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

[Akhenaten]

I must resist . . . must not . . . no . . .

Aaaaaaargh! I have failed.​

​

 

[maatorc]

But there is evidence for the supernatural parts, ......

You are feeding ammunition to your opponents.
There cannot be anything that is 'supernatural'.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the 'natural'.
All that 'is' or exists is natural.
Nothing can be or exist that is not natural.

 

[Aepervius]

Ok,the bible says Jesus's mother is called Mary and she was a virgin.

You can start with the mundane and provide evidence that the bible is correct and Jesus's mother was called Mary.

Then for the main course evidence she was a virgin.

I darkly remember from sex ed that actually virgin birth can happen, if sperm land on / in the start of the vagina, and the hymen is partially pierced (like when riding too much of a horse. To too much riding of a ...donkey).

So a virgin birth isn't that supernatural a claim. More like extremly rare chain of unlikely event.

Just think of the joseph guy having anal sex with mary, then pulling it out at the wrong moment, splashing on the vagina at the right moment of the month, et voila ! You have a virgin birth.

Alternatively Mary was having sex with various guy before joseph, but instead of telling him, she lied to him "yeah yeah i am a virgin" as to be accepted by Joseph or whatever.

The rest is naturally bunkum.

 

[Parsman]

Well you might not like Oxford professor Thomas Arnold whey he talks of the historical Christ but you've got to admit this man knows a thing or two about history.

From the Amazon.com website:

The Second Punic War: Being Chapters of the History of Rome by the Late Thomas Arnold ... by Thomas Arnold (Paperback - Feb 17, 2010)
Buy new: $38.75 $34.88


History of Rome: From the Gaulish Invasion to the End of the First Punic War by Thomas Arnold (Paperback - Feb 25, 2010)
Buy new: $47.75 $36.29


History of Rome: Early History to the Burning of Rome by the Gauls by Thomas Arnold (Paperback - Mar 7, 2010)
Buy new: $45.75 $34.77

History of the later Roman commonwealth,: From the end of the second Punic war to the death of Julius Caesar; and of the reign of Augustus; with a life of Trajan by Thomas Arnold (Unknown Binding - 1857)
2 used from $60.00

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_lpo_..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1YKBVHDE8TBT8VXKT0E9

Doc in the 200 or so years since Mr Arnold was active there have been a lot of advances in our knowledge of history and also the practice of historical study and enquiry. Heck, in the 27 years since I left University having studied history, how it is looked at and how things are explained has changed manyfold. Why keep brining this guy up? Your appeal to authority is SERIOUSLY dated.

 

[Lothian]

I darkly remember from sex ed that actually virgin birth can happen, if sperm land on / in the start of the vagina, and the hymen is partially pierced (like when riding too much of a horse. To too much riding of a ...donkey).

So a virgin birth isn't that supernatural a claim. More like extremly rare chain of unlikely event.

Just think of the joseph guy having anal sex with mary, then pulling it out at the wrong moment, splashing on the vagina at the right moment of the month, et voila ! You have a virgin birth.

Alternatively Mary was having sex with various guy before joseph, but instead of telling him, she lied to him "yeah yeah i am a virgin" as to be accepted by Joseph or whatever.

The rest is naturally bunkum.

But a God who is also a ghost shags a virgin to conceive himself is a story that is unlikely to be made up......

 

[Akhenaten]

Doc in the 200 or so years since Mr Arnold was active there have been a lot of advances in our knowledge of history and also the practice of historical study and enquiry. Heck, in the 27 years since I left University having studied history, how it is looked at and how things are explained has changed manyfold. Why keep brining this guy up? Your appeal to authority is SERIOUSLY dated.

Given that DOC's real star witness was some bloke that was alleged to have been a 'famous historian' during the first century CE it's unlikely that he'll be dissuaded from quoting apologists from a mere 200 years ago.

 

[amb]

You've got the right to your opinion just as these academics have the right to theirs:

From the article: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

1. Roman History Scholar - Thomas Arnold -- Arnold wrote the three-volume History of Rome and held the chair of modern history and Oxford University. He was well acquainted with the value of evidence in establishing historical facts. This great scholar wrote:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."10.

2. Textual Critic - Brook Foss Wescott

"Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."11

3. Professor of Ancient History - Paul L. Maier Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded:

"If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement."12

http://www.redeemerfw.org/resources/resurrection.html

So you are reading what christian fundamentalist have to say on the matter.
What do you expect them to say? They are just as deluded as you are. [no of fence is meant] But really, don't you think you should read some true scholar, like Bart Erhman who is not biased in any way.

 

[nvidiot]

Probably horribly biased toward reality I imagine.

You're expecting Doc to look at evidence which doesn't automatically confirm his current view. This is not likely. (Therefore it's true? I'm terribly confused now...)

 

[welshdean]

So 200+ mentions of your post count in a single thread is acceptable, is it?

<snip>



I know you haven't been paying attention, but this has actually happened numerous times in the last two years. Wanna dare me to quote a few instances?





You are no messenger and you have no message. Don't flatter yourself.

I double dare you!



Oh DOC, how does it feel knowing that on at least 2 occasions your twisted ignorance, lieing for jeebus, quote mining, innumerable logical fallacies and wilful ignorance has been used to turn evangelicals away from our doors? Does that not hurt you? Are you proud of it? I wonder, what would jeebus do?

<Columbo mode>
Just one more thing DOC, why do you respond to posts such as mine, asking rhetorical questions and/or making observations, yet you ignore more valid posts from Akhenaten, Joobz, Lothian, Rincewind, etc? What are you afraid of?
</Columbo mode>

 

[kmortis]

Wait, what? When the hell did this happen? People, ya gotta let a girl know when earth-shattering, world-changing information like this turns up. There's evidence, if not mathematical proof, of the supernatural bits of the Bible! The zombies, the virgin birth, the sheer impossibility of a tax collector being chosen as an apostle and evangelist?! Gracious, someone's won the MDC--could be Jesus, maybe Doctor Who, perhaps Simon--doesn't matter: miracles have been affirmed. And nobody woke me up??!! Seriously, what were you think....

Sorry. My bad. I had the "wake up Lucian when something interesting occurs" duty. I couldn't help my self, you looked so cute, curled up there in the corner.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry. My bad. I had the "wake up Lucian when something interesting occurs" duty. I couldn't help my self, you looked so cute, curled up there in the corner.

What she needs is a duck on her head. If she had a duck on her head she'd be much more alert.

 

[joobz]

You've got the right to your opinion just as these academics have the right to theirs:

From the article: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

1. Roman History Scholar - Thomas Arnold -- Arnold wrote the three-volume History of Rome and held the chair of modern history and Oxford University. He was well acquainted with the value of evidence in establishing historical facts. This great scholar wrote:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."10.

An unsubstantiated claim by Arnold.
This isn't evidence.

2. Textual Critic - Brook Foss Wescott

"Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."11

an unsubstantiated claim by Wescott.
this isn't evidence.

3. Professor of Ancient History - Paul L. Maier Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded:

"If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement."12

http://www.redeemerfw.org/resources/resurrection.html[/QUOTE]

An unsubstantiated claim by Maier.
This isn't evidence.

 

[joobz]

But there is evidence for the supernatural parts, just not proof, kind of like the big bang theory and life from non-life theory.

What evidence for the resurrection do you find as substantial as the cosmic background radiation?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Wwamjet?

 

[Aepervius]

What evidence for the resurrection do you find as substantial as the cosmic background radiation?

And here we go for another round of quoting the NT, geisler, maier, and whomever.

/sarcastic smiley

 

[Lucian]

What she needs is a duck on her head. If she had a duck on her head she'd be much more alert.

Something with talons would be even more effective.

 

[Lucian]

Given that DOC's real star witness was some bloke that was alleged to have been a 'famous historian' during the first century CE it's unlikely that he'll be dissuaded from quoting apologists from a mere 200 years ago.

What do you mean, alleged to have been a famous historian? I'm sure DOC's said it enough times now that it's a fact. That's how facts work, right?

 

[Akhenaten]

What do you mean, alleged to have been a famous historian? I'm sure DOC's said it enough times now that it's a fact. That's how facts work, right?

Sort of. We just need Sir Ramsay's signature, a few embarrassing details and some eye of newt. Then we're good to go.

 

[Lucian]

Sort of. We just need Sir Ramsay's signature, a few embarrassing details and some eye of newt. Then we're good to go.

I can't believe I forgot the eye of newt. And at this time of year, too. I'll just make a run to IckythingsRus. Be right back.

 

[Simon39759]

I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort[/b], to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

That's not how evidence work. Evidence should be verifiable objective facts that can be checked by all...

If you are short in time or brain cells, it is somewhat acceptable to go for the expert opinion, of course, but then you need to go with the real expert opinion (aka the current academic consensus). Cherry picking one particular "expert" that happens to agree with you is particularly dishonest...

And, in fact, the claim at him being an expert is, in itself, a testable claim.
The only evidence you submitted was is holding a chair (in an unrelated field, please note the modern before history) and his having published a few books...

On the other hand, I submit as evidence the very statement you submitted:
I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort

I repeat, ANY OTHER FACT IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!

So, Arnold claims to believe that Jesus' resurrection, that we only know from, at best, second hand accounts written decades after the facts are, in reality, better documented than, let's say (to give an example that'd be include in "the history of mankind" up to Arnold's time) the Napoleonic wars?

To give you an idea, in addition to the multiple first person accounts in personal journals, we have newspaper articles from multiple nations written the day of the events. We have the fortification remaining of the war and paperwork left from the administration of the war. We have the actual battlefields whose location have been recorded and can be dug for artifacts remaining of the battles. We have building constructed under the orders of Napoleons, some of which were commemorative monuments and include a list of the battle and the name of several battalion or valorous soldiers. We have people ennobled by Napoleon whose family name still retain the mark of the ennoblement. We have the government of multiple nations changed alongside of huge spawn of their culture, with the introduction of the ideals of democracy and liberalism that would culminate in the revolutions of 1848. We have the portraits of most of the most prominent protagonists, several of which were later taken photography of, so that Arnold could check the portraits for accuracy...


Anyway, to pretend that these events had let less evidence than Jesus' resurrection is just... stupid.
Arnold saying that does not led any credibility to the statement. On the other hand, the statement removes credibility to Arnold's already not so stellar reputation...