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

[zooterkin]

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 ?

Six, even.

 

[DrDave]

Ynot, I see you are from New Zealand. I guess you can't get the text from page 31 from the link given in the first post. I believe only US residents can get the page. If I get the time, which I don't have now, I will try to post the passage from that page by typing it out.

If god was real then surely he would be able to set up a proxy for us non Americans to see this important work? Or magically convince someone else to post excerpts.

I'm not sure why I'm in this nonsense thread but leaving ddt so frustrated that he might ... nevermind. I'm not going to type that baloney but here's a couple of screen caps:



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19574f1cf6f72b7e5.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19574f1cf77531693.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21631

Oh, guess that's evidence in DOCs favour then

 

[joobz]

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).

So you are saying that the Branch Davidians were correct then?

 

[joobz]

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.

If god exists outside of time as you claim, than doing something every 20 years would be no different than doing it once.

Why should those yahoos from 2000 years ago get special treatment?

 

[Craig4]

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.”

Would the professor care to provide evidence of this?

 

[Craig4]

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.

Care to show us evidence that your Jesus character actually rose from the dead?

 

[welshdean]

DOC, how many times have we gone over this? Citing a pair of apologetic, intellectual, ne'er do wells as an authority is akin to telling fibs. If your particular flavour of god can do all that you that purport, there's no need for a miracle every 20years, just get him to do this:
​

Tell him we'll promise not to boil baby goats in their mum's milk, he doesn't like that kind of cuisine does he, and we'll make plenty of burned offerings, 'cause we know the smell pleases him.

 

[kmortis]

Care to show us evidence that your Jesus character actually rose from the dead existed?

enstrikening mine.

Whilst I have no philsospohical issue with accepting the existance of a Jewish lad named Joshua during the time period in question. One that did the things attributed to him I find implausable. Not the least of which is the event that Craig4 mentions.

 

[Craig4]

enstrikening mine.

Whilst I have no philsospohical issue with accepting the existance of a Jewish lad named Joshua during the time period in question. One that did the things attributed to him I find implausable. Not the least of which is the event that Craig4 mentions.

I have no trouble with the idea that a Jewish cult leader got sideways with the Romans and the Sanhedrin and got turned into a bit of performance art. That's not the same as saying that Jesus rose from the dead or multiplied loaves and fishes.

 

[X]

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.

It occurs to me to point out that miracles, claiming to be god, and rising from the grave are only evidence that of god if you begin with the Christian assumption that those characteristics define god.

What if a person isn't Christian, DOC? Do you honestly think Muslims should define and defend their god according to Christian requirements? Should Sikhs? What about Buddhists? Zoroastrians? Hindus?

Can you really be so bigoted-ignorant as to call all the other religions wrong and your own correct because your own religion defines itself to be correct?

 

[kmortis]

/me wonders if X has been reading the same threads he has all these years

 

[joobz]

Funny story:
It seems that the Multiple Universe theory has just gained a feature not available to god:

A Testable Hypothesis!

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27517/

 

[Moss]

This thread has helped me to accept Mithras into my life as my only god. At least Mithraism is openly full of bull.

 

[OCaptain]

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.

You judging how poor a Christian someone else makes - when all he does is state he believes in the strength of his paradigm - is a laughable thing to read. How recently has anyone judged you for how poor a whatever you are, you are? Really, I'm appalled by the idea that you can be so derisive when the post you're replying to contains no vitriol at all. Your views of Christianity, Christians, and the Bible say much more about you than it does about any of those things.

Rob, you're an historian. Great. Where did you go to University? What degree do you have? Have you published on this subject?

I ask because you seem to be playing both sides of the issue with regard to an historical Jesus (as the Bible portrays him). What evidence are you using to determine that an historical Jesus is "likely", but you don't see the Bible as a close record of his words and deeds? (to be fair, even one of the New Testament writers admits that, if everything Jesus Christ did or said was documented, there wouldn't be books enough to contain it, but I don't think that's what you mean) If you're not using the Bible as part of that corpus from which you're drawing your view that he was an historical figure, then whence does that data come? (a thousand pardons if you've already explained this before. I prefer to have face-to-face conversations rather than search someone's post history for a potentially complicated answer such as that).

Best Salaams

 

[catsmate]

There was even a song about it, the tune of which Bob Dylan pinched for his song 'Bob Dylan's Dream'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVHGlbaqWXk

Thank you for that. Despite family connections to the expedition, and the searches, I hadn't heard the song.

 

[OCaptain]

It occurs to me to point out that miracles, claiming to be god, and rising from the grave are only evidence that of god if you begin with the Christian assumption that those characteristics define god.

What if a person isn't Christian, DOC? Do you honestly think Muslims should define and defend their god according to Christian requirements? Should Sikhs? What about Buddhists? Zoroastrians? Hindus?

Can you really be so bigoted-ignorant as to call all the other religions wrong and your own correct because your own religion defines itself to be correct?

Most everyone does this. Its a human characteristic.

The Christians dismiss the beliefs of everyone else
The Jews and Muslims do, as well.
The Wiccans are not as polarizing.
Neither are various varieties of neo-pagans, Taoists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Ba'hai, etc, etc.
The Agnostics tend to quietly and reflectively question everyone
The Atheists dismiss the beliefs of everyone else
And everyone dismisses the Satanists.

Each paradign uses the tools with which they are accustomed to fortify their own beliefs experientially, sometimes to the detriment of others. Each paradigm - even those whose ostensibly is the absence of belief - is mutually exclusive to a degree, if taken to their natural conclusions.

We've done it since for as long as recorded history, and we'll likely do it until we are no more, unless we make a conscious effort to focus on the elements of our respective theoretical frameworks that we share in common, instead of those which currently divide us, as sadly demonstrated in this thread.

Best Salaams

 

[Akhenaten]

Most everyone does this. Its a human characteristic.

The Christians dismiss the beliefs of everyone else
The Jews and Muslims do, as well.
The Wiccans are not as polarizing.
Neither are various varieties of neo-pagans, Taoists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Ba'hai, etc, etc.
The Agnostics tend to quietly and reflectively question everyone
The Atheists dismiss the beliefs of everyone else
And everyone dismisses the Satanists.

Each paradign uses the tools with which they are accustomed to fortify their own beliefs experientially, sometimes to the detriment of others. Each paradigm - even those whose ostensibly is the absence of belief - is mutually exclusive to a degree, if taken to their natural conclusions.

We've done it since for as long as recorded history, and we'll likely do it until we are no more, unless we make a conscious effort to focus on the elements of our respective theoretical frameworks that we share in common, instead of those which currently divide us, as sadly demonstrated in this thread.

Best Salaams

Yeah, good.

Now, do you have any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?


Ankh, udja, seneb

 

[catsmate]

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

If your god existed believing in him wouldn't be a delusion. Alas for the believers he doesn't exist.

 

[catsmate]

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).

Evidence for this? Extra-biblical please.

 

[catsmate]

There is plenty of historical evidence for Christ. In the Christian religion

No there isn't. You're lying. Again.

Christ is God in the flesh. So the Christian religion does have evidence for God.

No. You've had plenty of opportunities to provide this evidence you so often claim exists and all you've managed is repetitive evasions, distortions and outright lies.