• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then I assume you believe Christ was the Jewish Messiah?.

no, he was "a" Jewish Messiah, theres been quite a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants
the proof is in the pudding, have any of them ishered in an idyllic age of peace and justice?
no, then they were all false by definition werent they
That seems to have been good enough for the Jews to have struck him off the possibles list
you think you know more about it than they do, you're not even in the right religion to make such a claim
:D
 
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".

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...sler Gives enough Evidence to believe&f=false

DOC, you've been told time and again that that link only provides the contents of the book for readers in the USA. So, get off your arse and type that whole damned paragraph, so those in this thread from elsewhere can join in the fun in tearing the probable nonsense that Geisler and Turek wrote to shreds.
 
The paragraph says "There's lots of evidence. It's enough to convince anyone willing to believe. But there's no proof, because we're supposed to make the choice ourselves."

Still nonsense.


Do you believe in the Big Bang and life from non-life? Do you have undeniable proof for those beliefs or just evidence?


Ah, the good old life from non-life argument.

Seems like only yesterday, and yet it was a year and two days ago . . .


I believe if a living God did not will life to be created it never would have been created. If I said what you said I believe which post did it come from. There is no such post.


That's the point. You believe it but can't say the words.

Life from non-life is abiogenesis. God creating Adam from dust is abiogenesis.

It is only the mechanism on which we disagree.

Whether you say it or not, DOC, you believe in abiogenesis.

And nice dodge of the pertinent parts of the post. You are at least consistent in that regard.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, eh DOC?
 
Someone somewhere should add somekind of theology law saying that any "monotheistic" religion that splits in denominations, should, from that point on be considered changed to "polytheistic"


It seems like I've been saying the same thing for millenia.


AkkyEyes3.gif
 
It wasn't written at all since there was no paper in those days.
Yeah, if I were DOC I'd abandon that erroneous claim.

  • Paper has been around for quite some time, a lot longer than Christianity.
  • Even if 1 is wrong, that makes any and all biblical claims suspect, due to the very nature of oral traditions.
 
so the purpose of this life is to decide to accept Christianity or not
why didn't anyone tell me this earlier ?
:eye-poppi
 
It wasn't written at all since there was no paper in those days.


Yeah, if I were DOC I'd abandon that erroneous claim.

  • Paper has been around for quite some time, a lot longer than Christianity.
  • Even if 1 is wrong, that makes any and all biblical claims suspect, due to the very nature of oral traditions.


DOC knows all of this. He lost exactly the same argument in TTTWND in December of 2010.

This entire thread is just a replay, and I have no idea why DOC thinks the same failed arguments are going to work this time around.
 
DOC knows all of this. He lost exactly the same argument in TTTWND in December of 2010.

This entire thread is just a replay, and I have no idea why DOC thinks the same failed arguments are going to work this time around.

I think that one poster is onto something, hypothesizing that DOC is one of those bots. A pity that this isn't an MMO, we could petition to have him banned for use of third party software.
 
I would like to take this moment to thank DOC, whose violations of the ToS (pertaining to spamming) has allowed me to be able to participate in the original Evidence thread when a couple of my posts got relocated there. Really couldn't have done it without you.

Also, I would like to point out there's a statue of Rocky Balboa in Boston (or was until it was moved), it does not follow that Rocky Balboa was in any way real. The same with the Fonz, any number of gods and goddesses, and Jesus.
 
Last edited:
I would like to take this moment to thank DOC, whose violations of the ToS (pertaining to spamming) has allowed me to be able to participate in the original Evidence thread when a couple of my posts got relocated there. Really couldn't have done it without you.


I'd just written a lovely redevelopment of the evidence for why we know the Mahabharata writers told the truth and when I clicked 'Submit Reply' my post went off into the ether and I went back to 2011. It was quite a ride!

Someone is going to be spitting chips, I reckon.

:)
 
Besides Sir Ramsay, DOC has also brought this fellow into his armour to fight off the infidels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Arnold


Umm . . . yeah, he did. In November, 2008.


...{Give} an account, outside of the biblical texts, describing a previously dead person wandering around speaking to groups and/or individuals. You would think that would attract a bit of notice, no? After all, emperors come and go all the time, but previously dead people would be quite the novelty.


Paul (who at one time was a great enemy of Christians) wrote several letters. At the time he wrote them there was no New Testament. So when the previous Christian persecutor (Paul) wrote his letters he was outside of current scripture. Paul who said Christ appeared to over 500 people and over 250 of them are still alive (at the time he wrote his letter) put himself and his whole life's work on the line by saying there were still over 250 people still alive who saw the risen Christ because this fact could easily be verified by skeptics of the day. This letter about the 250 people still being alive who saw Christ is very good historical evidence. As someone once said, if you take away the supernatural bias, Christ and his resurrection would be considered a historical fact (based on the historical evidence available.) This is probably one of the reasons why the famous Oxford historian Thomas Arnold , the author of the 3 volume "History of Rome" whom I mentioned about 6 months ago in other threads said the following:

"The evidence for our Lord’s life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up a most important cause. I myself have done it many times over, not to persuade others, but to satisfy myself. 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 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" (ref.7, pp.425-426).

http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evidence/Historical_Evidence.htm

Also, here is a site that gives 23 more historical reasons why Oxford historian Thomas Arnold might have said what he said:

http://www.truthortradition.com/iph...=49:23reasons&catid=28:jesus-christ&Itemid=56


You seem to be a little behind in your reading.

:rolleyes:
 
2008? Cheeee. I am behind the eight ball here. So four years and still no evidence.
 
Also, I would like to point out there's a statue of Rocky Balboa in Boston (or was until it was moved), it does not follow that Rocky Balboa was in any way real. The same with the Fonz, any number of gods and goddesses, and Jesus.

ok smartass, if Rocky Balboa wasn't real, why did they make 5 movies about his life and who was it that really beat Apollo Creed
huh ?
:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom