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

[six7s]

Doc, you argument was logically refuted. You are now just still merely spamming.

Fixed that for you

 

[Fiona]

I think a lot of people when they respond to the post above are just focusing on the geography facts the authors got right, but there is also a lot of analyzation of those facts that is important too. For example here is some analyzation of the highly detailed things Gospel writer John wrote.

Analyzation=analysis, for uk english speakers: it is not a specialist term, so far as I can tell

From the article "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
by Frank Turek Chapter 10:


2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention (2:8).

The people who reported this were either not early christians, but jews: or they were early christians, so they weren't there. Either way the point does not have any merit that I can see. Even the most ascetic christian, if he chooses to attend a wedding, would, I hope, try to make sure people enjoy themselves. Or is it your contention that you have to be a rude and surly bastard to establish christian credentials: I have met christians like that, to be sure.....

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention (5:31); a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus= divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

Why?

11.Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up (6:53).

Au contraire: that is exactly the kind of thing folk would make up. Burnt offerings and all that were blood sacrifices. The christians wanted to tap a world of prior symbolism and belief. They did that a lot.

12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention (6:66).

It is called character development and it is precisely the kind of thing a fiction writer would introduce

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a Agood man@ and the other that he Adeceives people,@ would not be the two choices John would have made up (7:12); a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

I can't makes sense of that: I am not even sure what you are saying so I will leave it for others

14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention (7:20).

Again I am not sure what you are saying. If the argument is that it is likely people thought he was a nutter at the time, I do not disagree. Many people in the past accounted for what we would now call mental illness through the proposition of possession by demons: I am not sure if it predated christianity but I presume it did. So what you seem to be saying is that a fictional account would not add colour by introducing an opposition and putting plausible words into their mouths. I think that is very much what a fiction writer would do.

16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention (8:31, 59).

See above

18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees (9:13-39), at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course

19. The healed man calling Jesus a Aprophet@ rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history (9:17).

The more I read the more it is apparent you have never read a good book of fiction in your life. You need to stay in more

22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention (11:19).

The good guys never grab the moral high ground? O rly?

23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-_century Jewish burials (11:44); it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.

That is what fiction writers do....

28. Anointing of a guest=s feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed for special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary=s wiping of Jesus= feet with her hair is an unlikely invention (it easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance).

See where I said you need to stay in more...forget that! I retract

30. Foot washing in first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention (it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do) (13:4); Peter=s insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality (there=s certainly no purpose for inventing this request).

See "character development" mentioned above

31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question (13:24); there=s no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.

In scientific papers people write only the relevant facts: in fiction they flesh out the story. The fact that there are details which embellish the tale is precisely the kind of thing which lets you know a work is fiction.

32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention (14:28), especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ (as the critics claim he did).

Why is this unlikely? It is intrinsic to the story. You have to start from where the audience is

36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father (17:7-8) would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.

See above

38. The name of the high priest=s servant (Malchus), who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention (18:10).

See in fiction the characters have to have names. It just doesn't work if you number them

54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener (20:15) is not a detail that a later writer would have made up (especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus).

Really? You find nothing at all implausible in that part of the story? I bet you have no trouble with all those cross dressing folk in Shakespeare either. Most of us understand the concept of suspension of disbelief however

58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was (21:12) is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.

Poppycock

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Notice all the times the term unlikely invention is used in the examples above.

Yes: the guy does seem to like that phrase. Doesn't make his incredulity any more persuasive though.

 

[bikerdruid]

My argument about the "analyzation of those facts" in this post --

.....analyzation ???
is that anything like 'analysis'?

 

[bikerdruid]

doc's whole post is pretty pointless, but this jumped out at me:



and I just have to ask, why? And even if it was an "unlikely invention," so what? What does that prove?

....as opposed to calling the high priest 'bob'.
that would be a likely invention.

 

[Akhenaten]

My responses (which I actually created myself, rather than copy/paste them from somewhere else) are in blue.

I think a lot of people when they respond to the post above are just focusing on the geography facts the authors got right, but there is also a lot of analyzation of those facts that is important too. For example here is some analyzation of the highly detailed things Gospel writer John wrote.

From the article "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
by Frank Turek Chapter 10:

As reproduced in the thread "I Don't Have Enough Evidence to Write My Own Posts"
by DOC ​

2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention (2:8).

What the hell does 'unlikely' mean in this context? The whole point would seem to be that it is an invention. Made up. A fairytale. In short, it's a lie.​

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention (5:31); a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus= divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity” - John Adams, second President of the United States of America​

11.Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up (6:53).

Are you seriously suggesting that we're talking about really, truly ritual cannibalism here? Srsly???​

12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention (6:66).

Rather than copy/paste things from other apologetic sources, you're going to have to actually explain this point, DOC. If these imaginary dudes rejected Jeebus then how come they became known as disciples?​

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a Agood man@ and the other that he Adeceives people,@ would not be the two choices John would have made up (7:12); a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

This is pure, unadulterated speculation. What's worse is that it's not even your pure, unadulterated speculation. It's just rubbish that you've copy/pasted from somewhere without even bothering to remove the dodgy formatting. How honest do you think that looks?​

14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention (7:20).

There's no such thing as demon possession, DOC. Yet another ancient superstition that you hope to foist off on us as evidence. Pathetic.​

16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention (8:31, 59).

It's ever been the lot of heretics to suffer this type of behaviour. Why is it described here as 'an unlikely invention'?​

18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees (9:13-39), at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.

It rings of the Pharisees wanting it as widely-known as possible that they are running things, and the new-order, in the name of this Jeebus feller, saying that it just ain't so.

Aberhaten tells me that there is at least one historical precedent for this story. Yours sounds like a cheap copy.​

19. The healed man calling Jesus a Aprophet@ rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history (9:17).

Well I reckon the whole Jeebus story is Adrivel@, and the evidence is on my side.​

22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention (11:19).

Is it, say, a more unlikely invention than Saltheart Foamfollower's compassion for the slain and injured ur-Viles after the Battle of Soaring Woodhelven?​

23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-_century Jewish burials (11:44); it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.

The whole story is about a dead dude coming back to life, so whatever details you're going to point out are irrelevant in light of the fact that the whole bloody story is just a fairytale. Get real, DOC.​

28. Anointing of a guest=s feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed for special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary=s wiping of Jesus= feet with her hair is an unlikely invention (it easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance).

It could just as easil=y be perceived as a transcriptio=n error. When there's no corroborating evidence for these stories you get to mak=e up whatever you like. It seems that you already under=stand this.​

30. Foot washing in first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention (it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do) (13:4); Peter=s insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality (there=s certainly no purpose for inventing this request).

1. As near as I can make out, slaves of any denomination could be made to do whatever you wanted them to do (under pain of being beaten sunburned or worse, as you well know) and quite frankly, footwashing seems like exactly the sort of thing that slaves would be handy for.

2. You want to ascribe a personality to a mythical figure and then attach a penchant for having baths to it? Are you reading this dross as you're copy/pasting it, DOC? It's bizarre. ​

31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question (13:24); there=s no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.

There's no reason for Prince Hamlet to have told Horatio about his many happy hours spent with Yorick. Therefore Hamlet is a history book, just like Macbeth. Alas! ​

32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention (14:28), especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ (as the critics claim he did).

It reminds me of Harry Potter only being able to prevail against the Basilisk by using the sword of Godric Gryffindor. Can you see the similarities, DOC? If not, perhaps you'd lke to copy/paste your reasons for disagreeing from somewhere.​

36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father (17:7-8) would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.

Christ was God, right? But Christ's father was God too? What do you know about monotheism, DOC? I'll bet it's less than Aberhaten.​

38. The name of the high priest=s servant (Malchus), who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention (18:10).

What are your thoughts on Helga Hufflepuff? Rowena Ravenclaw?​

54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener (20:15) is not a detail that a later writer would have made up (especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus).

You ever read Lady Chatterley's Lover, DOC? Is D.H.Lawrence a famous historian now?​

58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was (21:12) is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.

You're describing the reactions of some made-up people to meeting a zombie and trying to tell us that it demonstrates the historicity of the zombie in question? How convincing do you reckon people will find that?​

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Notice all the times the term unlikely invention is used in the examples above.

There you go DOC. It's a load of rubbish, but I've responded to all of it, so you can't tell that lie again, now can you?

And please don't think for a second that ignoring the people who are responding to your nonsense is the same thing as nobody responding. It demonstrates your own self-inflicted ignorance, and nothing more.



ETA: I see that Fiona has now also given a point-by-point response to your spam post. Let's see your analyzation of that, DOC.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Analyzation=analysis, for uk english speakers...

For most U.S. English speakers with any education, too.

Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention.

I just saw this one. Are you seriously saying that Jesus would not have comforted Mary and Martha because they were Jews and he was already a Christian? You do know that Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish messiah, right? Have you forgotten that story (from your holy book) about when he was just a lad and his family couldn't find him and it turned out that the whole time he was in the temple confounding the elders with his knowledge of scripture? Do you pay any attention to your Bible or to the stuff you write?

 

[Akhenaten]

I just saw this one. Are you seriously saying that Jesus would not have comforted Mary and Martha because they were Jews and he was already a Christian? You do know that Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish messiah, right? Have you forgotten that story (from your holy book) about when he was just a lad and his family couldn't find him and it turned out that the whole time he was in the temple confounding the elders with his knowledge of scripture?

From what he's written in The Other Thread, it seems likely that DOC would describe Jeebus as the founder of Christianity.

Do you pay any attention to your Bible or to the stuff you write?

He doesn't even write the stuff he posts.

 

[Fiona]

I just saw this one. Are you seriously saying that Jesus would not have comforted Mary and Martha because they were Jews and he was already a Christian? You do know that Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish messiah, right? Have you forgotten that story (from your holy book) about when he was just a lad and his family couldn't find him and it turned out that the whole time he was in the temple confounding the elders with his knowledge of scripture? Do you pay any attention to your Bible or to the stuff you write?

I think that DOC is trying to argue that Christians at a later date would not have made up such a story because they were, by then, at odds with the jews. That DOC imagines that Christians are incapable of writing a good story and of any approach to subtlety is suprising... oh wait ...

 

[kmortis]

You aree not being an honest debater.

No, just a master one.

aberhaten did it

 

[tsig]

Apparently that's how analyzation works.

I think that's called higher bible criticism.

 

[Akhenaten]

You aree not being an honest debater.

No, just a master one.

aberhaten did it

Despite the season, I was thinking 'Christmas debator'.

Apparently that's how analyzation works.

I think that's called higher bible criticism.

As in ^:ic ?

 

[DOC]

Another generalized statement. Why don't you just let the posts stand for themselves. And I have responded to posts that talk of fallacies.

Which specific post that talks of a fallacy do you want me to address the most and I will address it.

I accept your offer and agree with joobz's suggestion of post #544 here replicated for your convenience:

Originally Posted by Hokulele
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:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by Geisler's book from Ichneumonwasp's link

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.

Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?
DOC, how do you address these fallacies of special pleading and circular argument? I'm positive that you will need me to explain that further.

Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument. The first and second point of Geisler's argument was that the NT writers abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and adopted new ones. Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years. In their Jewish Religion they were the chosen race, with a special calling from God. Why throw all that under the bus and basically say to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught. To hell with your (and formerly ours) 1000 year old sacred tradition of worship, we're now having communion and breaking the bread and drinking the wine because of what our dead Jesus taught. We're accepting the Gentiles now and not even requiring them to have our 1000 year old sacred circumcision because of what our dead Jesus taught,

Geisler's point is that it doesn't make sense for these 12 Jewish apostles and the Jewish Paul to abandon these 1000 year old sacred beliefs and to risk their salvation by adopting new beliefs if Jesus had just died on the cross and that was it. It only makes sense if they did indeed see him in his risen state.

The special pleading arises because he is claiming that two identical reasons for two different religions to be true only applies to one of them, incidentally the one he is already predisposed to believe to be true anyway

The martyrdoms are not identical because early Islam martyrs died in an offensive attack on other nations while conquering new lands and new wealth (even non-believers die in battle trying to capture new lands). And there was always the possibility they would not die in battle.

Whereas the early Christian martyrs had their deaths committed upon them for simply evangelizing (in the dangerous Roman Empire). Many times they were given the opportunity to recant but none of the formerly uncertain apostles did recant. And death or prison was almost certain if they failed to recant whereas like I said before Islam soldiers might not even get injured in their battles.

The circular argument arises because he is using lore from the Christian Bible to prove Christianity is true.

We've been over this all before. The NT was written by 9 individuals who never heard the word bible or NT but were just people like you and me trying to report and record everything that happened with regard to the historical person of Jesus whom secular historian Josephus mentioned twice. And why put down a book that has a great historian in it (regarding things that can be proven by historical evidence) like Luke.

These are unresolved problems with your (or Geisler's) argument. Unresolved because you have not satisfactorily addressed them in any post...

This one has been addressed. Geisler and Turek probably had a 100 arguments in their booK cited in post #1. If you really want to learn and understand them spend $4 on Amazon and get their 420 page book, instead of getting a partial and diluted account from me.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I think that DOC is trying to argue that Christians at a later date would not have made up such a story because they were, by then, at odds with the jews. That DOC imagines that Christians are incapable of writing a good story and of any approach to subtlety is suprising... oh wait ...

You are probably right, and that makes it even more confusing since it further undermines his theory because isn't it his belief that the New Testament was written contemporaneously with the events it depicts, by the people whose names are on the gospels?

 

[joobz]

Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument. The first and second point of Geisler's argument was that the NT writers abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and adopted new ones.

so?

Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years.

Why did Martin Luther feel compelled to leave and start his own church?

In their Jewish Religion they were the chosen race, with a special calling from God. Why throw all that under the bus and basically say to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught.

Why not? Why do so many christians become scientologists?


ETA:
Geisler and Turek should have at least spent 20 seconds looking up the etymology of University. They would have saved themselves from the embarrassing wrong claim that it is a "compound word". But then, why you write a book with that many logical fallacies in it, facts and truth are not at all that important.

 

[Lucian]

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history historical people (many famous and powerful) in them (like the NT did -- verified by secular sources or archaeology). Nowadays they can sue the pants off you if you tell falsehoods about them, but at that time they or their relatives would simply deny the story hurting the authors credibility, or possibly if they had power like the Herodian line maybe put you in prison or worse if you told falsehoods about them.

I've been at Dragon*Con, so I'm just catching up on this thread, but I was blown away by the power of this post.

Speaking of Dragon*Con, there are a lot of people there dressed as historical figures from a long-running BBC documentary series called Doctor Who. In one installment of this fine series, the Doctor meets Winston Churchill, a historical figure whose descendants are still alive. Naturally I assume the rest of the information is factual as well.

I am also reminded of a literary genre known as the Icelandic family saga. These were stories about indisputably real people and they record many real events. They also record many supernatural events. There are shape-shifters, revenants, trolls and giants.

The sagas as we know them were written more than 30 years after the events they describe, but they come from earlier written and oral sources (and DOC will tell you how reliable oral tradition is). At the time the sagas were written down, there were many powerful people who proudly claimed descent from the saga heroes. Some scholars suggest that Egil's Saga may have been written by Snorri Sturluson, one of Egil's descendants, though this is speculative.

Egil died shortly before Iceland's conversion to Christianity, but his remains were moved to the family churchyard not long after the conversion. About 150 years later, his bones were moved again:

Skapti Thorarinsson, a priest and man of great intelligence, was there at the time. He picked up Egil's skull and placed it on the fence of the churchyard. The skull was exceptionally large, and its weight was even more remarkable. It was ridged all over on the outside like a scallop shell. Skapti wanted to find out just how thick the skull was, so he picked up a heavy ax, swung it in one hand and struck as hard as he was able with the hammer side of the ax, trying to break the skull. But the skull neither broke nor dented when hit; it simply turned white at the point of impact, and from that result anybody could guess that it could not have been easily cracked by small fry while still covered by skin and flesh.

Egil's Saga

According to Jesse L. Byock,

This passage has often been used to exemplify the untrustworthiness of the sagas. No matter how realistic the description may seem to be, everyone, so the argument goes, knows that a 150-year-old skull could not possibly have withstood the blow of Skapti's ax.

Byock, however, thinks the description may well be accurate and uses it, along with other elements from the saga, to argue that Egil may have suffered from Paget's disease.

So, that's cool, right? Even this really weird aspect may have an element of truth. Does this mean, though, that the saga is also accurate when it says that Egil's grandfather was a shape-shifting berserk known as "Evening-Wolf"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument. The first and second point of Geisler's argument was that the NT writers abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and adopted new ones. Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years. In their Jewish Religion they were the chosen race, with a special calling from God. Why throw all that under the bus and basically say to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught. To hell with your (and formerly ours) 1000 year old sacred tradition of worship, we're now having communion and breaking the bread and drinking the wine because of what our dead Jesus taught. We're accepting the Gentiles now and not even requiring them to have our 1000 year old sacred circumcision because of what our dead Jesus taught,

Geisler's point is that it doesn't make sense for the 11 apostles and Paul to abandoned these 1000 year old sacred beliefs and adopt new ones if Jesus had just died on the cross and that was it. It only makes sense if they did indeed see him in his risen state.

Rubbish. Jesus was, at the time you're talking about, supposed to be the Jewish Messiah. If the mythical disciples had actually seen this mythical resurrection they wouldn't be all like, "Whoa, we need to start a new religion!"; they would rather have seen it as the culmination of 1000 years of Jewish faith and become SuperJoos™ or something.

That would make a lot more sense than the crock you're trying to spin about what sounds more like something that would have been started by some dissident Jews who had already strayed from their traditions.

The martyrdoms are not identical because early Islam martyrs died in an offensive attack on other nations while conquering new lands and new wealth (even non-believers die in battle trying to capture new lands). And there was always the possibility they would not die in battle.

What martyrdoms? The ones that the Bible claims happened multiple times in different locations to the same dudes?

Let's see your non-biblical evidence and then we'll discuss it.

Whereas the early Christian martyrs had their deaths committed upon them for simply evangelizing (in the dangerous Roman Empire).

As much as it's nice to reminisce about the good old days, do you have any specific evidence about these alleged martyrs?

Many times they were given the opportunity to recant but none of the formerly uncertain apostles did recant.

And your evidence is?

And death or prison was almost certain if they failed to recant whereas like I said before Islam soldiers might not even get injured in their battles.

What the hell are you trying to say here?

We've been over this all before. The NT was written by 9 individuals who never heard the word bible or NT but were just people like you and me trying to report and record everything that happened with regard to the historical person of Jesus whom secular historian Josephus mentioned twice.

my bolding

Are you hoping that all these run-on sentences will be so indecipherable that nobody will be able to refute the claims that you make with them?

It's not working. Where's your evidence for the bolded bit?

And while we're at it, you know full well that one of those Josephus references is a fake and that the other one is dodgy at best. Why do you dishonestly keep bringing them up as though they were established fact?

And why put down a book that has a great historian in it (regarding things that can be proven by historical evidence) like Luke.

That joke isn't even remotely funny anymore, DOC. It's just embarrassing.

This one has been addressed. Geisler and Turek probably had a 100 arguments in their booK cited in post #1. If you really want to learn and understand them spend $4 on Amazon and get their 420 page book, instead of getting a partial diluted account from me.

The 'partially diluted' bilgewater that you've been presenting was vapid nonsense to begin with, so it's a little surprising that the diluted version has even enough substance to appear on the page when you type it.

 

[joobz]

SO no names of the 500 people, eh?


So no names for the 500 or where they live?



Not at all. people lie all the time to support belief. They may even believe the lies.
I find it strange that you would think a claim of 500 unknown people would be "evidence".


because the gospels are "pro-jesus" texts. Why would you think stories of jesus written 30+ years later would contain anti-jesus stories?


again, why would that exist in the bible?

I've noticed you don't have a single bit of extrabiblical evidence for....any of your claims regarding the resurrection.

DOC, I find it very strange that out of supposedly 500 witnesses, we don't have a single signed testimony of their witnessing this event. Something so amazing and so "widely seen", but we have nothing supporting it.

We have more evidence of Joseph smith's story than we do the resurrection. And you know how reliable that evidence is.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6299708#post6299708

 

[Elizabeth I]

I've been at Dragon*Con, so I'm just catching up on this thread, but I was blown away by the power of this post.

Speaking of Dragon*Con, there are a lot of people there dressed as historical figures from a long-running BBC documentary series called Doctor Who. In one installment of this fine series, the Doctor meets Winston Churchill, a historical figure whose descendants are still alive. Naturally I assume the rest of the information is factual as well.

Ooh, he met Queen Victoria and Agatha Christie and William Shakespeare as well. And Charles Dickens. And my namesake , Madame de Pompadour, Nero, Prince John of England...wow, this must mean that there really is a time-traveling alien who for some reason loves the Earth and takes care of all of us!

ETA: but I want nothing to do with those stone angels!

 

[Resume]

We've been over this all before. The NT was written by 9 individuals who never heard the word bible or NT but were just people like you and me trying to report and record everything that happened with regard to the historical person of Jesus whom secular historian Josephus mentioned twice. And why put down a book that has a great historian in it (regarding things that can be proven by historical evidence) like Luke.

This one has been addressed. Geisler and Turek probably had a 100 arguments in their booK cited in post #1. If you really want to learn and understand them spend $4 on Amazon and get their 420 page book, instead of getting a partial diluted account from me.

You've addressed nothing. You've provided no corroborative, contemporaneous evidence for the supernatural events performed by and associated with an alleged individual named Jesus Christ. You've failed. Perhaps the likes of Turek and Geisler have beguiled you, fooled you, but you have failed here nevertheless.

 

[Lucian]

Ooh, he met Queen Victoria and Agatha Christie and William Shakespeare as well. And Charles Dickens. And my namesake , Madame de Pompadour, Nero, Prince John of England...wow, this must mean that there really is a time-traveling alien who for some reason loves the Earth and takes care of all of us!

You know it. Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. I saw the Noodly Appendages with my own eyes, as well as the beer volcano.

ETA: but I want nothing to do with those stone angels!

[off topic] I saw a stone angel today. I'm okay--didn't blink and fortunately there were dozens of Doctors around at the time (costume parade) [/off topic].