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

[zooterkin]

Then you would disagree with Richard Dawkins who believes Jesus probably existed?

Subtlety escapes you, doesn't it?

Believing a person named Jesus (well, more likely Yeshua) probably existed and had followers is not the same as believing "The Christ", or "The Messiah" existed.

 

[zooterkin]

If you've read my 2300 posts you would know what my evidence is?

In one word, absent.

 

[Garrette]

DOC, you don't even attempt to hide your intellectual dishonesty anymore, do you?

Then you would disagree with Richard Dawkins who believes Jesus probably existed?

So you'll just ignore my refutation of your "most historians agree" comment by specifically addressing this.

Par for the course, I guess.

If you've read my 2300 posts you would know what my evidence is?

We do know. As zooterkin said: it's absent.

 

[nvidiot]

Doc you are being very dense. Do you really, truly, honestly think that the thousands of logical fallacies you've posted in this thread come even close to the definition of evidence?

Do you really think you're providing some kind of proof or evidence for the New Testament being a true record of the events nearly 2000 years ago? All you seem to be doing is making Christianity look even nuttier and more foolish than it already is.

 

[DOC]

Nice to see you have abandoned asking for proof of abiogenesis. i presume it is because I pointed out that you already believe in it and it is an indisputable fact.

No I don't believe that life came about by unintelligent random forces, I believe that the living all knowing God of the Bible created all life. Now enough about abiogenesis, although I should have the right to mention it if someone puts down faith -- because you shouldn't put down faith if you have it yourself.

 

[DOC]

Doc you are being very dense. Do you really, truly, honestly think that the thousands of logical fallacies you've posted in this thread come even close to the definition of evidence?

Do you really think you're providing some kind of proof or evidence for the New Testament being a true record of the events nearly 2000 years ago? All you seem to be doing is making Christianity look even nuttier and more foolish than it already is.

Your opinion that does not respond specifically to any post is noted.

 

[X]

If you've read my 2300 posts you would know what my evidence is?

Yes. To summarize:

The Bible is true because we know Jesus rose from the dead.
We know Jesus rose from the dead because it is written in the Bible.

Your evidence is logical fallcies.

 

[Waterman]

So where is the historical figure Jesus' body, and you might read post 13104 if you want more evidence.

I am still here, I am just waiting for something new. To answer this question even if we assume that there is a person named Yeshua around whom the Jesus myth was formed 'we don't know' where his body might be. The mythic elements and historical elements of the bible are so entertwined, so removed in time from present day and lacking in external corroborating evidence that we cannot completely disentangle fact from myth. Besides I am sure that there are a lot of histrical figures that have died and we can't put our hands on the bodies. Does that mean that they all rose from the dead and were bodily lifted into heaven?

If I may be allowed to quote myself something that was reposted by others in response to your referenced post. This content that was originally contained in post 11480 in March of 2010 in response to DOC's post 11054 and while DOC technically has ‘responded’ to some of these points he has never actually provided any substantial counter arguments. I am sure that other here would enjoy hearing you counter arguments or perhaps we need some additional material.

What are you talking about, none of them have been debunked. Responding to a point is not debunking a point, you are invited to show how each point made in post 13104 has been debunked.

Here, deal with this:

I think that he is referring to my referenced above:

<snip irrelevant commentary>
You provided a lot of things in your oft referenced post 11054. Since they have been addressed at length in the past I will be brief.

5000 New Testament manuscripts:
1. this is irrelevant to whether or not the story is true.
2. how many of these actually date to within a few years of the life of Jesus
3. You also seem limit your comments to the 5000 NT references. But the NT is more than just the Jesus story, what percentage of the 5000 is actually dealing with that and not Revelations.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay:
1. Opinion of a famous guys does not count as evidence
2. Besides he expressly exclude the magical stuff

40 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian)
1. You have mixed referenced to Christians in this list as equivalent to Christ
2. There are suspected forgeries in this list
3. You have not cited any as actual witnesses of the events beyond the recording of a man crucified that fits the name (and a common one at that)
4. This is not evidence that the story is true
5. Do any of these non-Christian sources make any referenced to miracles?

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.
1. Evidence of the existence of Christians is not evidence that all the NT is true.
2. Peaceful expansion has no bearing on the truth of the bible

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.
1. Conversions are irrelevant to the truth, people change religions all the time.
2. Others have pointed out that the passages in Isaiah have been taken out of context and twisted to fit the fable or visa versa

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
1. No references cited suspect that this is a skewed sampling that is limited to at least Christian Archeologist if not an even smaller subset.
2. Irrelevant to the truth in the NT.
3. A unmarked tomb was ‘rediscovered’ 200-300 years after the resurrection and accurately attributed to Jesus having been there 3 nights. How did they determine this?

Thomas Arnold's statement
1. Opinion of a famous guy does not count as evidence.
2. Besides it is obviously hyperbole

The Moral Argument,
1. this is not evidence it is a philosophical argument
2. It is a bad one that fails on several points

The Cosmological Argument,
1. this is not evidence it is a philosophical argument
2. It is a bad one that fails on several points

Martyrs
1. Irrelevant, only evidence of conviction/belief
2. Special pleading, my martyrs count but yours don’t.

Simon Greenleaf
1. Opinion of a famous guy does not count as evidence.
2. Relies on Special Pleading and his argument can equally be applied to other religions

The Oral Torah is more important than written the Written Torah.
1. What? Why is this even here?
2. This undermines you point.

Dr. Hugh Ross claims
1. Opinion of a famous guy does not count as evidence.

DOC, We are still waiting for the evidence you have promised. We understand that the above arguments have allowed you to conclude that the bible is true. However when thoroughly examined under the harsh light of logic there are insubstantial as actual evidence of the resurrection.

If you want to reduce the level of harassment you are getting you are going to have to put fourth something new and a little more grounded in logic. Otherwise you are likely to continue to get more of the same.

 

[Garrette]

No I don't believe that life came about by unintelligent random forces,

1. You choose, again, to be misleading with your out-of-context use of "random." I expected no less.

I believe that the living all knowing God of the Bible created all life.

You believe in life from non-life. That's abiogenesis.

You believe in abiogenesis. Say it, DOC. "I believe in abiogenesis."

Now enough about abiogenesis,

Why? You said it's not a derail. But now that your position is, again, falling apart, you don't want to discuss it. I understand.

although I should have the right to mention it if someone puts down faith -- because you shouldn't put down faith if you have it yourself.

Your general principle doesn't apply to the specific instance. That's the point.

More to the point: Let's please do get away from abiogenesis.

No one has put down your faith. No one has objected to your faith. No one gives a damn about your faith.

What has been put down and objected to and given a damn about is your completely incorrect, illogical, and intentionally deceitful claims that there is evidence to support the veracity of the New Testament (beyond the mundane and occasional historical accuracy; we're talking about miracles and godhood).

What has been put down and objected to and given a damn about is your inability to see that if there is evidence for the NT, then your faith isn't faith at all.

What has been put down and objected to and given a damn about is your constant repetition of constantly refuted claims.

Your evidence is illusory, DOC. Your logic is specious. And your behavior is not consistent with that of someone who is intellectually honest.

 

[DOC]

...So you'll just ignore my refutation of your "most historians agree" {that Jesus existed} comment...

From Wiki on the historicity of Jesus:

...The majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus,[7][8][9] agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[wollery]

DOC finally finds where the question mark is on the keyboard?

 

[joobz]

... although I should have the right to mention it if someone puts down faith -- because you shouldn't put down faith if you have it yourself.

I agree.
Then one must ask, Why do you denigrate faith?

No -- He has given enough evidence so I could leave 2300 posts but I still need faith, just not blind faith.

Actually, you have been blind.
You've been blind to the continued demonstration that none of your supposed evidence is actually evidence. They are simply non sequitors and logical fallacies.

If that is the best you have, I wouldn't be bragging about your post counts.

But atheists need faith too, and Geisler (and myself) believes they actually need more faith (Thus the title of his book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist").

DOC, according to christian doctrines, faith is supposed to be a good thing. It can move mountains and so forth, right?
Yet, here you (and Geisler) are attempting to claim that Atheists have more Faith then Christians.

I think this argument exposes a cold fact. You (and Geisler) both recognize that Faith isn't much. That faith is not as useful as sound reason, evidence and logic. Otherwise, why attempt to belittle others by claiming the have it?

The idea that "Atheists have more faith/need more faith" is a clear claim that faith is less meaningful than evidence.

The fact that you feel the need to post in this thread "Evidence supporting your faith" suggests you do not have a strong opinion about faith.

The fact that you continually attempt to denigrate evolutionary theory and evolutionary abiogenesis suggests you have a negative opinion on faith.



So, Why do you have such little faith when it is supposed to be virtue?

 

[John Jones]

It's not a derail if he says he has no faith, and I have shown he must have faith to believe something as fact that has never been proved.

Like the truth of the New Testament? Stop trying to derail.

 

[DOC]

You believe in life from non-life. That's abiogenesis.

You believe in abiogenesis. Say it, DOC. "I believe in abiogenesis."

I believe if a living God did not will life to be created it never would have been created. If I said what you said I believe which post did it come from. There is no such post.

 

[John Jones]

Jimmy Hoffa wasn't killed in public and have a government guard put at his tomb. He also never appeared to at least 20 people after his supposed death, and then have people who knew him personally risk their lives on the claim he rose from the dead.

Ah. Those goalposts on wheels again.

A few minutes ago, an empty tomb was evidence. Now an empty tomb plus stories only found in the New Testament are evidence The NT authors told the truth.

Special pleading.
Circular reasoning.

 

[John Jones]

If you've read my 2300 posts you would know what my evidence is?

Post counting, logical fallacies and poor reasoning. That's about it.

 

[John Jones]

DOC finally finds where the question mark is on the keyboard?

I noticed that too?

 

[John Jones]

I believe if a living God did not will life to be created it never would have been created. If I said what you said I believe which post did it come from. There is no such post.

So you do believe in abiogenesis. Glad we got that settled.

 

[DOC]

...DOC, according to christian doctrines, faith is supposed to be a good thing. It can move mountains and so forth, right?
Yet, here you (and Geisler) are attempting to claim that Atheists have more Faith then Christians.

I think this argument exposes a cold fact. You (and Geisler) both recognize that Faith isn't much. That faith is not as useful as sound reason, evidence and logic. Otherwise, why attempt to belittle others by claiming the have it?

I think drive and determination is a good thing, but Hitler probably had more drive and determination than most people. That doesn't mean I believe drive and determination isn't important or a good thing because someone like Hitler had a lot more than most people.

 

[joobz]

I think drive and determination is a good thing, but Hitler probably had more drive and determination than most people. That doesn't mean I believe drive and determination isn't important or a good thing because someone like Hitler had a lot more than most people.

This makes no sense as a response.
Than why claim athiests have faith?

It clearly is an attempt to belittle atheists.
So why do you not respect faith?