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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're opinion is noted but I just listed a recent High School history book that said historians believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so as I said you should write the publishers and tell them about the opinion you got off the internet.

No one knows where this "saviour" was born. He was made to be born in Bethlehem so as to fulfil scripture as a descendent of David. But later on, this tale is contradicted as he is conceived from the holy spook. So he couldn't have been descendent from any earthly patriarch such as from the house of David. The contradiction assures that the whole tale is nothing but B/S.
 
Which came first ... the NT, or the start of this thread? ... It appears to have been running forever and ever.

I'm not sure I have a long enough lifespan to sift through the gazillion posts here, but the fact that the thread is still running leaves me to conclude that the credible evidence made available so far is ...
Zero.

Doc are you still out there? If so, am i wrong, have you presented any evidence that has not been demolished? A quick distilled summary might help
 
Doc are you still out there? If so, am i wrong, have you presented any evidence that has not been demolished? A quick distilled summary might help

If you read the OP you'll see pretty much everything he's had to offer in this thread. What you'd be missing are the various sideshows as well as some interesting research from other posters.
 
Which came first ... the NT, or the start of this thread? ... It appears to have been running forever and ever.


Genesis 1:1-5 (King Aberhaten Version)
1 In the beginning DOC created the premise and the thread.

2 And the thread was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the readers. And the Spirit of DOC moved upon the face of the Quote Mines.

3 And DOC said, 'Let there be lies' and there were lies.

4 And DOC saw the lies, that they were good: and DOC divided the lies from the truth.

5 And DOC called the lies Evidence and the truth he called Other People's Opinions. And the equivocation and the moaning were the OP.​
 
Genesis 1:1-5 (King Aberhaten Version)
1 In the beginning DOC created the premise and the thread.

2 And the thread was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the readers. And the Spirit of DOC moved upon the face of the Quote Mines.

3 And DOC said, 'Let there be lies' and there were lies.

4 And DOC saw the lies, that they were good: and DOC divided the lies from the truth.

5 And DOC called the lies Evidence and the truth he called Other People's Opinions. And the equivocation and the moaning were the OP.​

You owe me a monitor. And a keyboard.

Possibly a pair of jeans. I'll get back to you on the underpants.
 
Genesis 1:1-5 (King Aberhaten Version)
1 In the beginning DOC created the premise and the thread.

2 And the thread was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the readers. And the Spirit of DOC moved upon the face of the Quote Mines.

3 And DOC said, 'Let there be lies' and there were lies.

4 And DOC saw the lies, that they were good: and DOC divided the lies from the truth.

5 And DOC called the lies Evidence and the truth he called Other People's Opinions. And the equivocation and the moaning were the OP.​

This is the funniest thing I've ever had the pleasure to nominate. Well done, sir! And yet, with a little tear in my eye at the truthanity of it.
 
Doc are you still out there? If so, am i wrong, have you presented any evidence that has not been demolished? A quick distilled summary might help
You might start with post 13104 around page 328 of this thread. Or spend $4 to buy a used copy of the 400+ page book in post #1 and read chapter 11 first. Those living in the US will be able to read much of that chapter at this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false
 
Last edited:
Which came first ... the NT, or the start of this thread? ... It appears to have been running forever and ever.

I'm not sure I have a long enough lifespan to sift through the gazillion posts here, but the fact that the thread is still running leaves me to conclude that the credible evidence made available so far is ...
Zero.

Doc are you still out there? If so, am i wrong, have you presented any evidence that has not been demolished? A quick distilled summary might help



You might start with post 13104 around page 328 of this thread. Or spend $4 to buy a used copy of the 400+ page book in post #1 and read chapter 11 first. Those living in the US will be able to read much of that chapter at this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false


Wandering Skeptic, I've been to post 13104 and reminded myself of the evidence DOC presented there. I've taken the time to conduct an exhaustive review of said evidence and precised it for you thus:

:dl:

:mdance: :monkeyr:

:rule10






Honestly, DOC must think we're w :anchor: s
 
You might start with post 13104 around page 328 of this thread. Or spend $4 to buy a used copy of the 400+ page book in post #1 and read chapter 11 first. Those living in the US will be able to read much of that chapter at this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

It would be really helpful if you would address the summaries of the counter points raise for each position in that post that were included in post 13109. It is telling that this was actually a repost fom much earlier and the points have yet to be addressed to or conceded.
 
It would be really helpful if you would address the summaries of the counter points raise for each position in that post that were included in post 13109. It is telling that this was actually a repost fom much earlier and the points have yet to be addressed to or conceded.


Ha Ha, welcome to DOC's world. Don't expect an honest response to your request, please.

He referred Wandering Skeptic to a post over 6,300 posts ago. That's his MO. Spout tripe - tripe gets shown for what it is - DOC 'researches' for 10 days - regurgitate tripe - regurgitated tripe gets shown for what it is - DOC 'researches' for 10 days - regurgitate tripe ... ad -freakin- nauseum.
 
It would be really helpful if you would address the summaries of the counter points raise for each position in that post that were included in post 13109. It is telling that this was actually a repost fom much earlier and the points have yet to be addressed to or conceded.
Do you mean this post
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.
 
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Netzer (sprout) shall grow out of his roots: And the Spirit of YAHWEH shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and of the Fear of YAHWEH; And shall make Him of quick understanding in the Fear of YAHWEH: and He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears: But with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked. Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 11:1-4

Hey DOC. How does that load of hogwash predict the coming of Jesus?
I can't see it, perhaps someone else can?
 
Doc are you still out there? If so, am i wrong, have you presented any evidence that has not been demolished? A quick distilled summary might help


You might start with post 13104 around page 328 of this thread.


And you might start with actually reading the post that you're pretending to reply to, although it would probably be a shame to spoil your unbroken record.

The drivel in the post you refer to was demolished well before you even reposted it, let alone what's happened in the 6,000 posts that have been made since then.

How is it, DOC, that you consistently claim the ascendancy of your POV based on the number of your own posts as though the 17,000 posts refuting your nonsense simply don't exist? Do you think nobody will notice them?



Or spend $4 to buy a used copy of the 400+ page book in post #1 and read chapter 11 first. Those living in the US will be able to read much of that chapter at this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false


It's utter garbage DOC, and you were asked to provide a quick distilled summary of the 'evidence' that you've presented that hasn't been demolished.

Since you're clearly not up to the task, allow me:


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom