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

[Lothian]

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

Depending on the definition of God; yes. The fact that nobody has been raised from the dead suggests the premise was false and if there is a God it is one which can't raise the dead, and perhaps has lesser powers. Compare to the following premise.

Let me ask you this, if God exists are miracles such as socks vanishing in washing machines possible in your opinion?

 

[Agatha]

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?

Um, you do realise that that note (on paper you keep insisting didn't exist) is hearsay evidence to us in 2011? You cannot interview the purported author, and you have no way of telling whether the person who wrote the manuscript was telling the truth or making up a fairy story.

Carbon dating gives an error margin of +/-40 years for items 2000 years old, so you cannot even state with certainty that the manuscript is contemporaneous with the alleged resurrection of your homeboy.

You still only have hearsay evidence, even in your hypothetical.

 

[Agatha]

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.

Yesterday I thought Patrick1000's recent attempt to claim that maps which use numbers as grid references should omit 13 because it's "unlucky, like with elevator floors" was the stupidest thing I'd ever read on these boards, but today I read the above quote from DOC and I had to admit that we have found new depths of stupid.

Stundie material, surely? (and don't call me Shirley)

 

[welshdean]

Yesterday I thought Patrick1000's recent attempt to claim that maps which use numbers as grid references should omit 13 because it's "unlucky, like with elevator floors" was the stupidest thing I'd ever read on these boards, but today I read the above quote from DOC and I had to admit that we have found new depths of stupid.

Stundie material, surely? (and don't call me Shirley)

Just popped over and noticed you'd done it. Love to see a winner from the R+P sub.

 

[Resume]

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?

If your auntie had balls . . . Keerist, it doesn't seem possible but your arguments are getting weaker.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I'd also want to know where they found the paper to write this note.

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

What scientific paper shows definite proof that men do not rise from the dead. Give a link.

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

Why do you hate the innocent question mark? (You missed it in your knee-slapper quoted just above too.)

 

[zooterkin]

What scientific paper shows definite proof that men do not rise from the dead. Give a link.

I think there is only one appropriate response to this.




ETA: And her Majesty beat me to it; I shouldn't have wasted time checking that no-one else had yet made that response.

 

[pakeha]

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?

What did you smoke for breakfast the day you wrote that, DOC?

 

[DrDave]

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.

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.

Amb or Akhenaten, could you answer this?

Reported for off-topic and spamming

 

[Mojo]

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..."

I'd say it was an obvious forgery. Petra wasn't born until almost 2,000 years later, and couldn't write.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm still not sure that Phelix is an Atheist!
GB

I would have ignored this because of the wink, but it was '+1'd' by the mighty pharoah, and there were similar comments in other posts. Yes, I'm only on page 4, but if I read the whole thing before commenting, I'll probably have forgotten about it.

I see nothing at all to indicate phelix is not an atheist. An individual does not have to think that there is no evidence at all that Jesus is not entirely fictional to be a 'true atheist'. GB doesn't actually call phelix a liar, just letting everyone know he isn't sure phelix is being truthful. I think Law of Charity applies.

We can get too caught up in trying to figure out hidden agendas. I could question GB's atheism. After all, religious fundamentalists tend to capitalize 'atheism'. Maybe he's trying to make atheists out to be users of the 'No True Christian' fallacy in reverse! If he hadn't slipped up and typed 'Atheism', we might never have known.

 

[DOC]

...I'll answer the question for you though.

Which god? How is he defined?

I think the fact Amb and Akhenaten won't answer that simple question shows they are for the most part totally incapable of being unbiased.

I haven't responded to some questions because I simply don't have the time to get to every question. Many of those questions would require a long detailed answer for a proper response to be given. The question I posed above could easily be answered in one or two sentences.

With regard to which god, I'm talking about the God that I would estimate over 90% of people in the West think of when they think of a living intelligent God. The supreme conscious living being who created the Universe, that is the God I'm talking about.

My simple question was if God exists do you believe miracles (such as Christ's resurrection) are possible?

 

[carlitos]

I think the fact Amb and Akhenaten won't answer that simple question shows they are for the most part totally incapable of being unbiased.

I haven't responded to some questions because I simply don't have the time to get to every question. Many of those questions would require a long detailed answer for a proper response to be given. The question I posed above could easily be answered in one or two sentences.

With regard to which god, I'm talking about the God that I would estimate over 90% of people in the West think of when they think of a living intelligent God. The supreme conscious living being who created the Universe, that is the God I'm talking about.

My simple question was if God exists do you believe miracles (such as Christ's resurrection) are possible?

I found your problem.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think the fact Amb and Akhenaten won't answer that simple question shows they are for the most part totally incapable of being unbiased.

I don't know about amb but I didn't answer it because I did the same as DrDave and reported it for being off-topic, as I will be doing with your most recent post.

 

[Agatha]

My simple question was if God exists do you believe miracles (such as Christ's resurrection) are possible?

That would depend on what attributes the god in question has, and is a moot point in any case as a) such a god has never been shown to exist and b) miracles have never been shown to happen.

However, the question is wildly off topic in a thread which is supposed to be looking at evidence that the NT writers told the truth. As you started the thread, perhaps you could post some evidence? For information, posting links to previous posts is not evidence.

 

[OCaptain]

Luke, or whoever wrote that gospel had Mark in front of him, and perhaps the hypothetical document called Q. Luke just added or subtracted what he thought was relevant to his version and to whomever he was writing the gospel for.

What do you think of redaction criticism?

I ask because I was reading a recent exchange on the biblical studies yahoo listserve in which both redaction criticism and Q were roundly ridiculed by a good number of the scholars on-hand.

 

[OCaptain]

In other words, you appealed to a lot of authorities, none of whom have any evidence. You REALLY need to learn that exegesis and "probably" and "likely" and "possibly" and "might be" etc, are not evidence.



When you have real evidence, we will examine it.

GB

Well, to be fair, scholarly opinions, one way and the other, are what we have now.

I wouldn't say they're not evidence for their respective positions.

What the aren't is proof. If proof had been laid out for all to see and consider, these debates would not still be happening.

 

[Resume]

What do you think of redaction criticism?

I ask because I was reading a recent exchange on the biblical studies yahoo listserve in which both redaction criticism and Q were roundly ridiculed by a good number of the scholars on-hand.

I like the way the highlighted words work together.

 

[joobz]

Many of those questions would require a long detailed answer for a proper response to be given.

The evidence thread has existed for ~3-4 years now (I think). You have had ample time to provide a detailed response to any of the questions asked.

The fact that you haven't answered these questions, and simply regurgitate logical fallacies, is evidence that you are incapable of answering these questions.

The question I posed above could easily be answered in one or two sentences.

Or in two letters. mu.

With regard to which god, I'm talking about the God that I would estimate over 90% of people in the West think of when they think of a living intelligent God. The supreme conscious living being who created the Universe, that is the God I'm talking about.

Why just western? http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
In the world, 33 % worship your god.
another 21 % worship Allah.
Another 14% practice hinduism
16% are secular (half of which hold no belief in a god/force).
and the remaining are well distributed amongst a variety of other god beliefs.

So the question of "which god" is extremely pertinent. Considering less than half of the world believe in the same god you, why should we hypothesize that it is the correct one?

My simple question was if God exists do you believe miracles (such as Christ's resurrection) are possible?

And the answer is, mu.

But let me be a little more explicit.

We are discussing evidence. If we had documented cases of resurrections. than a claim of a resurrection from 2000 years ago wouldn't be so unbelievable. As such, I wouldn't be so skeptical of the hearsay evidence.

For instance, If you found writings from 2000 years ago that claimed Joe ate fish with Jesus, I wouldn't really be that doubtful. Fish existed. People eat fish all the time, so I can think it is no big thing to see that Joe would eat fish. It doesn't mean it happened. I just means that I have no good reason to really doubt it.

Now, if the letter said, Joe turned into a fish name Jesus, I would be highly doubtful. Indeed, I would believe that it was a work of fiction as I have no evidence of anyone ever turning into a fish.


So DOC, the fact that medical history has no evidence of Resurrections only means that you need more solid evidence to convince people that it did happen in this one special case 2000 years ago.

 

[DOC]

I think the fact Amb and Akhenaten won't answer that simple question shows they are for the most part totally incapable of being unbiased...


...My simple question was if God exists do you believe miracles (such as Christ's resurrection) are possible?

I don't know about amb but I didn't answer it because I did the same as DrDave and reported it for being off-topic, as I will be doing with your most recent post.

So you believe a simple question about the existence of God, miracles, Christ, and the resurrection are off topic?