Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

Can you also provide evidence that anyone was "immediately killed" by the Romans for suggesting that slavery was wrong?

My evidence is common sense. You don't admit to being a Jew at a 1940 Nazi meeting and complain about force Jewish labor camps if you value your life.

You seem to think that the Romans were just good ol boys who were interested in the good of all. People were getting crucified back then for things like theft. And the Romans allowed Jesus to be crucified even though they thought he was innocent. You don't challenge the ways of a conquering army (in an open way) if you value your life.

And Jesus' main priority was eternal matters, not the things of Caesar. Jesus' way wins in the end as Christianity became the main religion of the Roman Empire. And the Greek and Roman gods ended up on the ash heap of history.

 

[Hokulele]

So you have no evidence.

Got it.

 

[DOC]

Too bad that book is opinion and not evidence.

There is not one opinion in all 10 reasons Geisler gives. There all cold facts.

 

[Hokulele]

There is not one opinion in all 10 reasons Geisler gives. There all cold facts.

Sure they are. As just one example, Geisler uses the schism in the early church between those who believe that Jesus' message is only for the Jews and those who believe it also applies to the Gentiles is "embarrassing". How could this be anything but opinion? I am sure all participants in that debate weren't "embarrassed" by their respective stances.

 

[paximperium]

My evidence is common sense. You don't admit to being a Jew at a 1940 Nazi meeting and complain about force Jewish labor camps if you value your life.

What complete and utter nonsense. The Jewish State was not being controlled as a Nazi camp; it was a controlled nation and the Romans did not have a free hand to kill anyone they pleased. You stating otherwise is a disgusting and shows your ignorance of the times.

You seem to think that the Romans were just good ol boys who were interested in the good of all. People were getting crucified back then for things like theft.

So? Was Jesus a coward?

And the Romans allowed Jesus to be crucified even though they thought he was innocent.

Do you have any evidence of this? No?

You don't challenge the ways of a conquering army (in an open way) if you value your life.

The Jews did a few years later...didn't they smack the Romans and beat their legions? So a bunch of Jews accomplished more against the Romans then you messiah?

And Jesus' main priority was eternal matters, not the things of Caesar.

Ahhhh, so who cares about the slaves suffering in the current world, Jesus just cares about them when they're dead. What a pathetic excuse for a savior.

Jesus' way wins in the end as Christianity became the main religion of the Roman Empire. And the Greek and Roman gods ended up on the ash heap of history.

So still waiting for any evidence that Jesus gave a damn about the slaves...still waiting.

 

[zooterkin]

My evidence is common sense. You don't admit to being a Jew at a 1940 Nazi meeting and complain about force Jewish labor camps if you value your life.

Argument from incredulity, or argument from ignorance? I'm about to call "house" either way.

You seem to think that the Romans were just good ol boys who were interested in the good of all. People were getting crucified back then for things like theft. And the Romans allowed Jesus to be crucified even though they thought he was innocent. You don't challenge the ways of a conquering army (in an open way) if you value your life.

So, no evidence. Why am I not surprised?

In 19th century England, people were being hanged for things like theft. They were not hanged for speaking out against slavery. Unless you have evidence otherwise, the two things are not connected.

And Jesus' main priority was eternal matters, not the things of Caesar. Jesus' way wins in the end as Christianity became the main religion of the Roman Empire. And the Greek and Roman gods ended up on the ash heap of history.

Argumentum ad populum.

HOUSE!

 

[joobz]

My evidence is common sense.

If I may ask...evidence for what?
The title of the thread is Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Yet you also have said that you are attempting to prove christianity true.

Now, I will assume that you aren't intentionally being semantically dishonest by claiming that providing evidence isn't the same thing as trying to prove something.

In which case we are left with the question, "what situation would fit both statements, That the bible writers told the truth and that this doesn't prove christianity?"

The only one I can think of is that the bible writers wrote what they THOUGHT was the truth and that this doesn't mean that it is true. If this is your point, then I fully agree.

You seem to think that the Romans were just good ol boys who were interested in the good of all. People were getting crucified back then for things like theft. And the Romans allowed Jesus to be crucified even though they thought he was innocent. You don't challenge the ways of a conquering army (in an open way) if you value your life.

You seem to think that Jesus was a good ol boy who was interested in the good of all. Except he never lifted a finger to end slavery.

And Jesus' main priority was eternal matters, not the things of Caesar. Jesus' way wins in the end as Christianity became the main religion of the Roman Empire. And the Greek and Roman gods ended up on the ash heap of history.

So slavery wasn't an important issue to god?
thank you for providing evidence (proving) that god is immoral.

 

[X]

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?

Fair point.

I apologize for my diversion and retract my questions.

 

[Fordama]

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

One time, in college, I took a girl home, but I was too drunk to finish "the act."

Please email me your bank account information because I will double everything you have in just a few days and make both of us rich. You can believe me because I told you that one time in college I was too drunk to screw, and that was very embarrassing.

Fordama

 

[babbits]

Doc said, "I never said this fact in and of itself proves the truth of Christianity, but it makes one wonder what was the driving force behind the movement."

Well that's a lot of waffling. Adding "in and of itself" for example, trying to create some wriggle room.

This is what you quoted in your first post, as "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth".

Not "why we think we know" or "why we're quite sure". No. "Why we know."

"Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death."

Now you claim that what you really meant was " it makes one wonder what was the driving force behind the movement [Christianity]."

Doesn't speak well for your integrity, Doc.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

All this pointless back and forth is precisely why I am an Agnostic. It is possible to sway an opinion with words but ultimately they Prove nothing. All I have to rely on is my own Gnosis which is limited and Observable and Repeatable Experimentation (Science, which is the only way to prove anything).

Having said that, I think that the worlds Mystery Schools of Religion are at least Pointing in the right direction. Quantum Physics and Fractal/Complexity Theory (or whatever it's currently called) seem to be pointing that direction too.

But really the 10 principles at the beginning of this thread don't "Prove" one dang thing.

 

[politas]

Hokulele nailed it in post #3. Why has this thread gone on for 46 pages?

 

[DOC]

...Why has this thread gone on for 46 pages?

Norman Geisler has given us 46 pages of ammunition.

 

[joobz]

Norman Geisler has given us 46 pages of ammunition.

Actually, norman geisler provided us with lame slow moving targets.

 

[DOC]

And the Romans allowed Jesus to be crucified even though they thought he was innocent.

Do you have any evidence of this? No?

From Wiki on the Roman prefect "Pontius Pilate":

"Pilate appears in all four canonical Christian Gospels. Mark, demonstrating Jesus to be innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish hierarchy for his death, even though he was the sole authority for this action.[1] In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.[1] In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonous in Jesus' actions.[1]"

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

ETA: And we know how highly detailed and accurate Luke was with the facts as shown earlier in the thread.

 

[Hokulele]

From Wiki on the Roman prefect "Pontius Pilate":

"Pilate appears in all four canonical Christian Gospels. Mark, demonstrating Jesus to be innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish hierarchy for his death, even though he was the sole authority for this action.[1] In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.[1] In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonous in Jesus' actions.[1]"

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

ETA: And we know how highly detailed and accurate Luke and John were with the facts as shown earlier in the thread.

Most scholars see this as the beginnings of anti-Semitism rather than any type of historical accuracy.

And if the gospels are really all that accurate, did Herod really order the execution of all male infants in Bethlehem, or did Matthew just make that bit up?

 

[wollery]

Actually, norman geisler provided us with lame slow moving targets.

Moving?

 

[Elizabeth I]

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.

Gosh, so here we are back again: are the pre-teen girls sold into sexual slavery by their families "better off" than the "poor free people"? After all, if it was good enough 4,000 years ago, why should we balk at it now?

It's a "yes" or "no" question. Please answer it.

 

[Hokulele]

Moving?

I am pretty sure I saw some goalposts wandering around in this thread.

 

[DOC]

Most scholars see this as the beginnings of anti-Semitism rather than any type of historical accuracy.

What is your source that most scholars see this as the beginnings of anti-Semitism rather than any type of historical accuracy?