Religious

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I dedicate this to you, Mr. Actor.

http://www.gotquestions.org/QOTW.htm

This brings us to the subject of the truthfulness of the New Testament. No other work of antiquity has more evidence to its historical veracity than the New Testament.

Wrong! As I have pointed out time and again there is absolutely nothing outside Christian propaganda that verifies the New Testament.

Boxcar made this same claim and I challenged him to produce evidence. So far he has produced nothing.

The New Testament has more writers (nine), ...

Really? Let's not forget we are not talking about one document here, but 27. That's an average of 3 per writer. Not really all that prolific. So what? Does Gotquestions really want to base their argument on volume of output.

... better writers, ...

Really? By what standard? Certainly none of them was a Shakespeare or a Plato or a Virgil. Again, so what? Are you going to base your case on the writing talents of your founders?

... and earlier writers ...

Bullshit! As I've repeatedly pointed out the dates are: Mark..70 C.E., Matthew & Luke..80 C.E., John..100 C.E. Even these date are giving too much credit to the apologists. May scholars date them as late as the late second century. The earliest known fragment is a piece of papyrus about the size of the cross section of a 2x4 which has been dated to 117 C.E. at the earliest.

... than any other document from that era. Further, history testifies ...

Wrong! History testifies to no such thing. It all comes from scripture, from Christian propaganda.

... that these writers went to their deaths claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. While some may die for a lie they think is true, no person dies for a lie he knows to be false. Think about it—if someone was about to crucify you upside down, as happened to the apostle Peter, and all you had to do to save your life was renounce a lie you had knowingly told, what would you do?

There is no evidence outside Christian propaganda that this ever happened. The only secular record of of such a thing is from Pliny the Younger who reported that they all renounced their faith when given the choice. I doubt that the ones that Nero sent to the arena for allegedly starting the great fire were given that choice.

In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter a historical account.

Wrong again! Joseph Smith convinced thousands in about a decade. The Rebbe has been dead for less than a generation and thousands think he was/is the Messiah. And, of course, let's not overlook L. Ron Hubbard.

That’s because, as long as there are eyewitnesses to an event, errors can be refuted and mythical embellishments can be exposed.

But they are not. Charlatans are very careful to cover all the bases. Look up James Randi's experience with Peter Popoff.

All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, ...

No, they were not. See above.

... with some of Paul’s Epistles being written as early as A.D. 50. Paul directly appeals to contemporary eyewitnesses to verify his testimony (1 Corinthians 15:6).

1 Cor 15:6 "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." In other words one claimant says there are 500 others who will verify his story. But he never produces any of them. The NT does not even claim that he produced any one of them. It just says he said they existed. This is so flimsy! It's hard to believe anyone buys this argument.

If dying-and-rising gods were plentiful in the first century, why, when the apostle Paul preached Jesus rising from the dead, did the Epicureans and Stoics not remark, “Ah, just like Horus and Mithras”?

Who says they did not? If they did then Christian propaganda would not be likely to report it.

In conclusion, the claim that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated with authors whose works have been discounted by academia, ...

What academia? Some supporters of the Christ Myth Theory are academics, e.g., Robert M. Price.

... contain logical fallacies, ...

No, they do not. I'll address that in another post.

... and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels, which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny.

During most of that 2000 year history you would be burned at the stake for intensely scrutinizing the Bible. Google the Spanish Inquisition. Google Heresy. Google William Tyndale.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong! As I have pointed out time and again there is absolutely nothing outside Christian propaganda that verifies the New Testament.

Boxcar made this same claim and I challenged him to produce evidence. So far he has produced nothing.

Really? Let's not forget we are not talking about one document here, but 27. That's an average of 3 per writer. Not really all that prolific. So what? Does Gotquestions really want to base their argument on volume of output.

Really? By what standard? Certainly none of them was a Shakespeare or a Plato or a Virgil. Again, so what? Are you going to base your case on the writing talents of your founders?

Bullshit! As I've repeatedly pointed out the dates are: Mark..70 C.E., Matthew & Luke..80 C.E., John..100 C.E. Even these date are giving too much credit to the apologists. May scholars date them as late as the late second century. The earliest known fragment is a piece of papyrus about the size of the cross section of a 2x4 which has been dated to 117 C.E. at the earliest.

Wrong! History testifies to no such thing. It all comes from scripture, from Christian propaganda.

There is no evidence outside Christian propaganda that this ever happened. The only secular record of of such a thing is from Pliny the Younger who reported that they all renounced their faith when given the choice. I doubt that the ones that Nero sent to the arena for allegedly starting the great fire were given that choice.

Wrong again! Joseph Smith convinced thousands in about a decade. The Rebbe has been dead for less than a generation and thousands think he was/is the Messiah. And, of course, let's not overlook L. Ron Hubbard.

But they are not. Charlatans are very careful to cover all the bases. Look up James Randi's experience with Peter Popoff.

No, they were not. See above.

1 Cor 15:6 "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." In other words one claimant says there are 500 others who will verify his story. But he never produces any of them. The NT does not even claim that he produced any one of them. It just says he said they existed. This is so flimsy! It's hard to believe anyone buys this argument.

Who says they did not? If they did then Christian propaganda would not be likely to report it.

What academia? Some supporters of the Christ Myth Theory are academics, e.g., Robert M. Price.

No, they do not. I'll address that in another post.

During most of that 2000 year history you would be burned at the stake for intensely scrutinizing the Bible. Google the Spanish Inquisition. Google Heresy. Google William Tyndale.

Sure I have produced evidence for verification of the NT. It's the part of the bible called the OT. The latter predicted the former; while the former fulfilled the latter.

I have also proved many times on this forum, generally, but in this thread particularly that both the OT and the NT are internally consistent with each other. You nor anyone else here has produced anything that even remotely hints at a contradiction. Yes, there are minor copyist errors (variations of spellings of names, numbers, etc.) but not one error of substance pertaining to matters of Faith or Practice. I don't believe there is a work in antiquity the size of the bible that can make this claim. The last guy who thought he saw a bogeyman and nailed down a bona fide contradictin was Mr. Halvs with the repentant thief who did not repent. If you want to study stark contrasts between religious works of antiquity look at the Quaran. It's nothing but a work of of disjointed, disconnected, unrelated passages, having no central theme -- very much unlike the bible.

All the theories pertaining to the Christ that he was but a mere copycat of a slew of other religious figures (mythical or real) don't hold a drop of water.

If you have any questions for Got Questions or question their scholarship, feel free to contact them. This is what they do. And they do a pretty darn good job of it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sure I have produced evidence for verification of the NT. It's the part of the bible called the OT. The latter predicted the former; while the former fulfilled the latter.

Circulus in probando!

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have also proved many times on this forum, generally, but in this thread particularly that both the OT and the NT are internally consistent with each other.

What you produce are excuses. No matter how contradictory you can always produce an excuse.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, there are minor copyist errors (variations of spellings of names, numbers, etc.) but not one error of substance pertaining to matters of Faith or Practice.

This is your big excuse. No matter what you can shout "Faith or Practice" and it fits your definition which you change at will.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Circulus in probando!

What you produce are excuses. No matter how contradictory you can always produce an excuse.

This is your big excuse. No matter what you can shout "Faith or Practice" and it fits your definition which you change at will.

No excuse -- just facts, ma'am,

And what in the world do you mean by "how" contradictory? Are there degrees of contradictions -- like degrees of murder, perhaps?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you have any questions for Got Questions or question their scholarship, feel free to contact them. This is what they do. And they do a pretty darn good job of it.

How am I supposed to contact them? It says they do not answer emails. The have no forum. They obviously are not going to address any opinion that conflicts with their own. What they do is disseminate propaganda.

You posted the link. You handle the debate.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what in the world do you mean by "how" contradictory? Are there degrees of contradictions -- like degrees of murder, perhaps?

Ok. It's Boolean.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How am I supposed to contact them? It says they do not answer emails. The have no forum. They obviously are not going to address any opinion that conflicts with their own. What they do is disseminate propaganda.

You posted the link. You handle the debate.

Are you serious? They don't have a forum? They don't answer emails? If you're so inept and so inefficient at finding your way around the Web, how do you think anyone will take your lame theories seriously or even take the links you post seriously?

http://www.gotquestions.org/welcome.html

Make sure you take the time to scroll all the way down to the bottom if you want to contact them.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ok. It's Boolean.

Oh...so something can be more contradictory or less contradictory?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

How am I supposed to contact them? It says they do not answer emails. The have no forum. They obviously are not going to address any opinion that conflicts with their own. What they do is disseminate propaganda.

You posted the link. You handle the debate.

Yes Actor, he is being unfair. He is telling you to do what he himself refused to do.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Make sure you take the time to scroll all the way down to the bottom if you want to contact them.

All the way to the bottom.

© Copyright 2002-2016 Got Questions Ministries - All Rights Reserved.
www.gotquestions.org - Bible Questions Answered - Site Map

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...so something can be more contradictory or less contradictory?

Look up the definition of Boolean.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...so something can be more contradictory or less contradictory?

Depends.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Depends.

On what?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

On what?

On whether it's crisp or fuzzy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

On whether it's crisp or fuzzy.

Or scaly or furry. Or creepy or crawly.