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

[Lothian]

Hit wicket.

 

[Sideroxylon]

One thing I've always wondered, do off and on fielding positions swap over if you have a left handed batsman?

The most obvious guys to move are the slip fielders, who form a cordon behind the batsman to take catches.

 

[Aitch]

The most obvious guys to move are the slip fielders, who form a cordon behind the batsman to take catches.

I wasn't so much thinking of fielders changing their actual physical positions, but more whether the, say, silly mid on became the silly mid off; a change in nomenclature, if you will.

ETA. I wonder when/where the mods will move these interesting, but rather OT, posts to; I feel that AAH would be a bit severe.

 

[DOC]

DOC, There are lots of things in this post that do not constitute evidence. Out of the thousands of posts. What do you think is the best evidence you have provided?

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

I don't recall seeing any evidence for the resurrection. Did you provide any?

Yes,

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

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad. I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

Similarly the Crucifixion. Did you have any evidence for that?

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate. Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

 

[Lothian]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

I read that. It was rubbish.

Yes,

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

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad. I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

You used the word 'yes' when you meant to say 'no'. If we are talking about making sense. It doesn't make sense for someone to come back from the dead.
The existence of Christianity is no more proof of the resurrection than the existence of scientologists is proof of Xenu

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate. Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

Given Tacitus wasn't there he is simply reporting hearsay. Luke reporting the crucifiction is all part of the same supernatural story. It is like saying the King Kong story is true because the Empire state building exists. However the main criticism is you are trying to prove Luke told the truth. Telling me a Christian apologist believes Luke is not evidence for anything other than Sir Ramsay’s whiskey addled belief.

 

[Christian Klippel]

...blabla .... 2,200 posts. .... growth of Christianity under a brutal regime .... resurrection is the main focal point .... blablabla

Dude, people here asked you to provide evidence, not lousy anectodes. By your argumentation, anything that is most improbably and impossible, and has references to it only after the fact, is true. That's damn stupid, i would say.

Is distorting facts, twisting words, making up crap, ignoring arguments and lying for jeebus all you can do? That list of what you constantly do surely isn't complete. Others will probably complete it.

Tell me, DOC: Is shutting down your brain part of the requirement to enter the silly cult you are a member of? From your posts it pretty much seems that way.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

Would that be the same 2,200 posts which have no evidence for the Divinity of Jesus, or his Resurrection?

Yes,

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

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad. I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

Actually it makes perfect sense because being Polytheists, the Romans didn't have a problem with other Gods per se. They just took issue with the most outspoken Christians who wouldn't also acknowledge the legitimacy of Zeus/Jupiter & Company. Also, there were any number of religious cult leaders running around claiming to be Messiahs, so the Romans were used to that too. Not to mention that many Christians were careful to have their holidays during Pagan festivals and thus pass unnoticed.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

Aaaaaaand....Once again you trot out the utterly bereft Circular Reasoning argument which is evidence of exactly NOTHING!

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate. Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

Yet again more non-evidence for the Divinity or Resurrection of Jesus from the non-contemporary historian Tacitus. And another round of using the Bible to prove the Bible. And yet another mention of Sir William Ramsay, but at least you're getting cagier and admitting that Sir Ramsay presented no evidence for the Resurrection of the alleged Christ.

GB

 

[welshdean]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

No DOC, you have had your arse handed to you on a plate numerous times regarding this 'evidence'. The fact that in your twisted logic 'more likely' means 'it must be true' only sits with a straight back in your world only. What you've been asked for is evidence, not conjecture, not blind assertion and certainly not examples of your flunked Logic 101 class.

Yes,

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

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad. I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

No, you've been shown time and time again that the fact that you need it to be true is not evidence. Show us the tomb, show us Roman documentation of the existence of the 'thorn in the side' that jeebus was purported to have been to the Romans, show us anything that is contemporaneous. The Romans loved writing things down, they documented bath time for chrissakes, yet they didn't bother writing anything down about the incredible 'zombie plague'.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence...

At last, the first bit of common sense to emanate from your keyboard, no wait, you're going to spoil it aren't you.

...to the extant [sic] it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

How do you come to conclusions like this? Honestly, my mind boggles. Why can't you see that if we apply careful scrutiny of the evidence it is almost certain that no crucifixion of jeebus and therefore no resurrection happened? I'm aware of no reputable scholar (with no theistic agenda) that asserts the crucifixion or resurrection were likely. The lack of contemporary reports support this conclusion.

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate. Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

Again, No. This is not evidence. This is wishful thinking, circular logic, appealing to authority and a crock of shoite.
Your continual lying and re-presenting of these blind assertions that you have been called on repeatedly does not make it so.

Please, please DOC I implore you, stop lying, stop twisting logic, stop offering tripe as truth and employ some integrity in your posts.
Why is it that the most unchristian of people tend to be the most christian?

Doc, if you can't stop lying to us, then please stop lying to yourself. It's embarrassing.

BTW DOC, do we have Tacitus', Pilates', Luke's or Sir William Ramsey Geisler's autographs? Well? Do we?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

DOC, pay no attention to Welsh Dean!

Please keep up the Balderdash. It's most entertaining to see you trot out repeatedly the same old tired and debunked arguments.

I need the target practice.

GB

EDIT: By the way Welsh Dean, I don't think I've mentioned yet how much I love the Welsh Flag Avatar.

I used to fly it outside of my British store in honour of Gramps before the economy killed it (the store).

 

[welshdean]

DOC, pay no attention to Welsh Dean!

Please keep up the Balderdash. It's most entertaining to see you trot out repeatedly the same old tired and debunked arguments.

I need the target practice.

GB

EDIT: By the way Welsh Dean, I don't think I've mentioned yet how much I love the Welsh Flag Avatar.

I used to fly it outside of my British store in honour of Gramps before the economy killed it (the store).

I too was entertained, but now I'm a little worried about his mental health. To be shown so many times from various reputable authorities, yet still spout the same excremental dogma surely points to mental instability. I'm no mental health professional, but this shoite surely can't be good for him. Can it?

Got to fly the flag mate, living in Yorkshire for ten years now, the 'hiraeth' grows stronger by the day. Sorry to hear about your Grandpa!

 

[TSR]

Handled the ball

.
< considers handling Lothian's balls >

Yes, I know. D*mmit, reporting myself again...
.

 

[TSR]

Luke reporting the crucifiction is all part of the same supernatural story. It is like saying the King Kong story is true because the Empire state building exists. However the main criticism is you are trying to prove Luke told the truth. Telling me a Christian apologist believes Luke is not evidence for anything other than Sir Ramsay’s whiskey addled belief.

.
"Luke" three times FTW!!!!

Oh, wait, not DOC.


< goes back to considering Lothian's balls and whiskey >

d*mmit, got to report myself again. At this rate, I'm going to have to depend on UncaYimmi to start an "I protest the suspension of TSR" thread.





Oh, wait...


I'm screwed.






and not in the good wa...






d*mmit, another report....
.

 

[amb]

I have an idea. Since DOC believes in a resurrection, how about if I place my house, all savings accounts, [which admittedly aren't much] my car and all other worldly goods I have including my beloved Hi Fi system up for grabs if only DOC can prove it.
My bet stands, and in return all I ask is for indisputable proof for a resurrection.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

0 = 0.
Seriously DOC, your couple of posts on the other thread provided more proof of Islam than all of your posts on christianity in both threads combined.

but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

Actually no DOC. It proves the exact opposite.
If the divine jesus was real, and every other divine religious source was false, then jesus would have been the emperor's personal doctor.

You think the poor mortal roman emperor wouldn't hear about the miracle guy who cures blind people? who can resurect the dead?!?

You think high roman authority wouldn't dump their useless pagan priests and crown jesus allmighty instantly?

And as you were asked before DOC, why are there still jews around?
Even if you pitifully excuse the "they woulnd't convert because they were afraid" garbage, once christianity became official in rome the jews should have converted instantly and the entire religion would have been upgraded and wiped out.

Yet the jews stick around and say you follow a false prophet.
Why is that?

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion.

Oh? Is Xenu real DOC? That's a major part to scientology.
Was atlantis real DOC? How many cults based themselves on these idiotic stories.

Most people, like you, don't bother fact checking.

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate.

He reported hearsay which proves nothing.

Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke).

And the op title says you have evidence that we know he told the truth, not that you can read what he said.

World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

So at best you can claim that non supernatural events occur.

 

[joobz]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

And here is the rebuttal.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5754087#post5754087

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad.

appeal to popularity.

I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

nonsense. they preached, believe followed. Just look at any cult, you'll see the same thing.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

Circular reasoning. I just heard the same argument for the book of mormon.
(The golden plates were true because we have the book of mormon. Why would we have he book of mormon, if the golden plates weren't true?)

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate.

hearsay.

Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

hearsay.

 

[amb]

How about it DOC, want to take me up on my bet?

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, There are lots of things in this post that do not constitute evidence. Out of the thousands of posts. What do you think is the best evidence you have provided?

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

Yes it does, DOC. All zero of it.

That twaddle has been repudiated hundreds of times and yet you keep re-presenting it as though it was established as fact.

Who are you trying to fool, DOC, us or yourself?

I don't recall seeing any evidence for the resurrection. Did you provide any?

Yes,

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

This is an excerpt from that site, DOC. As bad as it is, it at least has the honesty to admit there's an alternative to the hocus-pocus that you claim as the only possible truth.

A QUESTION OF HISTORY

After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings -or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

700 hours is the blink of an eye compared to the collective amount of time that the members of this Forum have spent studying your religion, and yet you alone have concluded that this ridiculous fairytale is a factual history.

How do you logically account for this? What do you think it is that blinds everyone but you to the truth?

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad. I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

Again and again you present this drivel, despite being told every time you do so that it's just evidence of Christians, and nothing like evidence that the things they believed are true.

It's blatantly dishonest to keep doing this, which you've also been told repeatedly, and yet you persist.

What do you hope to gain, DOC, when you can't get a single person here to believe a word you say? What's the grand plan?

Similarly the Crucifixion. Did you have any evidence for that?

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate. Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

Balderdash.

 

[Akhenaten]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

And here is the rebuttal.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5754087#post5754087

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad.

appeal to popularity.

I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

nonsense. they preached, believe followed. Just look at any cult, you'll see the same thing.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

Circular reasoning. I just heard the same argument for the book of mormon.
(The golden plates were true because we have the book of mormon. Why would we have he book of mormon, if the golden plates weren't true?)

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate.

hearsay.

Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

hearsay.

Read it and weep, DOC.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes it does, DOC. All zero of it.

That twaddle has been repudiated hundreds of times and yet you keep re-presenting it as though it was established as fact.

Who are you trying to fool, DOC, us or yourself?





This is an excerpt from that site, DOC. As bad as it is, it at least has the honesty to admit there's an alternative to the hocus-pocus that you claim as the only possible truth.





700 hours is the blink of an eye compared to the collective amount of time that the members of this Forum have spent studying your religion, and yet you alone have concluded that this ridiculous fairytale is a factual history.

How do you logically account for this? What do you think it is that blinds everyone but you to the truth?






Again and again you present this drivel, despite being told every time you do so that it's just evidence of Christians, and nothing like evidence that the things they believed are true.

It's blatantly dishonest to keep doing this, which you've also been told repeatedly, and yet you persist.

What do you hope to gain, DOC, when you can't get a single person here to believe a word you say? What's the grand plan?





Balderdash.

Allow me, o Pharaoh. I have not yet contracted DOCstipation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

And here is the rebuttal.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5754087#post5754087

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad.

appeal to popularity.

I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

nonsense. they preached, believe followed. Just look at any cult, you'll see the same thing.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.

Circular reasoning. I just heard the same argument for the book of mormon.
(The golden plates were true because we have the book of mormon. Why would we have he book of mormon, if the golden plates weren't true?)

Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate.

hearsay.

Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

hearsay.

Read it and weep, DOC.

QFD