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

[Garrette]

I don't think DOC is even trying anymore. He's reached the point where he knows that nothing he has said withstands scrutiny, so he's hanging on to his faith by spouting whatever comes to mind. He forgets it when he has to respond to the next post.

We are watching Les Nessman refuse to hear that his office has no walls.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

No need to wait a few hundred years, Elvisism is already a religion.

GB

While we are at it...

Let's take a moment to consider the important lesson Teller and I learned from the king of kings. Elvis Aaron Priestly died in 1977.
He was born and lived in a time that most of the people were literate. We have many first hand reports about Elvis's life.

We have many reliable records medical, musical and otherwise. And even though we have many people - lots of people - who insist Elvis is not really dead. Sounds familiar?

Even a dozen books written by people who knew Elvis have conflicting stories of his life. Sounds familiar?

There are people who swear Elvis didn't take any drugs. Soudns familiar?
Yeah, that doesn't to us either.

We have photographs of Elvis in the morgue dead as a ◊◊◊◊◊ doornaile and in just 25 years we have stories of people saying he is not dead. Sounds familiar?

In "Fit for a King", an important work delvling into the eating habits of Elvis, the author suggests that for Elvis's beloved fried chicken, you'll need 3 quarters of a cup of flower, salt, paprica and pepper. In "Are you hungry tonight", a definitive look into Elvis's favorite food, it is said that you need half a cup of flower, salt and peper. Glaring differences. Less flower and no Paprica? Fiing Heretics!

Now imagine trying to figure out which is the real Elvis chicken 2000 years later?

Elvis didn't do no drugs...

 

[GrandMasterFox]

But I assume you believe if God exists miracles are possible.

Sure. That's a big if. You claimed you can provide evidence for it.
We're still waiting for several years.

Sure, the empty tomb of a famous person who was followed by thousands of people

Really? Thousands of people back then?
Evidence for it please?

, and a body of that famous person that has not been found in 2000 years. The empty tomb and a body of a famous person that has not been found in 2000 years is not proof of a resurrection but it is certainly some evidence for a resurrection.

For those of you who forget, in his islamophobic thread, I asked DOC to explain where the tomb was. He gave a pathetic link to a website who claimed the tomb was found in a specific place and even DOC's own link said clearly "we can't think of anywhere else's that's better so we'll claim this is it".

So no DOC, you have no evidence there is such a tomb to begin with.

Is the Green Goblin the messiah? When the police found the crash site, there was no body around. Does tht mean Green Goblin resurected? Or even existed?

And we have historical evidence for an empty tomb. A person that has been called a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events has reported Christ existed, preached to multitudes, was crucified, and his tomb was empty.

DOC, you cannot use Luke to prove the NT. It has been explained to you for like a gazillion times already.

And Geisler's book reports around 75% of scholars (liberal to conservative) believe the tomb was empty.

And evidence for this?

Also, gospel writer Matthew reports that the story by the Jews that the body was stolen "has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day". (Matt. 28: 11-15)

There are still Elvis sightings today. Your point being what?

Here is what the book cited in post #1 says (on page 283) about this verse.

"That means Matthew's readers (and certainly the Jews themselves) would know whether or not he (Matthew) was telling the truth. If Matthew were making up the empty tomb story, why would he give his readers such an easy way to expose his lies? The only plausible explanation is that the tomb must really have been empty, and the Jewish enemies of Christianitiy must really have been circulating that specific explanation for the empty tomb."

What on earth is this dribble? There are so many fallacies here it's not even funny. Shall we just settle for asking what prevents Matthew from sneaking into the tomb and stealing the body himself?

Heck, he could have built a tomb and then retroactively claim there was once a body there.

But there are problems with the stolen body theory.

1) as Geisler points out, how would the sleeping Roman guards know the body was stolen.

Umm... You mean despite the fact that this supposed guard isn't mentioned in the other versions of the story?

Besides, you REALLY need to go out and see a movie sometimes DOC. Guards aren't that easy to pass by.

Other problems with that theory are pointed out in this link along with other evidence for the resurrection.

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

Nothing there at all... Seriously, do you read your own links?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

You imply the body was stolen when you talk of no guards, so then you either must believe the apostles stole the body and then preached for something they knew was a lie or you believe someone else stole the body and the story that Jesus appeared to all 12 apostles was made up.

DOC, this is what is known as a "strawman argument".
You used the expression many times in the past but clearly know not what it means.

You do not make up arguemnts people never said and argue against them.

First, we still require evidence that such a tomb existed. Even if Jesus existed and was crucified, he was executed as criminal like others in the roman empire. How many of them recieved proper burial and had guard posted on their tombs?

Second, what is even dumber about your story is why there is a guard there to begin with. Are you saying the romans expected him to raise from the dead? Or perhaps the jews did? If so, you realize you say they believed him to be the messiah and decided to execute him anyawy? Do you realize what idiots they would be to do that?

But then one has to wonder who spread Christianity if it wasn't the apostles.

P - A - U - L

 

[zooterkin]

Really? Thousands of people back then?
Evidence for it please?

I'm guessing he will quote the bible, where it is said that thousands became followers after Pentecost. Oddly, there is no independent mention of 10-20% of the population of Jerusalem converting to this new faith (nor yet of the dead who rose from their graves and walked the streets), and these people who have supposedly had first-hand knowledge of God (you know, the sort of thing that allows people to become True Martyrs) vanish from history.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

So if Roman historian Tacitus is correct when he wrote Jesus received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate one would have to assume the reason Jesus received that ultimate penalty was likely because the Jewish leaders complained to Pilate. If the Jewish leaders had enough influence with Pilate to kill a man Pilate thought innocent, it is not irrational to believe those leaders had enough pull to get a guard at the tomb.

And why would there need to be a guard? What is he guarding?

Surely, if they somehow prophesized that someoen would steal the body and claim resurection they could have just destroyed the body themselves. Or use their so called influence to make sure the others were executed themselves.

Why on earth waste a guard on a tomb of a dead heretic?

And regarding the tomb, don't you think it is possible that the famous Jesus,
who had thousands of people attend his preaching,

So again you claim he had thousands of followers?

might of had someone who was wealthy who was a follower and had compassion on him and gave him a tomb.

So he had thousands of followers, some of which were extremely wealthy and yet we don't have a single piece of evidence from any of them. Interesting isn't it?

Not a single one of them kept a record of these issues?
Heck, what about the Zombie outreach that plagued Jerusalem.
Thousands of followers and no writings?

And as Geisler points out, making the owner of the tomb a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the people who helped get Christ crucified) is not something that a Christian writer would have made up -- translation: it was not likely made up.

Right... I'm sold

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

Hang on a second... If you really being honest here instead of just lying or being evasive, then surely all that stops you from debating is that this is off topic for the thread, correct?

So are you saying that if we get a mod to approve or start a new thread you would be glad to discuss the topic?

I for one would be more than happy to do so.

If this is the abysmal failure on your end to defened the NT, I personally can't wait to see you defened a book that's so absurd it literally tells you how it was forged in it...

 

[joobz]

As I said before Jesus gave new revelation on things like divorce and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth that was different from the OT. Jesus says regarding divorce this was because of the hardness of the people's hearts at that time. If the OT had perfect knowledge Jesus never would have needed to come, and his death on the cross was a waste of time.

Too bad Jesus' own heart was hard, otherwise he would have actually denounced slavery.

 

[Aepervius]

I am reading "the christian delusion" great book. Also show the futility of trying to convince people like DOC.

 

[kmortis]

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

[as mod]It's ok to respond[/as mod]

 

[Resume]

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

What's with the 10 day thingee? Do you turn into a pumpkin every fortnight?

 

[Craig4]

Is he researching for ten days? If that's the case I would expect some responses that had a little meat on them.

 

[Waterman]

So if Roman historian Tacitus is correct when he wrote Jesus received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate one would have to assume the reason Jesus received that ultimate penalty was likely because the Jewish leaders complained to Pilate. If the Jewish leaders had enough influence with Pilate to kill a man Pilate thought innocent, it is not irrational to believe those leaders had enough pull to get a guard at the tomb.

And regarding the tomb, don't you think it is possible that the famous Jesus, who had thousands of people attend his preaching, might of had someone who was wealthy who was a follower and had compassion on him and gave him a tomb. And as Geisler points out, making the owner of the tomb a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the people who helped get Christ crucified) is not something that a Christian writer would have made up -- translation: it was not likely made up.

I have taken the liberty of bolding the phrases in each sentence that disqualifies these statements as actual evidence instead of speculation or opinion. I have included the reminder of the post below for additional discussion with these statements removed so that we may address the actual evidence presented.

" "

Let us begin...

 

[Mojo]

Is he researching for ten days? If that's the case I would expect some responses that had a little meat on them.

I wouldn't, after what we got last time he took that sort of time over a response.

 

[kmortis]

I have taken the liberty of bolding the phrases in each sentence that disqualifies these statements as actual evidence instead of speculation or opinion. I have included the reminder of the post below for additional discussion with these statements removed so that we may address the actual evidence presented.

" "

Let us begin...

To be fair, there has been some evidence presented. Granted, it wasn't presented by DOC (rather cj.23) and it was supporting very narrow points that I don't think are terribly contraversial. I wish cj'd come back, there were some very fruitful conversations going on.

 

[TSR]

Marvel comics is therefore actually a significantly more credible source than the NT testament...

.
Careful there, Jesus has actually been used as character in several Marvel books.

Just sayin'
.

 

[John Jones]

.
Careful there, Jesus has actually been used as character in several Marvel books.

Just sayin'
.

Also in the old National Lampoon.

Son O' God versus The Zimmerman, IIRC

 

[Lucian]

Marvel comics is therefore actually a significantly more credible source than the NT testament...

.
Careful there, Jesus has actually been used as character in several Marvel books.

Just sayin'
.

Hey, doesn't Marvel Comics provide evidence for why we know the Edda writers told the truth? And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Prose and Poetic Eddas include embarrassing details about the Aesir and Vanir (e.g. Thor in drag) and difficult sayings of the gods. Really difficult. Seriously, there are bits of the Poetic Edda that don't make a lick of sense. So the Eddas must be true, right? I mean, fiction wasn't invented until--what--last week? And Iceland doesn't have any trees, so no paper.

 

[amb]

I am reading "the christian delusion" great book. Also show the futility of trying to convince people like DOC.

Do you mind a little more info about that book please, like author and is it available from Amazon? Thanks in advance.

Never mind, I bought it from Amazon just now. Thank you anyway for bringing that book to my attention.

 

[amb]

To be fair, there has been some evidence presented. Granted, it wasn't presented by DOC (rather cj.23) and it was supporting very narrow points that I don't think are terribly contraversial. I wish cj'd come back, there were some very fruitful conversations going on.

The guy is on that many forums, plus he has his own blog and don't forget he is a christian with a christian bias.