Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually Galatians by Paul the apostle was written about around 15 years after the crucifixion. Do you think you would be able to write anything (from your memory) about the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, or the OJ Simpson trial which happened about 15 years ago.


I wouldn't be able to write anything even remotely reliable about them if I hadn't read about them in the newspapers or seen the news on the telly, and was just going by rumours I'd heard.

As you have just pointed out there were not any newspapers. What television channels did Paul watch?
 
Last edited:
The whole christian faith is based on pure hearsay. Looking for corroborating evidence is futile. There is none.
 
The whole christian faith is based on pure hearsay. Looking for corroborating evidence is futile. There is none.
So I assume if someone found a buried manuscript in Jerusalem that carbon dating said is 2000 years old that said, "I personally witnessed Jesus come out of the tomb and my name is Petra," you would then become a Christian based on the found manuscript.

If you wouldn't become a Christian based on the non-hearsay evidence, why not?
 
Last edited:
So I assume if someone found a buried manuscript in Jerusalem that carbon dating said is 2000 years old that said, "I personally witnessed Jesus come out of the tomb and my name is Petra," you would then become a Christian based on the found manuscript.

If you wouldn't become a Christian based on the non-hearsay evidence, why not?

Because they didn't speak English in those parts
 
Nope. I would assume that Petra was mistaken. Perhaps he was drunk, or received a nasty bump to the scone, or just a delusion that could have any number of causes. Science has proved that men do not rise from the dead. Death means oblivion. Can you remember anything at all before your birth? Death is the same thing.
 
So I assume if someone found a buried manuscript in Jerusalem that carbon dating said is 2000 years old that said, "I personally witnessed Jesus come out of the tomb and my name is Petra," you would then become a Christian based on the found manuscript.

If you wouldn't become a Christian based on the non-hearsay evidence, why not?

Ah, the rule of "so" strikes again...

How would we know who this Petra was? How would we know she was telling the truth?
 
So I assume if someone found a buried manuscript in Jerusalem that carbon dating said is 2000 years old that said, "I personally witnessed Jesus come out of the tomb and my name is Petra," you would then become a Christian based on the found manuscript.


I wouldn't believe a word of it because there was no paper in those days.


If you wouldn't become a Christian based on the non-hearsay evidence, why not?


How is this relevant to the topic? We're discussing the existence of the evidence, not the consequences of your fanciful hypotheticals.
 
Nope. I would assume that Petra was mistaken. Perhaps he was drunk, or received a nasty bump to the scone, or just a delusion that could have any number of causes. Science has proved that men do not rise from the dead...
What scientific paper shows definite proof that men do not rise from the dead. Give a link.
 
Nope. I would assume that Petra was mistaken. Perhaps he was drunk, or received a nasty bump to the scone, or just a delusion that could have any number of causes. Science has proved that men do not rise from the dead. Death means oblivion. Can you remember anything at all before your birth? Death is the same thing.

So you complained about hearsay evidence, and now you complain about non-hearsay evidence.

Thus it seems the reason you don't believe has nothing to do with hearsay or non-hearsay evidence but rather the fact that you don't believe someone can be raised from the dead.

Let me ask you this, if God exists are miracles such as being raised from the dead possible in your opinion.
 
In all of known history on this planet at least, not one person has ever come back from death. Then you have the problem of proving a god exists. The evidence shows no such being could possibly exist.
 
If you wouldn't become a Christian based on the non-hearsay evidence, why not?

How is this relevant to the topic? We're discussing the existence of the evidence, not the consequences of your fanciful hypotheticals.

Why didn't you say this when amb complained about hearsay evidence if it is not relevant.

___

So I must then assume you don't believe in philosophical/rational evidence since you don't believe in rational hypothetical thinking.
 
Let me ask you this, if God exists are miracles such as being raised from the dead possible in your opinion?
Amb or Akhenaten, could you answer this?
 
Last edited:
So you complained about hearsay evidence, and now you complain about non-hearsay evidence.

Thus it seems the reason you don't believe has nothing to do with hearsay or non-hearsay evidence but rather the fact that you don't believe someone can be raised from the dead.

Let me ask you this, if God exists are miracles such as being raised from the dead possible in your opinion.


You don't have any non-hearsay evidence for anyone to complain about and your speculations about other people's beliefs and your fantasy-based hypotheticals are off topic.
 
Are you *********** kidding???
You beat me to it, because even for DOC, this ...
What scientific paper shows definite proof that men do not rise from the dead. Give a link.
must be the stupidest thing I've ever seen on these boards. :(

Even though there was a laissez faire attitude to reincarnation 2000 odd years ago because everyone was at it (if we were to believe DOC's favourite fiction), as far as I know and I could be wrong here, nobody in reality has ever conquered death, ever.
 
Originally Posted by DOC
Let me ask you this, if God exists are miracles such as being raised from the dead possible in your opinion?
Amb or Akhenaten, could you answer this?

DOC there must be over 500 questions that you have ignored repeatedly throughout this abomination of a thread. What makes you think you can demand answers from anyone?

I'll answer the question for you though.

Which god? How is he defined?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom