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

[Mister Earl]

Question for DOC: Have you ever entertained the idea that maybe, just maybe, this whole Christianity thing is just the newest form of Mythology?

 

[John Jones]

We know the bible is true because it makes perfect sense for Matthew to be included as an author

We know the bible is true because it makes no sense for Matthew to be included as an author.


Heads you commit a logical fallacy, tails you commit a logical fallacy.

Oh! That's quite good.

 

[Lucian]

Wouldn't it be more important if it was maintained as an oral tradition?

And, lo, there quacked forth from the bill of the duck-head great wisdom and wiseness. Mallardwulf spake, the son Muscovy-spear: "The Ring-Giver vomits from the guts of the sages!"

--Orally composed Old English epic, translated into Ye Olde Englishe

 

[DOC]

So, your faith in The Resurrected son of god (for which there is zero historical evidence)...

If you would have said "for which we have zero forensic evidence" you would have been right because you can't have forensic evidence of a body that is not there (unless you believe in the Shroud of Turin); but you are very wrong to say there is not "historical" evidence.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[DOC]

Question for DOC: Have you ever entertained the idea that maybe, just maybe, this whole Christianity thing is just the newest form of Mythology?

Maybe in my 20's but then I studied the matter, and if you read my 2,170 posts you'll learn some of the things I've studied.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

If you would have said "for which we have zero forensic evidence" you would have been right because you can't have forensic evidence of a body that is not there (unless you believe in the Shroud of Turin); but you are very wrong to say there is not "historical" evidence.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

There is BOTH zero "Historical" evidence AND zero Forensic evidence for "the Resurrected Son of God."

The Historical Personage of Jesus, is another matter, for whom we have "Little to No" RELIABLE Historical evidence, and zero Forensic evidence.

GB

 

[kmortis]

Maybe in my 20's but then I studied the matter, and if you read my 2,170 posts you'll learn some of the things I've studied.

Oh, we've learn'd many a thing you've claimed to have studied. However, the evidence shows that if you did, indeed, study any of the things claimed (logic, theology, history, etc.) either your comprehension or retention is horrible. I think you've managed to hit every logical fallacy in this thread alone, your grasp of historical facts is laughable and even your theology is sub-standard for a Christian scholar.

 

[welshdean]

Maybe in my 20's but then I studied the matter, and if you read my 2,170 posts you'll learn some of the things I've studied.

DOC, 80% of your posts refer to the number of posts you've made, the remaining 20% are contorted and strangulated examples of circular reasoning.
To be frank, I can honestly say I've seen no evidence as to the veracity of the 'truth' contained in the new teste-ment in any of your posts. However, I would like to thank you though. I had a visit from a pair of JW's on Saturday, I filtered your posts from this thread (and it's sister thread) and they agreed with me that the levels of dishonesty amongst some 'christians' is shameful and detrimental to their (and I assume your) message. Oh Doc, the shame of it, the shame of it!

 

[Wolrab]

We all know Kings are largely ceremonial, they simply regurgitate what they remember far wiser and more intelligent people telling them.

We all know the reason for the kings of the official remembers how much he fairly outdid them if to say to throw them to understand.

Translated to Latin, then Greek, then Hebrew, then back to Greek, Latin, and finally English. WORD!

 

[kmortis]

If you would have said "for which we have zero forensic evidence" you would have been right because you can't have forensic evidence of a body that is not there (unless you believe in the Shroud of Turin); but you are very wrong to say there is not "historical" evidence.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

" that you had said; for, of what evidence" legal nobody; They because can' you would be of the right; T has the legal test of a body, of which it is not here (you are you to the assembly of Turin that you create); but it is very false to say to him not of " of or; historical" Test.

English-->French-->English-->German-->English-->Italian-->English-->Portuguese-->English-->Spanish-->English

not a bad rendition, really.

 

[joobz]

If you would have said "for which we have zero forensic evidence" you would have been right because you can't have forensic evidence of a body that is not there (unless you believe in the Shroud of Turin); but you are very wrong to say there is not "historical" evidence.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

You've presented that link before and I have responded to it before.

I stand by my statement. There is no historical evidence for the resurrection.

 

[X]

And your point that Early Christianity was divided {actually only on a few issues like circumcision} was probably inevitable given human nature and that there was no official bible early in the church.

DOC, I know you haven't read all of the Bible, but have you at least read the Gospels?
Have you ever noticed the stark difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John?
The fundamentally different message, and the different area of focus?
Have you ever read any of the non-Canonical gospels? And seen just how much they differ?

The divisions amongst early Christianity were legion, and sometimes mutually contradictory.
There were serious differences, DOC.



Question: Do you like being a Christian, DOC? Is your Christianity something you value?
If so, why in the name of your God do you so stubbornly persist in your ignorance of the religion you love?

 

[Akhenaten]

<nips>

Translated to Latin, then Greek, then Hebrew, then back to Greek, Latin, and finally English. WORD!

<spin>

English-->French-->English-->German-->English-->Italian-->English-->Portuguese-->English-->Spanish-->English

not a bad rendition, really.

Yay! New Game!

English --> Greek --> French --> Spanish --> English:

Well a Luke writer of gospel that was called world, the great historians (with respect to the things who can for they are controlled by the historical and archaeological elements) wrote that the apostle James was. These are real historical elements, request that it matters what antecedent.

Same sequence - DOC meets Golllum:

If you reads my 2,170 places; l finds out some of the things. It sees that it is studied.

Excellent.

 

[John Jones]

Maybe in my 20's but then I studied the matter, and if you read my 2,170 posts you'll learn some of the things I've studied.

DOC, I've read all your posts. You haven't presented the evidence your OP promised.

 

[bikerdruid]

DOC, I've read all your posts. You haven't presented the evidence your OP promised.

doc has about a half dozen responses he has recycled 2170 times.
no new evidence will be presented.

 

[Helen]

doc has about a half dozen responses he has recycled 2170 times.
no new evidence will be presented.

Nor any old...

 

[Mojo]

Oh, we've learn'd many a thing you've claimed to have studied. However, the evidence shows that if you did, indeed, study any of the things claimed (logic, theology, history, etc.) either your comprehension or retention is horrible. I think you've managed to hit every logical fallacy in this thread alone...

He certainly hit the ones on my bingo card in pretty short order.

 

[Wolrab]

The OP given the translation treatment.

Eng > Lat > Gr >Heb > Gr > Lat > Eng

Of what we know he said the testimony of the New Testament writers it has been true.
The knowledge of many things are known atheists ... Norman Geisler 1, and the open thread Turek book is called, is not sufficient fidelity to be the atheists "It is clear more often for the scientific explanation of the times. That is, they have done than to speak to knowledge.

Chapter 10 11 out of the countries we are the sum of the reasons for the of the New Testament writers is said to be true. For these reasons, I will tell you You should come out of the authority of the year.

R # 1

To the authors of the New Testament and when they had the suffering itself.

For a black to show the spirit of disciples, no difference of the areas included by want of energy.

R # 2

Complete the New Testament writers is a difficult and uncertain identify the the word of Jesus.

Each a man say of the place, to drunkenness or incomplete, Jesus, and the other is said to a liar.

R # 3

The rest of the writers of NT requires the word of Jesus matter.

For (Matthew 5:28) But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after, Assaf committed adultery with her in the heart of before.

And (Matthew 5:44-45), I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute ...

And in what manner are allowed to speak of histories, which will make life easier.

100 # 9

Members of the New Testament the history of the rest of Wonderland: UNDECORATED of the country of the accounts.

What it is like to use the costs were desired to matters of great moment Text and Images. He says the New Testament letter of the Word of interest to almost smooth.

R # 10

Authors of the New Testament for a long time The general view that the sacred practices of the Roman Caesar, and did not deny the testimony of an accusation, either from fear mortish





Makes just as much sense.

 

[Wolrab]

I wonder how perverted the stories got with oral retelling between languages or local dialects.

 

[joobz]

I wonder how perverted the stories got with oral retelling between languages or local dialects.

walking on water and coming back from the dead are pretty good indicators that
some embellishments were at play.