Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
As I've stated before I'm glad Jesus didn't, because then Jesus would have been immediately killed for revolting against the Roman Empire in which slavery was just a normal part of the culture and the economy and that would have been the end of Christianity. Some things take time to remedy. That's probably why Jesus told the apostles he didn't tell them everything because some things were more than they could bear.
And nowhere does Jesus speak against crucifying people for minor offenses like theft which was happening in the Empire -- Does that mean, he approved of the practice.
Nowhere does Jesus speak against Rome attacking and occupying the land of the Jews. Does that mean he approved of the practice.
Last edited:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Yet, according to the bible story, Jesus WAS killed for his beliefs and his "rocking the boat" ways. Why couldn't he have said while on the cross, "Slavery is bad!"
Good point. If your historical statement is true (which I do not have confidence that it is), Why didn't he?
At least he didn't give any parable of the crucified or any other such nonsense. Instead, he gave slave stories as a moral teaching tool. Kind of ironic.
Actually, not only did he not speak against it, he seemed to be for it. He acknowledged Jews were Roman subjects. You know, "Give Unto Cesear..."
ETA:
DOC, are you sure you are christian? You don't seem to know that much about the bible.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Can you confirm that you understand that slavery was not an invention of the Romans, and that the Jews kept slaves and had rules, in the Bible, about doing so long before the Romans conquered them?
Can you also provide evidence that anyone was "immediately killed" by the Romans for suggesting that slavery was wrong?
Doc said: "So then I would assume it is your position that the black civil rights activists -- the Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Reverend Al Sharpton (not to mention President Obama) were wrong to embrace Christianity. "
No, it's just that the Christianity they embraced was not what Jesus taught.
Christianity has been so transformed, split by endless schisms, that there is no counterpart on earth today of the religion started by a failed pretender to the title of 'messiah', namely Jesus. The first splits happened before Jesus' body was cold. Peter, who wanted to stay with the Jewish roots of Christianity, was defeated by Paul, who was clever enough to realize that Peter's version of things was bound to fail. Jesus was no messiah and the Jews knew it.
But there were fertile fields for new converts in the rest of the Roman empire, especially among the dispossessed, even the slaves. It is to those humble people that the notion of someone born poor, then later abandoned by the Jews and slaughtered by the Romans, was in fact a deity; and that all of them, like the thieves by the cross, could enjoy an eternity of bliss if only they BELIEVED!
Before that time, it was pretty well accepted that the high-born could become eternal: the Egyptian kings, Alexander the Great, various Roman emperors. Those could become gods! But a poor man? Never!
But over the centuries, humanitarian values have insinuated their way into Christianity. And don't imagine this was easy! When doctors began to use anesthetics in the 19th century during surgery and in childbirth, many Christian leaders thundered from the pulpit that this would deprive god of the screams of the suffering, since it was god's will that they suffer for their sins. And the resistance was stubborn and long. The last to go was the resistance to using anesthetic during childbirth, because of the O.T. statement ""I will greatly increase your suffering and your pregnancy; in pain shall you bear children."
Nice.
Same with slavery. More pulpit thunderings. Slavery was the will of god. Sons of Ham. The O.T. tells you how to treat your slaves in Genesis: "20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. ". And "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."
Cute.
No, it's just that the Christianity they embraced was not what Jesus taught.
Christianity has been so transformed, split by endless schisms, that there is no counterpart on earth today of the religion started by a failed pretender to the title of 'messiah', namely Jesus. The first splits happened before Jesus' body was cold. Peter, who wanted to stay with the Jewish roots of Christianity, was defeated by Paul, who was clever enough to realize that Peter's version of things was bound to fail. Jesus was no messiah and the Jews knew it.
But there were fertile fields for new converts in the rest of the Roman empire, especially among the dispossessed, even the slaves. It is to those humble people that the notion of someone born poor, then later abandoned by the Jews and slaughtered by the Romans, was in fact a deity; and that all of them, like the thieves by the cross, could enjoy an eternity of bliss if only they BELIEVED!
Before that time, it was pretty well accepted that the high-born could become eternal: the Egyptian kings, Alexander the Great, various Roman emperors. Those could become gods! But a poor man? Never!
But over the centuries, humanitarian values have insinuated their way into Christianity. And don't imagine this was easy! When doctors began to use anesthetics in the 19th century during surgery and in childbirth, many Christian leaders thundered from the pulpit that this would deprive god of the screams of the suffering, since it was god's will that they suffer for their sins. And the resistance was stubborn and long. The last to go was the resistance to using anesthetic during childbirth, because of the O.T. statement ""I will greatly increase your suffering and your pregnancy; in pain shall you bear children."
Nice.
Same with slavery. More pulpit thunderings. Slavery was the will of god. Sons of Ham. The O.T. tells you how to treat your slaves in Genesis: "20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. ". And "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."
Cute.
Last edited:
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Read my post again. It seems that you missed some of the meaning.
I was trying to parse out DOC's point.
He keeps pointing to Christian Martyrs as evidence of the truth of Christianity, but does not accept martyrs of other religions as proof of the veracity of those religions.
Thus, DOC is implicitly (not explicitly) saying that Christian martyrs prove Christianity is true, but other martyrs do not prove other religions to be true.
This, of course, is not exactly a stellar example of logic. In fact, it is a fallacy. "Special Pleading", to be precise.
That is what I was pointing out.
Please don't feel my comment was directed at you. It was a general observation. I just quoted you because I was rather tickled by your comment. I know it's childish, but sometimes I can't resist poking my nose in when someone uses "X" as a generalization.
Read my post again. It seems that you missed some of the meaning.
I was trying to parse out DOC's point.
He keeps pointing to Christian Martyrs as evidence of the truth of Christianity, but does not accept martyrs of other religions as proof of the veracity of those religions.
Thus, DOC is implicitly (not explicitly) saying that Christian martyrs prove Christianity is true, but other martyrs do not prove other religions to be true.
This, of course, is not exactly a stellar example of logic. In fact, it is a fallacy. "Special Pleading", to be precise.
That is what I was pointing out.
Please don't feel my comment was directed at you. It was a general observation. I just quoted you because I was rather tickled by your comment. I know it's childish, but sometimes I can't resist poking my nose in when someone uses "X" as a generalization.
You "lose credibility" when you keep misrepresenting my position. I've already corrected you once on your strawman.
Your following statement is false. If you do it again it's a lie.
Thus, DOC is implicitly (not explicitly) saying that Christian martyrs prove Christianity is true, but other martyrs do not prove other religions to be true.
Yes, I know the Jews had slaves. I also know the Jews themselves were slaves for 400 years in Egypt and Babylon. Slavery was just a part of life back then. There was no welfare state, no gov't assistance. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. And if there was no work available, you were better off being a slave and not starving to death. Slavery also might have instilled some social order, since having thousands of unemployed hungry people roaming desert areas is not conducive to social order.
Some people in here want to transport our modern post industrial age concept of slavery to a very different culture and economy not so much because they care about slavery but for cold tactical reasons in a debate.
And I"ve already gave a excerpt from a book, how many slaves were better off than the poor free people back then.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
If for no other reason that I want DOC to actually supply some "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth", I'll jump in here and point out that it's not necessary to explain/defend/etc why/how slavery back then "wouldn't have worked " if the slaves were paid in cash or whatever... it's enough that the system (obviously) worked (and worked quite sustainably) without cash payments
Now...
DOC...
Ya got any worthwhile, rational, compelling or even mildly interesting evidence?
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Good, I'm glad you understand that it wasn't the Romans who introduced slavery to the region, and it wasn't something imposed by them. So that by not speaking out, Jesus was implicitly condoning slavery as it was an accepted part of his culture.
Could you now reply to my other question, which you appear to have overlooked?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
For the third or fourth time, here is my answer. If you don't like my answer so be it. Anymore asking the same question is trollish.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...r+10+reasons&client=firefox-a&hl=en#PPA275,M1
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
No. People asking you a direct question and you providing an pile of opinions, logical fallacies and nonsense from one of the worst and stupidest apologist that ever existed.
It is called dodging the question.
It is a simple sign that you don't have the evidence you claim you have. Either own up to that fact or stop claiming that you have some world shattering evidence that doesn't exist except in your little fantasy world.
- Status