Cleon
King of the Pod People
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
What an adorable commandment.
Belz...
Fiend God
Belz...
Fiend God
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
Who is us? Considering that everybody posting has been skeptical of your claims...
Anyway, I don't really care about a specific translation but, when looking for an English version, tend to use the New Revised Standard Version or the Holman Christian Standard Bible as they use modern, easier to understand language and are the product of modern scholarship rather than the interpretation of a renaissance-era royal sycophant...
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
You are in so much trouble!
Rincewind
Philosopher
DOC,
What's all this nonsense about translations?
OBVIOUSLY, the Bible was written in English!
What's all this nonsense about translations?
OBVIOUSLY, the Bible was written in English!
DOC,
What's all this nonsense about translations?
OBVIOUSLY, the Bible was written in English!
Don't be silly, the bible is in Danish.
All those foreign translations may be good enough for them foreigners, they are going to hell anyway for being foreign.
Rincewind
Philosopher
A few days ago, I wrote some details about contemporaries of Caesar writing about him.
This is far better "evidence" for his existence than the anonymously-written gospels for Jebus.
However, this seems to have gone straight over DOC's head - or maybe in one ear and out the other, there being little to get in the way.
I was going to get the post reference, but thought "what's the point - he'll only ignore it again...."
This is far better "evidence" for his existence than the anonymously-written gospels for Jebus.
However, this seems to have gone straight over DOC's head - or maybe in one ear and out the other, there being little to get in the way.
I was going to get the post reference, but thought "what's the point - he'll only ignore it again...."
Rincewind
Philosopher
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Fer cryin' out loud, DOC!
In the context of this thread, what "the bible says" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT; this applies to ANY translation of ANY bible
STOP going off on inane tangents!
We are here, patiently waiting for you to:
- either provide credible (i.e. extra-biblical) evidence that supports the woo in your OP
- or acknowledge that you set yourself an impossible task
Either piss, or get off the pot
Waterman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 251
In reading through DOC’s arguments (and yes I am one of those that has read every post) It appears that there is some fundamental difference in how the two sides are using the term evidence in the context of this discussion.
Per DOC’s usage in post 13, Evidence is something that is used to arrive as a determination or decision. He has turned this definition around in that ANYTHING that is used to arrive at a decision or determination is to be considered Evidence.
Per this definition anything considered becomes evidence:
Facts (irrelevant and relevant)
Quotes (and misquotes)
Logical Arguments
Fallacious Logical Arguments (especially if you don’t recognize the fallacy)
Statistics (both correctly applied and misapplied)
Opinions of Famous People
Untruths (either unknown to the presenter or not)
Speculation and Conjecture
Inspirational thoughts / ideas
Tradition
People do and often use all of these to help make decisions. However that does NOT mean that they rise to what the majority of the posters of this board consider to be GOOD EVIDENCE.
Irrelevant Facts – It is a fact that my house is green. However that has no bearing on whether or my computer crashed while working on a project last week. Unless I can link these two items together the fact is unimportant to solving my computer dilemma. Many people are asking for that logical link between your facts and your conclusion. 42 Presidents are Christian. OK link that to the Truthfulness of the NT.
Quotes and Misquotes are not Evidence at best they document the opinion of the person. At worst when taken out of context mean the opposite of what speaker intended. They have to be evaluated carefully for context. Even when they evaluated, quotes are only indications of their opinion on a topic and are not in themselves Evidence for anything other than their opinion. They can be useful in pursuing things in more detail (ala Greenleaf) to evaluate what their reasoning is to see if is supports your position. I believe that Greenleaf provided his quote and believed what he said. However a review of his argument showed that he employed faulty reasoning in arriving at that conclusion. I have yet to see a counter argument to the contrary.
Opinions of famous people, see above. In addition many famous people use their status of famed to spout all sorts of non-sense (Jenny McCarthy, Tom Cruise) while others actually get things right. You have to make sure that the famous person is knowledge able in the area they are being quoted on and then follow up on whether or not their reasoning is sound. Then you can present the argument not just the conclusion.
Untruths – Even if they are used to make the initial decision they should not be considered Evidence! Once an untruth is identified is should be stricken from list if items.
Tradition – This is also not Evidence, it is a way of doing things which may be founded in reality or it may be to counter something that no longer is of concern. Take the eating of pork or shellfish as an example.
Inspirational thought or idea: These sorts of things make us feel good about our decisions however that is all that are. They are only indications that the idea or thought is emotional satisfying for what ever reason. It is not Evidence of any truth.
Fallacious Logical Arguments: for those not schooled in logic is can be relatively easy to make a bad logical argument especially if it reaches the desired conclusion. These can be rooted out through a dispassionate evaluation of the individual points and the reasoning that binds the argument together. Once the hole in the argument is identified it should be discarded from the class called evidence. The arguments presented here are of the ‘Does not follow’ or ‘unstated major premise’ type. If A=B and B=C then D is orange, there are a lot of missing steps. Plus there is a lot of ‘Special Pleading’ My Martyrs count your martyrs are deluded.
Speculation / Conjecture This is a tricky one. When much of the ‘Bad Evidence’ is stripped away sometimes there is little left with to make a strong conclusion and that is all that you have left. This is using educated guesses and filling in the blanks. This can be problematical especially of one starts with a desired conclusion and oversteps the logical inferences to arrive at where you want to be. You have to use this sparingly and limit yourself to moving forward where the data leads without forcing it in a particular direction and stopping when you run out of reasonable extrapolations. I for one am willing to accept the idea of a Historical ‘Yeshua’ a radical rabbi around with the biblical story of Jesus evolved. However to go beyond and say he was divine and worked miracles that is reaching.
If we eliminate the bad evidence and arguments what do we have left as good evidence.
Relevant Facts – These MUST BE relevant to the conclusion. In many of DOCs posts there are some factual data. However it breaks down is in his application in support of the OP
Logical Arguments – Facts are very useful here, but those facts must point clearly to one another and to a logical conclusion. All major assumption must be stated for the argument to stand up to scrutiny.
Limited Speculation and Conjecture – this can only be used when there is insufficient facts to support a logical argument to arrive at a conclusion. Care must be taken to not reach too far beyond the available data.
So far people (myself included) have reviewed what you consider to be ‘evidence’ and have determined that it is ‘bad’ or ‘invalid’ evidence. If you want to punt and rephrase this as:
‘Reasons that DOC believes that the NT is True’ then you would have probably fewer people arguing with you. You can use what ever illogical reason you want to arrive at a conclusion or determination.
However you imply that you purpose here is to provide the members of the board with the reasons that they should believe that the NT is True. You have presented a lot of information that qualifies as ‘bad or invalid’ evidence and you are being offered an education in logic and reasoning to tell the good from the bad if you chose to learn.
Per DOC’s usage in post 13, Evidence is something that is used to arrive as a determination or decision. He has turned this definition around in that ANYTHING that is used to arrive at a decision or determination is to be considered Evidence.
Per this definition anything considered becomes evidence:
Facts (irrelevant and relevant)
Quotes (and misquotes)
Logical Arguments
Fallacious Logical Arguments (especially if you don’t recognize the fallacy)
Statistics (both correctly applied and misapplied)
Opinions of Famous People
Untruths (either unknown to the presenter or not)
Speculation and Conjecture
Inspirational thoughts / ideas
Tradition
People do and often use all of these to help make decisions. However that does NOT mean that they rise to what the majority of the posters of this board consider to be GOOD EVIDENCE.
Irrelevant Facts – It is a fact that my house is green. However that has no bearing on whether or my computer crashed while working on a project last week. Unless I can link these two items together the fact is unimportant to solving my computer dilemma. Many people are asking for that logical link between your facts and your conclusion. 42 Presidents are Christian. OK link that to the Truthfulness of the NT.
Quotes and Misquotes are not Evidence at best they document the opinion of the person. At worst when taken out of context mean the opposite of what speaker intended. They have to be evaluated carefully for context. Even when they evaluated, quotes are only indications of their opinion on a topic and are not in themselves Evidence for anything other than their opinion. They can be useful in pursuing things in more detail (ala Greenleaf) to evaluate what their reasoning is to see if is supports your position. I believe that Greenleaf provided his quote and believed what he said. However a review of his argument showed that he employed faulty reasoning in arriving at that conclusion. I have yet to see a counter argument to the contrary.
Opinions of famous people, see above. In addition many famous people use their status of famed to spout all sorts of non-sense (Jenny McCarthy, Tom Cruise) while others actually get things right. You have to make sure that the famous person is knowledge able in the area they are being quoted on and then follow up on whether or not their reasoning is sound. Then you can present the argument not just the conclusion.
Untruths – Even if they are used to make the initial decision they should not be considered Evidence! Once an untruth is identified is should be stricken from list if items.
Tradition – This is also not Evidence, it is a way of doing things which may be founded in reality or it may be to counter something that no longer is of concern. Take the eating of pork or shellfish as an example.
Inspirational thought or idea: These sorts of things make us feel good about our decisions however that is all that are. They are only indications that the idea or thought is emotional satisfying for what ever reason. It is not Evidence of any truth.
Fallacious Logical Arguments: for those not schooled in logic is can be relatively easy to make a bad logical argument especially if it reaches the desired conclusion. These can be rooted out through a dispassionate evaluation of the individual points and the reasoning that binds the argument together. Once the hole in the argument is identified it should be discarded from the class called evidence. The arguments presented here are of the ‘Does not follow’ or ‘unstated major premise’ type. If A=B and B=C then D is orange, there are a lot of missing steps. Plus there is a lot of ‘Special Pleading’ My Martyrs count your martyrs are deluded.
Speculation / Conjecture This is a tricky one. When much of the ‘Bad Evidence’ is stripped away sometimes there is little left with to make a strong conclusion and that is all that you have left. This is using educated guesses and filling in the blanks. This can be problematical especially of one starts with a desired conclusion and oversteps the logical inferences to arrive at where you want to be. You have to use this sparingly and limit yourself to moving forward where the data leads without forcing it in a particular direction and stopping when you run out of reasonable extrapolations. I for one am willing to accept the idea of a Historical ‘Yeshua’ a radical rabbi around with the biblical story of Jesus evolved. However to go beyond and say he was divine and worked miracles that is reaching.
If we eliminate the bad evidence and arguments what do we have left as good evidence.
Relevant Facts – These MUST BE relevant to the conclusion. In many of DOCs posts there are some factual data. However it breaks down is in his application in support of the OP
Logical Arguments – Facts are very useful here, but those facts must point clearly to one another and to a logical conclusion. All major assumption must be stated for the argument to stand up to scrutiny.
Limited Speculation and Conjecture – this can only be used when there is insufficient facts to support a logical argument to arrive at a conclusion. Care must be taken to not reach too far beyond the available data.
So far people (myself included) have reviewed what you consider to be ‘evidence’ and have determined that it is ‘bad’ or ‘invalid’ evidence. If you want to punt and rephrase this as:
‘Reasons that DOC believes that the NT is True’ then you would have probably fewer people arguing with you. You can use what ever illogical reason you want to arrive at a conclusion or determination.
However you imply that you purpose here is to provide the members of the board with the reasons that they should believe that the NT is True. You have presented a lot of information that qualifies as ‘bad or invalid’ evidence and you are being offered an education in logic and reasoning to tell the good from the bad if you chose to learn.
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
So... where do you propose the Norwegians go?
Well, I know most of them are able to read some Danish, but that does not really matter. Their being Norwegians is enough to condemn them.
Whether they choose the Christian hell, stay in Norway, or go to the Norse Hel, is their own business, not much difference apart from the temperature.
Dr. King did not feel that suffering those injustices was a good thing (or gracious, as the Bible passage suggests). I would suggest you read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
From that letter: "The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue."
You do understand what Dr. King is saying here, right?
The part about enduring unjust suffering at the hand of your master in return for eternal reward in the afterlife is likely what made Christianity so popular with kings/emperors and other rulers.
It you can get the peons to believe in it, that is one more way to keep them in check.
It you can get the peons to believe in it, that is one more way to keep them in check.
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Quoted in full cos it's great!
@DOC:
- If you address the post - point by point - you may well learn what your course in logic resolutely failed to teach
- However, if you persist with your tiresome approach and choose to overlook (i.e. ignore) it, your credibility (for want of a better word) will plumb hitherto unimaginable depths
- Status