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

[catsmate]

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.”

No this nonsense agin. This has been repeatedly debunked.

 

[catsmate]

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

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

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, eh DOC?

Well there has been a recent thread on that subject, unrelated to DOC's ramblings.

 

[catsmate]

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

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

And lots of Geisler, despite him being exposed as a liar who cherry-picks, misquotes, distorts and quote-mines. And doesn't know where the term 'university' comes from......

 

[OCaptain]

Yeah, good.

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


Ankh, udja, seneb

That depends on the paradigm of the judge and you know it.

 

[catsmate]

That depends on the paradigm of the judge and you know it.

No, it doesn't. I assume you don't have any evidence then. How unsurprising.

 

[Moss]

That depends on the paradigm of the judge and you know it.

How about no? There is plenty of things in there that could be substantiated by archeological and historiographical evidence but is not.

 

[OCaptain]

How about no? There is plenty of things in there that could be substantiated by archeological and historiographical evidence but is not.

I don't think we should waste time discussing the things which could be but aren't, rather the things which arguably are.

And it's been done to death, the well long-ago poisoned and earth scorched. There is little use in trotting out the 1st-2nd centuries CE writers' direct or indirect references to Jesus Christ because those whose paradigms do not allow them to consider them as legitimate will shoot them down as irrelevant or too vague, or not this or not that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, good.

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


Ankh, udja, seneb

That depends on the paradigm of the judge and you know it.

Fiddlesticks.

I'll just put you down as a "No".

 

[Akhenaten]

How about no? There is plenty of things in there that could be substantiated by archeological and historiographical evidence but is not.

I don't think we should waste time discussing the things which could be but aren't, rather the things which arguably are.

"We", kemo sabe???

And it's been done to death, the well long-ago poisoned and earth scorched. There is little use in trotting out the 1st-2nd centuries CE writers' direct or indirect references to Jesus Christ because those whose paradigms do not allow them to consider them as legitimate will shoot them down as irrelevant or too vague, or not this or not that.

Your judgement of what is and isn't a useful topic for discussion should be regarded as important because ________________________ ?

 

[Moss]

I don't think we should waste time discussing the things which could be but aren't, rather the things which arguably are.

And it's been done to death, the well long-ago poisoned and earth scorched. There is little use in trotting out the 1st-2nd centuries CE writers' direct or indirect references to Jesus Christ because those whose paradigms do not allow them to consider them as legitimate will shoot them down as irrelevant or too vague, or not this or not that.

Which things "are" then? Frankly your second paragraph seems like an easy dismissal of positions that contradict your paradigm.

 

[OCaptain]

Fiddlesticks.

I'll just put you down as a "No".

Don't put me down for anything. That's pre-judging, and I've never found it wise. Maybe your experience has been different.

 

[OCaptain]

"We", kemo sabe???





Your judgement of what is and isn't a useful topic for discussion should be regarded as important because ________________________ ?

You've forgotten our discussion of archaeology last year, haven't you?

Your challenge presupposes that you are in a position to deny permission to speak or otherwise invalidate a speaker, which is preposterous.

 

[Akhenaten]

Fiddlesticks.

I'll just put you down as a "No".

Don't put me down for anything. That's pre-judging, and I've never found it wise.

Pre-judging would have been marking you down as a "No" before you'd said anything, so I think I've avoided that by making sure my comment came after yours.

Maybe your experience has been different.

No 'maybe' about it.

 

[OCaptain]

Which things "are" then? Frankly your second paragraph seems like an easy dismissal of positions that contradict your paradigm.

And what is my paradigm?

And, I chose my words because the perspectives among some at JREF when it comes to anything with regard to the Ancient Near East (specifically where it touches upon the bible) is quite unique in its aggressiveness. I'd seen and experienced skepticism in the past, of course, but some take it to a different level of near-hatred here.

My observations, of course.

 

[joobz]

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

Hi, OCaptain.

I agree with you that each uses the tools to fortify their own beliefs. But I disagree that these tools are different.

In fact they all amount to the same mechanism: Confirmation Bias.
If one has a preconceived notion and wishes to believe it, one will simply look for things that affirm that belief. Regardless of whether or not those things are rationally sound arguments.

It is for this reason that the scientific method was developed as a tool to counteract this bias. We know this works because of all the things we have learned using it. Things that we can independently verify and experimentally disprove.

When it comes down to the idea of god, it seems that every "hypothesis" that proposed has either been shown to
1.) Not require god or not found god (e.g., diversity of life, bugs from decaying meat, God being in the "heavens"...)
or
2.)be untestable.


In fact, the only positions I see that do not violate this confirmation bias problems are either the Deist position or the atheist position.

 

[Akhenaten]

You've forgotten our discussion of archaeology last year, haven't you?

Probably. But you'll remind me all about it soon enough.

Your challenge presupposes that you are in a position to deny permission to speak or otherwise invalidate a speaker, which is preposterous.

Challenge?

 

[dafydd]

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

The holy babble. If Jesus ever existed then he is buried somewhere. Or his remains are hidden the the vaults of the Vatican. Who remembers Tom Robbin's 'Another Roadside Attraction'?

 

[dafydd]

And what is my paradigm?

And, I chose my words because the perspectives among some at JREF when it comes to anything with regard to the Ancient Near East (specifically where it touches upon the bible) is quite unique in its aggressiveness. I'd seen and experienced skepticism in the past, of course, but some take it to a different level of near-hatred here.

My observations, of course.

Please quote some examples of this near- hatred. I must have missed them. I never seen anything in this forum that comes close to the hatred expressed against atheists by the Christians here.
http://www.allfacebook.com/fox-news-facebook-page-gets-8000-death-threats-2011-08

 

[OCaptain]

Probably. But you'll remind me all about it soon enough.





Challenge?

When you ask someone, in essence, "who are you to speak?", that is nothing but a challenge.

 

[OCaptain]

Please quote some examples of this near- hatred. I must have missed them. I never seen anything in this forum that comes close to the hatred expressed against atheists by the Christians here.
http://www.allfacebook.com/fox-news-facebook-page-gets-8000-death-threats-2011-08

So hatred by atheists to deists is okay because hatred by deists to theists happens?

That's your logic? Can't we move beyond that playground thinking?