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

[DOC]

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.

I never said it was controlled as a Nazi camp. And are you telling me that Pliny the Younger's letter does not demonstrate the utter power these Roman governor's had to execute first and ask their superiors questions later.

And the tone of your quote is quite emotional --very unacademic. Sometimes it seems you purposely instill emotion in your posts for tactical reasons. Your argument should be made with facts and logic, not intense emotion.

 

[Hokulele]

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

Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have both written fairly extensively on the issues of the gospels. I would recommend any of their works.

 

[Mojo]

DOC, a couple of questions you seem to have missed:

Two questions, DOC:

1) Do you consider Christian martyrs to be evidence that Christianity is true?

2) Do you consider Muslim martyrs to be evidence that Islam is true?

Please answer both questions.

 

[zooterkin]

My evidence is common sense.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of 'evidence', which perhaps explains this whole thread.

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.

So, that's a "no" to the question "Can you also provide evidence that anyone was "immediately killed" by the Romans for suggesting that slavery was wrong? ".

 

[paximperium]

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.

So? My Spiderman comic has Barack Obama in it, so is Spiderman real? What nonsense.

 

[paximperium]

I never said it was controlled as a Nazi camp. And are you telling me that Pliny the Younger's letter does not demonstrate the utter power these Roman governor's had to execute first and ask their superiors questions later.

Semantic backtracking from DOC as usual.

No, you implied that the Jewish state was somehow under the complete boot and heel of the Romans like how the Jews were under Nazi Germany. This shows your complete and utter ignorance of history or dishonesty. I'm betting both.

Do you have any evidence of anyone who was killed for speaking out against slavery?

And the tone of your quote is quite emotional --very unacademic.
Sometimes it seems you purposely instill emotion in your posts for tactical reasons. Your argument should be made with facts and logic, not intense emotion.

My tone is due to my complete disgust at the blatant stupidity and dishonesty of your posts. Sorry, but I can't control my scorn directed at how some people make the world so much stupider.

So you don't have anything else to say except for throwing out your dishonest red herring at how you don't like my tone? Of course anyone can notice you not answering any of the questions directed at your lies and nonsense. Not surprising at all.

 

[joobz]

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.

this is, of course, an excellent question and one that has been asked in multiple forms.

DOC has continually excused Jesus' immoral tacit condoning of slavery on the grounds that
1.) It was a different time
2.) He would have been killed
3.) People were better off.

YET:
1.) If GOD liked it then, why doesn't he like it now?
2.) Jesus was going to be killed anyway, Why not die for moral reasons?
3.) People in come parts could also be "better off" on similar grounds today? Why not approve of slavery today?

Nope. there is no good reason for this. Jesus accepted slavery as a way of life, meaning that god accepted it as a way of life.

If Jesus is god and god is real, then he's an immoral SOB.

 

[six7s]

Ya got any worthwhile, rational, compelling or even mildly interesting evidence?

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

Bollocks

Posting the same hackneyed crap ad nauseam is trollish

If you would actually read (rather than merely quote) my question, you'd notice that I, having been fobbed off in the past, have added a subtle qualifier that - armed merely with nonsensical conjecture - you unsurprisingly fail to meet

For the hard-of-thinking, emphasis added:

Ya got any worthwhile, rational, compelling or even mildly interesting evidence?​

 

[babbits]

X, I have read your post again, and saying that I missed something is putting it mildly. I totally misinterpreted it!

And I feel quite foolish. Actually you did what you set out to do quite cleverly.

But it's partly Doc's fault. If he hadn't capitalized the x, it wouldn't have seemed to refer to you!

No, really. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I was driven to distraction by the ducking and weaving that Doc is doing. His idea of dealing with our questions is to simply re-quote the same source, even without any further analysis, OVERANDOVERANDOVER.

But that's no excuse, either, because all we have to do is leave the room, and leave Doc talking to himself.

 

[DOC]

Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have both written fairly extensively on the issues of the gospels. I would recommend any of their works.

So it stands you don't have a source for your comment about most scholars not having faith in the historical accurracy of the bible regarding Pontius Pilate.

 

[DOC]

Two questions, DOC:

1) Do you consider Christian martyrs to be evidence that Christianity is true?

2) Do you consider Muslim martyrs to be evidence that Islam is true?

Please answer both questions.

As I stated before, 11 of 12 apostles going from exhibiting cowardice and uncertainty before Christ's death to on fire martyrs definitely adds weight to the Resurrection account.

Modern Muslim martyrs are different because for one they never knew Mohammed, and they never saw him getting executed like the apostles knew Christ was executed. They never exhibited cowardice or uncertainty like the apostles. And some of the reasons for their martyrdom has to do with cultural, historical, and nationalism reasons. So the circumstances are substantially different.

 

[DOC]

Too bad that book is opinion and not evidence.

As I stated, the ten reasons Geisler gives deal mostly with facts. Name all of the 10 reasons you think are opinions and not based on logical analysis of the facts.

 

[DOC]

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.

That schism is not an opinion it's a cold fact. IT's a cold fact that shows the authors are not pretending everything is smooth in the early church, there telling it like it is (blemishes and all) which adds to their credibility and is cold evidence for a belief that the NT writers told the truth.

 

[joobz]

As I stated, the ten reasons Geisler gives deal mostly with facts. Name all of the 10 reasons you think are opinions and not based on logical analysis of the facts.

Nope. People can see this after reading page one. no reason to repeat myself here.

 

[joobz]

That schism is not an opinion it's a cold fact. IT's a cold fact that shows the authors are not pretending everything is smooth in the early church, there telling it like it is (blemishes and all) which adds to their credibility and is cold evidence for a belief that the NT writers told the truth.

Is one of those blemishes the fact that Jesus condoned slavery?

And DOC, hok isn't saying the disagreement didn't happen. She said that it isn't necessarily embarressing for the disagreement to be embarassing.

 

[Mojo]

As I stated before, 11 of 12 apostles going from exhibiting cowardice and uncertainty before Christ's death to on fire martyrs definitely adds weight to the Resurrection account.

Modern Muslim martyrs are different because for one they never knew Mohammed, and they never saw him getting executed like the apostles knew Christ was executed. They never exhibited cowardice or uncertainty like the apostles. And some of the reasons for their martyrdom has to do with cultural, historical, and nationalism reasons. So the circumstances are substantially different.

So, do you accept that martyrs for religions other than Christianity are evidence that those religions are true?

 

[DOC]

Nope. People can see this after reading page one. no reason to repeat myself here.

All facts in the 10 reasons, plain and simple.

 

[DOC]

Is one of those blemishes the fact that Jesus condoned slavery

I don't believe you ever answered why some slaves embraced Christianity, including one slave who was the leader of a group of 48 Christians who were martyred in Lyon, which was in the Roman Empire. You're complaining about slavery and Christianity when at least one slave was dying for her faith in Christianity.

From wiki on the slave "Blandina"

"Among these Christians was Blandina, a slave, who had been taken into custody along with her master, also a Christian. Her companions greatly feared that on account of her bodily frailty she might not remain steadfast under torture. But although the legate caused her to be tortured in a horrible manner, so that even the executioners became exhausted "as they did not know what more they could do to her", still she remained faithful and repeated to every question "I am a Christian, and we commit no wrongdoing."

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

The above example is just another example of the danger of being a Christian in the Roman empire.

 

[DOC]

So, do you accept that martyrs for religions other than Christianity are evidence that those religions are true?

NO, but I still maintain the 11 of 12 apostles being martyred adds weight to the Resurrrection account, for reasons I have given.

 

[Magyar]

NO, but I still maintain the 11 of 12 apostles being martyred adds weight to the Resurrrection account, for reasons I have given.

WOW, FOURTY SEVEN PAGES and what we end up with is

I believe MY delusions are better than other peoples delusions as "evidence" and that is ALL I've got.

How revealing.