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

[RobDegraves]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ.

I'm a historian and no there is not.

I've often argued that I think that there was likely a historical Jesus, but I don't think the bible is an accurate (or even close) record of his words and deeds.

Without going for a 500 page thread... you are full of crap.

You keep claiming there is so much clear evidence and then refuse to see that all you say has been debunked ages ago. It's just sad really. You make a poor Christian and a much worse historian.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Muhammad never claimed to be God, never performed miracles (at least according to writings within about 200 years of his death), and is still in his grave.

So what? He claimed to speak directly with god and there is exactly as much evidence that he did as there is that Jesus was the son of god (and god at the same time, however that works). Yet you don't believe that Muhammad actually spoke directly with god do you?

I am assuming you are ignoring the question because it will make you look bad however you answer but I will keep asking: Do you think you would be a Christian if you were born in Iran?

 

[Ignosticist]

Muhammad never claimed to be God

But, he claimed to be a prophet serving god...

Do you believe that was true?

Siddhārtha claimed to be Buddha... and theres is historical evidence that Siddhārtha existed... does that mean you believe Buddhism is a true religion alongside with Christianity?

ever performed miracles (at least according to writings within about 200 years of his death)

He did perform miracles (so say those that believe in what he said). For example he "split the moon"

Oh, and by the way, are miracle required or not as precondition to follow a religion? (because Christianity is failing in that department you know...)

and is still in his grave

So having a grave makes all he said wrong?

So I guess all the prophets in the Old testament (who do have graves) and all the "saints" (who also have graves) are as invalid to you as Muhammad is? Because... you see, some of those denominations that you deemed equally valuable, have strong beliefs regarding the validity of those saints and prophets...

 

[Ignosticist]

Aside from us thinking about a solution, who cares? The way you presented this statement makes it seem like what we ask is an inconvenience to an ALL powerful creator? He apparantly made the universe right? Wouldn't something better than a 5th hand ancient garbage book be a no-brainer?

DOC statements are, as always, contradictory... he says there is no need for his flavor of god to make miracles to prove its existence, but seems to regard Muhammad as a false prophet because he performed no miracles (even if, according to Islam he did, for example, split the moon... I guess that is not good enough?)

 

[Donn]

massively underwhelming.

Underwhelm. Under WHELm! I love that word. Under wHELm! With vim and extra haitch!

Yeah I am also underwhelmed. OP, yawn.

 

[DOC]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ.

I'm a historian and no there is not.

Professor Thomas Arnold of Oxford (Author of the History of Rome) would have disagreed with you.

Thomas Arnold quote:

“I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

 

[Donn]

Muhammad .. is still in his grave.

Evidence?

 

[dio]

If God was eternal, he would have no beginning and thus would not have to come from anything.

Which begs the question: what was an infinitely intelligent entity doing for an eternity, before he(?) started, you know, doing stuff?

 

[Donn]

..than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

Maybe Christ passed-out and staggered from the (hasty) grave? I hear the last supper was a doozy, and we know his old trick with water...

 

[Ignosticist]

Evidence?

Apperently he is buried here. There seems to be no controversy about that... but, of course, his body might no longer be there...

 

[Brombadil]

Which begs the question: what was an infinitely intelligent entity doing for an eternity, before he(?) started, you know, doing stuff?

I find it interesting that religious apologetics who spend their whole life making **** up to square their beliefs have a hard time coming up with excuses for the simplest of things.

 

[Sun Countess]

Muhammad never claimed to be God, never performed miracles (at least according to writings within about 200 years of his death), and is still in his grave.

Mohammed claimed to talk to god - do you count that as evidence of God? It's essentially the same as saying that "Moses claimed to talk to god, so that's evidence for God" or "Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh so that's evidence for god."

There is no proof of anybody performing miracles, so I'm not going to hold that against Mohammed. Do you have evidence that anybody has performed miracles? I'd love to see it.

Also, what does it mean that someone is still in his grave. There are plenty of long-dead people who are no longer in their graves. My father-in-law is no longer in his grave. Does that mean anything special?

 

[Ignosticist]

If resurrection is what it takes, Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen Buddhism, was supposedly witnessed (after soon after his death) walking back towards India barefoot and with a single shoe in hand. His grave was later exhumed, and (according to the believers on this religion) the only thing found in it was the shoe he left behind...

So, he has NO grave...

So, DOC, ready to accept Buddhism as a true religion? (alongside with Christianity...)

 

[Ignosticist]

Also, what does it mean that someone is still in his grave. There are plenty of long-dead people who are no longer in their graves. My father-in-law is no longer in his grave. Does that mean anything special?

He might be God! (or at least a god)

 

[joolz]

The guy can create the entire Universe in a few days but the odd miracle is too hard? If he's to lazy to do it himself he can send his son back to do it again. A miracle might go some way to getting me to believe there's a god but if it's the god as described in the bible I don't imagine would never love him.


Yet Pure Argent was able to do it.

Heck he's god remember! He wouldn't even need a representative, he can just tell the clouds to float around in the shape of the words "there is a god, believe me now you dumb atheists? lol. god" and I'd convert if I saw that in the sky. Well, possibly.

Guess what - not gonna happen!!

 

[RobDegraves]

@DOC

Professor Thomas Arnold of Oxford (Author of the History of Rome) would have disagreed with you.

Seriously?

Thomas Arnold from the 19th century?

The same guy who thought that class structure in Britain was natural and unchangeable? He was better known for his school's rugby and his sermons than his historical work.

I guess that if we are going to have our knowledge of history based in the 19th century, we should also look at ether travel to the lush canals of Mars rather than mess around with dangerous rockets.

Seriously.. as fond as I am of the 19th century, that was a stupid quote.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's back, the book "I Don't Have enough Faith to be an Atheist". Some of you will remember that book as the driving force behind my 2 year evidence thread entitled "Evidence why we know the New Testament Writers told the Truth".

Apparently the driving force behind that thread (TTTWND) is something other than what you think it is, DOC, since it's position in third place on the front page of HL&A seems to indicates that it's still trundling along without either you or those idiots Geisler and Turek being involved.

Which kind of makes one wonder why you've decided to start exactly the same thread again.

It seems that that thread did not have enough evidence for many of you.

It doesn't have any evidence in it DOC.

But the authors of that book give a reason why God maybe does not overwhelm us with undeniable evidence. This reason is given in the paragraph nine lines down on page 31 from their book.

Nobody needs to read your stupid book to understand that the real reason is "lack of existence" and that trumps anything your sadly deluded apologist heroes are likely to come up with.

Is that why you weren't game to actually post whatever this mysterious reason is?

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't want or need to be overwhelmed with evidence, a simple "miracle" that couldn't be performed by anything but a god would do fine.

Then you want God to perform a miracle for each and every generation, every 20 years or so, so that each generation will love him because of the miracle.

And this is an unreasonable requirement because ______________________ ?

 

[Mudcat]

Christ said "I am the vine and you are the branches (plural). He didn't say I am the vine and you are the branch (singular).

That's the English translation. Newsflash: The bible wasn't written in English, and translating languages from one to the other is far from an exact science.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's the English translation. Newsflash: The bible wasn't written in English, and translating languages from one to the other is far from an exact science.

It wasn't written at all since there was no paper in those days.

The highlighted words make clear that this is rumour not evidence...

Actually Oral tradition evidence in that era of no paper and little literacy is not rumor, it was actually quite an important way of transferring historical information.

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

highlighting by Aberhaten​