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

[DOC]

Ok, I'm calling "foul". For all of you who claim to be skeptics, turn in your cards. You are behaving in a very non-skeptical manner. You have 1900+ pieces of evidence in this thread alone, not to mention the other dozen or so threads, that DOC is not an honest debater. He will not listen to reason. He will only engage in fallicious argumentation, ignoring meaningful posts and only post non-sequitors, appeals to authority and popularity, tautalogical reasonings and other fallacies to the one-liners we shoot off. If you want to go back to ridicule, then that's fine - it's what he deserves at this point - but to continue to engage is just stupid.

Another no example. no new information, attack the messenger opinion.

 

[Mirrorglass]

And our modern society approves of sending people to jail for several years who beat several men and beat several woman like the servant did in the bible verse. I've asked people in here if they would rather get 10 lashes and be sore for a few days or spend several years in jail. I know of no one who would rather spend several years in jail. That being the case Jesus was actually more lenient regarding the servant than our modern society would have been.

I believe I raised this point before, but here we go again. Are you saying that according to Jesus, the correct punishment for multiple counts of assault should be 'a few lashes'? Do you think it would be right to make it so this is the punishment for anyone who beats another man?

 

[Toke]

Otherwise, they wouldn't be rabbis.

Sorry, are you insinuating that the jews do not believe that christ is our saviour?

 

[joobz]

And our modern society approves of sending people to jail for several years who beat several men and beat several woman like the servant did in the bible verse.

Please reread the verse. The part I am referring to is the part where the servant (slave) gets beat for unkowningly going against his master's will.

I've asked people in here if they would rather get 10 lashes and be sore for a few days or spend several years in jail.

I would prefer to receive due process of law coupled with a jury of my peers and not the lashing received from a "boss".

I know of no one who would rather spend several years in jail. That being the case Jesus was actually more lenient regarding the servant than our modern society would have been.

You just unknowingly broke the brand new JREF Forum's "No stupid argument" rule. Do you prefer to receive lashes (as allowed by Jesus) or send you to the US court system?

 

[tsig]

Be patient. DOC is going to provide Evidence For Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth(tm) any time now.

He's provided evidence that Ramsey(pbuh) thought the NTWTT and that he(DOC) thinks the same.

How much evidence do you need?

You are so going to burn.

 

[joobz]

What does that have to do with voicing an opinion about oral tradition in biblical times?

What Cleon so eloquently said.

Well, considering you are citing a (supposed) rabbi as an authority on the matter, everything. It shows, conclusively, that even if rabbis were 100% agreed on the reliability of oral tradition during biblical times, they clearly don't agree with your "logic" that somehow this validates the New Testament.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be rabbis.

 

[Audible Click]

And our modern society approves of sending people to jail for several years who beat several men and beat several woman like the servant did in the bible verse. I've asked people in here if they would rather get 10 lashes and be sore for a few days or spend several years in jail. I know of no one who would rather spend several years in jail. That being the case Jesus was actually more lenient regarding the servant than our modern society would have been.

Are you purposely not getting this? Depending on the force applied, ten lashes could kill you or disable you permanently. You need to, somehow, get back on track and provide concrete evidence to back up the claim you made in the OP. This thread has wandered all over the place (Exodus, anyone?) because you can't provide one shred of credible evidence. I'd suggest you admit this or, for our entertainment, just keep trolling.

 

[tsig]

It's certainly adds weight to the fact that something big was happening. And there would have been a lot more manuscripts if some of the Roman emperors didn't order the destruction of Christian writings -- not to mention the destruction of the Christians themselves.

Any proof that Roman emperors ordered the destruction of Christian manuscripts?

I have never heard that before.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

DOC:
Another no example. no new information, attack the messenger opinion.

That's it DOC, pick the easy posts to respond to . Don't bother to respond to any that actually conclusively demonstrate that there is NO "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" (not that you've demonstrated an ability to coherently respond to such posts when you do make such attempts).

You have yet to counter any arguments that demonstrate there was more than one interpretation of the Gospels (by other Christians no less) regarding Jesus' alleged Divinity (or lack of it) BACK IN THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN. Perhaps this is because you know that you can't without admitting that would nullify this entire thread.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Tsig:
Any proof that Roman emperors ordered the destruction of Christian manuscripts?

There is evidence that Christian Manuscripts were destroyed under the authority of the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine at the the Nicene Council which he convened to standardize and codify Christianity in 325 .

But DOC, can't cop to that without totally undermining his arguments, because it would conclusively demonstrate that some Christians did not believe Jesus was God (Arians) and that some others did not take the Bible literally (Gnostics).

 

[kmortis]

Ok, I'm calling "foul". For all of you who claim to be skeptics, turn in your cards. You are behaving in a very non-skeptical manner. You have 1900+ pieces of evidence in this thread alone, not to mention the other dozen or so threads, that DOC is not an honest debater. He will not listen to reason. He will only engage in fallicious argumentation, ignoring meaningful posts and only post non-sequitors, appeals to authority and popularity, tautalogical reasonings and other fallacies to the one-liners we shoot off. If you want to go back to ridicule, then that's fine - it's what he deserves at this point - but to continue to engage is just stupid.

Another no example. no new information, attack the messenger opinion.

It wasn't addressed to you. Since they didn't teach this in your logic class, I'll have to explain it again. What I wrote above is not an "attack the messenger option[sic]". Granted, it did poke a little fun at your expense, but it was not a direct attck on you, it did not say that your arguments were invalid because you're a dishonest debater (actually, it says the opposite, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to suss out). And, by replying to it in the manner that you did, you only left more evidence that the claims I make in that post are all the more valid.

This is an attack the messenger post:
***begin attack the messenger example***
Your arguments are invalid because you're stupid. Stupid beyond the imagination of a dullard trying to complete in the World's Most Moronic Blue-Green Algae Competition. If it weren't for the fact that you can type a semi-coherent sentance into a computer, I'd be concerned that you are, in fact, brain dead. You are a moron of the first water and no premise or other statement should be listened to, or read out of fear of brain damage. Oh, your mother dresses you funnily as well. I see that living in her basement has certain benefits, not the least of which is to alleviate the necessity of you actually getting out and learning something.
Jackass.
***end attack the messenger post***

As you can easily see, as you have the brain capacity equal to or greater than a turnip's, there is little in common with the two posts other than the use of standard American English words and sentance structure.

As for my posts being a "no new information" post, I will accept that criticism. It is not new to say that you are a dishonest debater, we've know that for a good long while now. That you don't actually listen to reason, or even bother to research beyond what the apologists would have you believe, you know anything dealing with actual facts or history or science, is not new either. It's all old information that I repackaged in a more concise form for the lurkers who needed a summary bullet. I hope it helped them.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

That, L+G, is funny

 

[Hokulele]

It wasn't addressed to you. Since they didn't teach this in your logic class, I'll have to explain it again. What I wrote above is not an "attack the messenger option[sic]". Granted, it did poke a little fun at your expense, but it was not a direct attck on you, it did not say that your arguments were invalid because you're a dishonest debater (actually, it says the opposite, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to suss out). And, by replying to it in the manner that you did, you only left more evidence that the claims I make in that post are all the more valid.

This is an attack the messenger post:
***begin attack the messenger example***
Your arguments are invalid because you're stupid. Stupid beyond the imagination of a dullard trying to complete in the World's Most Moronic Blue-Green Algae Competition. If it weren't for the fact that you can type a semi-coherent sentance into a computer, I'd be concerned that you are, in fact, brain dead. You are a moron of the first water and no premise or other statement should be listened to, or read out of fear of brain damage. Oh, your mother dresses you funnily as well. I see that living in her basement has certain benefits, not the least of which is to alleviate the necessity of you actually getting out and learning something.
Jackass.
***end attack the messenger post***

As you can easily see, as you have the brain capacity equal to or greater than a turnip's, there is little in common with the two posts other than the use of standard American English words and sentance structure.

As for my posts being a "no new information" post, I will accept that criticism. It is not new to say that you are a dishonest debater, we've know that for a good long while now. That you don't actually listen to reason, or even bother to research beyond what the apologists would have you believe, you know anything dealing with actual facts or history or science, is not new either. It's all old information that I repackaged in a more concise form for the lurkers who needed a summary bullet. I hope it helped them.

Win.

 

[DC]

soon this thread is longer than the New Testament

 

[dafydd]

Personally, it's my dream to see all the woos on the forums in the same thread. Imagine, DOC and GIBHOR arguing scripture with Paul Bethke, edge and David Henson comparing notes on biblical archeology, Limbo explaining the Jungian significance of the iron sun.. Maybe the fabric of the universe would be ripped, but it'd be worth it.

I'd pay to see that,not much but I'd pay.

 

[dafydd]

And our modern society approves of sending people to jail for several years who beat several men and beat several woman like the servant did in the bible verse. I've asked people in here if they would rather get 10 lashes and be sore for a few days or spend several years in jail. I know of no one who would rather spend several years in jail. That being the case Jesus was actually more lenient regarding the servant than our modern society would have been.

And that proves that the New testament writers told the truth? I'm still waiting for the evidence mentioned in the OP.

 

[Akhenaten]

soon this thread is longer than the New Testament

And unlike the original, there's ample evidence that some of us have been telling the truth.

 

[kurious_kathy]

That's it DOC, pick the easy posts to respond to . Don't bother to respond to any that actually conclusively demonstrate that there is NO "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" (not that you've demonstrated an ability to coherently respond to such posts when you do make such attempts).

There is plently of evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and that the New Testament is true. Jesus not only fullfilled hundreds of prophecies, he has indeed risen from the dead. If you could just decide to accept him and his truth, then your spiritual eyes would be open too, just like Doc and me, and thousands of others who know God the Father through his Son. There truly is only one way to the Father and that is through Christ. How your theology affects your salvation is a whole other issue. The fact is... God's word is true. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but his word never will."

The evidence is that he does indeed dwell within his people. Just because you don't see him doesn't mean he isn't there!

 

[Akhenaten]

There is plently of evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and that the New Testament is true.

Then why has DOC been unable to produce some of it?

Jesus not only fullfilled hundreds of prophecies, he has indeed risen from the dead.

Oh really? And where exactly is your evidence for this?

If you could just decide to accept him and his truth, then your spiritual eyes would be open too, just like Doc and me, and thousands of others who know God the Father through his Son.

Accept? So you're actually talking about faith then, not evidence.

There truly is only one way to the Father and that is through Christ. How your theology affects your salvation is a whole other issue. The fact is... God's word is true. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but his word never will."

That's just meaningless nonsense, based on some of DOC's world-famous circular reasoning. Did you two fail the same logic course?

The evidence is that he does indeed dwell within his people.

Like some kind of parasitic worm perhaps? I could almost go for that idea.

Just because you don't see him doesn't mean he isn't there!

You don't understand what 'evidence' means, do you?

 

[Belz...]

And unlike the original, there's ample evidence that some of us have been telling the truth.