is, you have not offered anything.

 

[JimBrown257]

About a year ago (around page 75-80), this question was asked many times over:


"If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.
Originally Posted by DOC
You don't feed babies prime rib. Jesus was speaking in ways the unlightened of that time could digest. That's why he spoke in parables.
Serious question: How do these two seemingly incongruous statements gel - in your view - DOC?"


...No good explanation was ever given after several pages and I doubt one ever came. I would, however, like to offer my thoughts on the matter: Having delt with the anti-reason known as apologetics quite a bit, I know what the usual "answer" to such a problem is: If you think it was wrong or doesn't make sense then you are wrong because everything in the Bible is undisputable fact. The thinking man will, of course, not be fooled by this but you have to remember that this is apologetics, the diametric opposite of the thinking man.


Also, I fnally took a look at that "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" book that the OP claimed contained evidence that the NT was true. Here it is, but I strongly recommend keeping a puke bucket nearby if you plan to read it:


http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...efox-a#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false


...Granted the "evidence" presented in the OP was laughably bad but the book goes leaps and bounds past such igorance. There is the inevitable "From goo to you via the zoo" attack of biology, logic and common sense. It is funny but kind of scary that anyone can be so ignorant and uneducated to fall for that crap. There is a picture of a small cooking pot, then a bigger one, then a bigger one and so on; they ask "Did these all come from a common designer or did the big pot evolve from the smaller one?" They just don't understand or can't deal with the idea of descent with modification. I'm sure many of you have seen those creationist tracts that ask questions like "Have you ever seen a building that had no designer?" Have they ever seen a building that passes it's genes on when it reproduces?

 

[amb]

Source?

All members of the Jesus Seminar for a start. All the gospels were written anonymously. Only much later were names assigned to them.

 

[Akhenaten]

So he did actually find a sensible verse to cut from the bible.

There are lots of sensible bits in the bible in the same way that there are lots of sensible words in a rorylee post. It's only when the thing is seen as a whole that it becomes an insane mishmash.


BTW, I suspect that there's a poster in this thread who is using one of the bibles Jefferson discarded after the cut-and-paste excercise. This would explain much.


Thanks for the nommy-nom, my friend.

 

[zooterkin]

Wow, what a winner! On a few counts.

I'd love to have seen that show. It was performed in Oz in 2007, I think, but only in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth, of all places. Perhaps Melbourne thinks it's too high-brow for the likes of the Pythons. Loserama!

Just to be clear, this was the film of the performance at the Albert Hall, which was put on to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Monty Python; so, it should be out on DVD before too long. There was a special showing of the film for one day only in the UK in a number of cinemas, and this is what she won tickets for.

As to the Mum situation, I can see that happening in my case too. I'm fairly sure my Mum has never even heard of Monty Python, so I'd have to trick her into thinking it was a David Attenborough wildlife spectacular or something to get her to go, but apart from that she'd be fine.

My mum had heard of it, but I don't think she watched it when it was first on; it wasn't really for her generation. The humour of the TV show was probably just a bit too broad for her, though she enjoys similarly absurd humour like the Goons. Of course, she's now familiar with Michael Palin from his travel shows, and she recognised Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. It was an interesting experience hearing her laugh for the first time at some of the much-quoted lines from Life of Brian.

The Christianity thing would be even less of a problem. She sees herself as a bit of a born-again Christian, but because she wasn't a born-the-first-time Christian she gets most of it wrong. She sees god, jeebus and the spook as some kind of three-headed Santa Claus I think, but I really haven't pressed her for too many details.

A bit different in my mum's case, she's a life-long (at least most of it) Christian, and with my dad at one time ran the Sunday School, so she knows her bible pretty well. On the other hand, they were both pretty rational, and both taught science at school, and were by no means fundamentalists. They were both Nonconformists (Baptists, specifically, though that's somewhat different from the US version), and I'm pretty sure didn't believe in all the miracles (I seem to remember her giving some more prosaic explanations of what actually might have happened, and I suspect that's where some of my doubts may have started). She still believes in God, and Jesus, but not in the dogmatic way of the stereotypical fundie (which we don't have a lot of in the UK), and she's now attending a United Reformed Church. The Nonconformists tend to focus on the teachings of Jesus, and don't go in for much ceremony and dogma; they haven't quite gone as far as Jefferson, though.

She wouldn't be offended by Life of Brian or Not the Messiah, because she doesn't know the 'real' story well enough to recognise the others as parody, which I find rather nice actually, given that her ignorance/confusion about her own nominal religion is what allowed me to grow up as a nice, well-adjusted heathen.

When I first saw the film, I was still nominally a believer, and didn't see anything wrong with it at all. It's more a commentary on human nature and credulity; you could read it as an attack on Christ if you take the view that the film says that he was just as much a false Messiah as Brian. However, the fact that Brian is a false Messiah doesn't preclude the possibility of a true Messiah, and the film doesn't rule this out as far as I can recall.

I have, of course, gone out of adjustment since then, but by cleverly hanging out in threads like this, I mostly seem to get away with it.