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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Why don't skeptics ever say this when other people talked about tea and beer like they did for many posts a long time ago?
Click to expand...
As John Jones said, the skeptics aren't the one who said they had evidence for the truth of the NT. And though you may not see it, most (not all) of those posts are actually addressing your claims of evidence by pointing out that your claims are hollow.

DOC said:
And you don't want me to answer Joobz questions? Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.
Click to expand...
No. It's damned if you answer questions not related to the OP while ignoring the questions that are related. Your recent response to catsmate1 is not an answer. Your evidence has been repeatedly destroyed, but you ignore that.

As I have said, you don't even attempt to hide your intellectual dishonesty anymore.
 
DOC, you're abject refusal to answer the questions put to you that actually address the 'Evidence' is telling. You appear to be happier flirting with abiogenesis and repeatedly stating your post count. So, in an effort to get the thread where it should be, how about answering the question:

How did Simon The Zealot die?*

If there is "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" this should be an easy answer, so stop the smoke and mirrors, stop the obfuscation and answer the bloody question.

If you post in this thread again, without answering this question, you obviously have no 'evidence'... so, case closed!



*Extra-biblical, historical evidence MUST be provided.
 
DOC said:
Why don't skeptics ever say this when other people talked about tea and beer like they did for many posts a long time ago?

And you don't want me to answer Joobz questions? Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.
Click to expand...


We had to talk amongst ourselves while you were on your 10 day "research sabbatical". What else were we to do?

Why do you take the time to talk about this but dodge easy questions like:

How did Simon The Zealot die?*

If there is "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" this should be an easy answer, so stop the smoke and mirrors, stop the obfuscation and answer the bloody question.

If you post in this thread again, without answering this question, you obviously have no 'evidence'... so, case closed!



*Extra-biblical, historical evidence MUST be provided.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I do respect faith because Jesus did, and the God of the Bible is the one who is going to decide the real reasons why each atheist has faith in non-Godly things and does not have faith in Him and judge accordingly.
Click to expand...


Circular4.gif



You've never understood this, have you DOC?
 
DOC said:
Why does it make no sense, you didn't explain?
Click to expand...
because context shifted in the example from your original use. You throw the atheist as faith argument as though it is an indictment. Geisler's book title does the same thing.


DOC said:
Because if you believe something without proof, you are basing your belief at least partially on faith.
Click to expand...
Certainly. But there's an abundance of evidence for a non-supernatural origin of life(e.g., observed evolution, observed chemical evolution, observed instances of speciation, ...). There is no evidence for god. There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

Just for clarity, I use evidence to mean concrete, rational evidence. Not logical fallacies.


DOC said:
It is just stating a belief, and I gave a rational explanation for that belief, if you don't think it is rational then explain why.
Click to expand...
Well, just like geisler's book, there is nothing rational in your explanation. (see above).

However, the context exposes the intent. Like I said, you use it to belittle atheists. Just like Geisler did.

Faith is supposedly a strength of a Christian. Why would you claim an atheist has more strength than you? it makes absolutely no sense.

In truth, there are really only two options here:
1.) You don't honestly value faith, and therefore apply the label to atheists as an attempt to place your beliefs on equal footing with theirs.
2.) You do value faith, but are willing to duplicitously apply the label to atheists in an effort to score debate points.




DOC said:
I do respect faith...
Click to expand...
I don't have enough faith to believe you are telling the truth.
 
DOC said:
I've already given evidence for 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
Click to expand...
DOC, I need to ask a question regarding the ground rules by which you think debate works.

Let's say there is a debate between two people (Steve and Rob).
Rob presents evidence A.
Steven Refutes evidence A on grounds x.
Rob presents evidence B.
Steven Refutes evidence B on grounds y.
Rob presents evidence C.
Steven Refutes evidence C on grounds z.
Rob re-presents evidence A.
Rob re-presents evidence B.
Rob re-presents evidence C.


Now, do you believe that Rob has successfully presented evidence? Do you believe that evidence that is logically refuted is still evidence?
 
DOC said:
I do respect faith because Jesus did, and the God of the Bible is the one who is going to decide the real reasons why each atheist has faith in non-Godly things and does not have faith in Him and judge accordingly.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is no god, and nobody is going to be judged in a non-existent after-life. The fear you have is completely irrational and based on the imaginary .
 
DOC said:
catsmate1 said:
So you'll be providing evidence that:
1. this 'Jesus' existed
2. that he was executed
3. that he was entombed
4. that this tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers (something most versions of your myth don't claim)
5. that he was somehow resurrected (and therefore you'll need to eliminate the possibility of trickery, fakery and deceit)
6. that he appeared to his followers after his alleged death

While you're at this you could provide the long awaited proof of your statement that which you made in this thread (post 15661) some 117 days ago.
Click to expand...

I've already given evidence for 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and I didn't say this --

Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian

-- another source did, I notice you didn't say which post you got that quote from, maybe that would help if you did.
Click to expand...


My bolding. Seriously DOC, do you even read people's posts before you respond?

But anyway, since you are either suffering from a lack of reading comprehension or are just plain lazy, here is the quote to which catsmate1 was referring.

DOC said:
Well other than Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

Oxford scholar A.N. Sherwin-White wrote:

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. - A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.
Click to expand...


Your bolding. Now, you are either highlighting this passage because you agree with this, disagree with this, or just suffer from random fits of formatting. Also note, in your opening sentence in this post, you personally claim that Roman historians thought highly of Luke as a historian. So, either provide some evidence to support this claim, retract it, or continue to present the facade of someone who is intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Of course, the heartening thought is that if the Christian god does exist then DOC will be eternally tormented in hell for the lies he has posted in this thread...

For myself, I don't expect that outcome. Perhaps if someone had managed to once - just once - supply some evidence that the new testament authors told the truth then I might change my mind. But given the persistent and continued lack of said evidence I guess I'll go on living like a sinner.

If DOC decides to embrace honesty, will someone PM me please?
 
Hi Doc,

I've just spent 2 weeks on a training course in Rochester, just north of Detroit, so have had very limited access to da intyweb...

However, you've not failed me - I guessed you'd not provide any real information for us to discuss, and you've done exactly that...

I'd like to return yet again to something I mentioned earlier - and has been repeated a lot by many of us - especially Welshdean using a subtle blend of colour and size. Being originally from Cymru, I can appreciate such support. :)

DOC - among the original points you made, you stressed the importance of the martyrdom of the apostles as being one of the reasons why the NT writers told the truth.

Now I did something that I suspect you didn't want anybody to do... I checked the martyrdom of the apostles.

I was scarcely suprised to discover that the evidence for their martyrdom was shown to be "according to legend.." or "early church tradition..." which to many people suggests that it ain't so.

Therefore, if we're to take your assertion that said martyrdom is important for the claim of veracity, then I'm sure we'd like to see the evidence that you promised - also ages ago.

Especially - I'm sure you were expecting this - about Simon the Zealot and his attempt to be the most-resurrected apostle of all.

Thanking you in anticipation....
 
Rincewind said:
Hi Doc,

I've just spent 2 weeks on a training course in Rochester, just north of Detroit, so have had very limited access to da intyweb...

However, you've not failed me - I guessed you'd not provide any real information for us to discuss, and you've done exactly that...

I'd like to return yet again to something I mentioned earlier - and has been repeated a lot by many of us - especially Welshdean using a subtle blend of colour and size. Being originally from Cymru, I can appreciate such support. :)

DOC - among the original points you made, you stressed the importance of the martyrdom of the apostles as being one of the reasons why the NT writers told the truth.

Now I did something that I suspect you didn't want anybody to do... I checked the martyrdom of the apostles.

I was scarcely suprised to discover that the evidence for their martyrdom was shown to be "according to legend.." or "early church tradition..." which to many people suggests that it ain't so.

Therefore, if we're to take your assertion that said martyrdom is important for the claim of veracity, then I'm sure we'd like to see the evidence that you promised - also ages ago.

Especially - I'm sure you were expecting this - about Simon the Zealot and his attempt to be the most-resurrected apostle of all.

Thanking you in anticipation....
Click to expand...

Looks like Simon beat out Jesus in the resurrection game.
 
tsig said:
Looks like Simon beat out Jesus in the resurrection game.
Click to expand...
.
The Resurrection Game by Milton Bradley -- my family used to play that all the time.


Maybe that's why I'm an orphan....
.
 
Hokulele said:
My bolding. Seriously DOC, do you even read people's posts before you respond?

But anyway, since you are either suffering from a lack of reading comprehension or are just plain lazy, here is the quote to which catsmate1 was referring.




Your bolding. Now, you are either highlighting this passage because you agree with this, disagree with this, or just suffer from random fits of formatting. Also note, in your opening sentence in this post, you personally claim that Roman historians thought highly of Luke as a historian. So, either provide some evidence to support this claim, retract it, or continue to present the facade of someone who is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
Thank you.:)
 
catsmate1 said:
So you'll be providing evidence that:
1. this 'Jesus' existed
2. that he was executed
3. that he was entombed
4. that this tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers (something most versions of your myth don't claim)
5. that he was somehow resurrected (and therefore you'll need to eliminate the possibility of trickery, fakery and deceit)
6. that he appeared to his followers after his alleged death

While you're at this you could provide the long awaited proof of your statement that
which you made in this thread (post 15661) some 117 days ago.
Click to expand...
DOC said:
I've already given evidence for 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and I didn't say this --

Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian

-- another source did, I notice you didn't say which post you got that quote from, maybe that would help if you did.
Click to expand...

Oh wow........... OK, it is now apparent that you are either, primus, not actually reading posts before responding to them; secundus, attempting to avoid supporting your silly assertions by lying or, ultimus, profoundly stupid. Which is it?

I gave the number of the post in this thread in which you personally made the ridiculous, and unsupported, claim that claim that Romans thought highly of Luke as a historian

To help you I've highlighted the post number. Hokulele has quoted it for you. Just be be sure, here's the post number: 15661
 Are you going to back up your assertion about Luke or withdraw it. It's been four months with nothing from you but evasions.

And while you're at it why not supply some of the evidence of my six points, quoted above, that you claim to have made but seem to be unable to show...............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom