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

[Mojo]

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.

So what is your problem with the statement:

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.

 

[X]

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

You beat me to it.

The problem with Geisler is not the events he discusses, but his interpretation of those events. Labeling something "embarrassing" or "demanding" or "an abandonment of beliefs" is pure opinion. Not fact. And as such, is completely worthless as evidence.

So what is your problem with the statement:

I've been wondering the same thing. I think his problem is that it makes his argument sound stupid.

 

[joobz]

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.

I don't remember seeing this question.
But to answer it, Cristianity doesn't hate slaves, merely says they should remember thier place.

NOw, can you show me where jesus said slavery is wrong? He made a point to say that tax evasion is wrong, blasphemy is wrong, disobeying your parents is wrong. That we should spread the word. But never did he say that spreading the word included denouncing slavery.

Sorry. Jesus was ammoral when it came to slave issues.

 

[joobz]

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

Do we have first hand accounts from them that
1.) They saw the resurrection?
2.) first hand accounts from witnesses that they were martyred?

BTW, your unwillingness to accept martyrdom for other faiths as evidence of truth is tantamount to you admitting that martyrdom is not evidence for the truth of faith.

As such, your continual use of it here is duplicitous.

 

[joobz]

All facts in the 10 reasons, plain and simple.

This is a non response. Sincerely, your arguments have become worse since you started relying on Gielser.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Do we have first hand accounts from them that
1.) They saw the resurrection?
2.) they were martyred?

BTW, your unwillingness to accept martyrdom for other faiths as evidence of truth is tantamount to you admitting that martyrdom is not evidence for the truth of faith.

As such, your continual use of it here is duplicitous.

>>nitpick<< Wouldn't it be hard to give a first-hand account of your own martyrdom? <<nitpick>>

 

[joobz]

>>nitpick<< Wouldn't it be hard to give a first-hand account of your own martyrdom? <<nitpick>>

fixed it!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have to remember that Josephus (a former Jewish general in an army crushed by the Romans) was in the hip pocket of the Roman elite and owed them a lot. It doesn't really make sense to build up and advertise a threat to the Roman empire and the Roman gods. It is logical to assume this would not make Josephus' Roman superiors happy.

And why then not write about Jesus the fraud? I find your reasoning plausible but flawed and not sufficient to explain the total lack of supporting evidence for a real Jesus.

 

[Cactus Wren]

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.

Very good, DOC. Now quote the part where the only source for Blandina's legend -- the only source that states she even existed in the first place -- is that famous inventor of martyr-stories, Eusebius, the guy who originated the tradition of "holy lying".

 

[DOC]

And why then not write about Jesus the fraud?.

He probably didn't have evidence that Jesus was a fraud. It is logical to assume the best thing for Josephus and his Roman superiors to do was to downplay Jesus. Mention him once or twice-- which is what Josephus did. This kind of thing happens all the time in a dictatorship. We know how the ex Soviet Union hardly put out any information to the rest of the world. History is written by the winners, and the Roman Empire was the winners at the time of Jesus.

 

[DOC]

Very good, DOC. Now quote the part where the only source for Blandina's legend -- the only source that states she even existed in the first place -- is that famous inventor of martyr-stories, Eusebius, the guy who originated the tradition of "holy lying".

And what is your source for this?

 

[joobz]

He probably didn't have evidence that Jesus was a fraud. It is logical to assume the best thing for Josephus and his Roman superiors to do was to downplay Jesus. Mention him once or twice-- which is what Josephus did. This kind of thing happens all the time in a dictatorship. We know how the ex Soviet Union hardly put out any information to the rest of the world. History is written by the winners, and the Roman Empire was the winners at the time of Jesus.

So, to summarize your point
1.) Josephus didn't write negatively of jesus, because there was no evidence for it.
2.) Josephus didn't write positvely of jesus, because he was pleasing the roman rulers.

This may be true. Do you have evidence for it?

How can you tell the difference between that and say the following explanation:
3.) Josephus wrote what he knew of jesus that a group of people called christians believed he lived, died and rose from the dead. A simple summary of christian beliefs.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

In around 177 AD, so she wasn't an eyewitness to any of the events in the New Testament. What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

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

No-one is denying that Christians were persecuted at certain times in certain places by the Romans. We can still question the details of certain specific examples.

Have you found the evidence to support your assertion that speaking out against slavery would cause someone to be "immediately killed"?

 

[babbits]

Doc said " .... I don't believe you ever answered why some slaves embraced Christianity... You're complaining about slavery and Christianity when at least one slave was dying for her faith in Christianity."

Where's the contradiction? Christianity promised the lowest classes, even slaves, a shot at eternal life. Mediterranean cultures (Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Sumerian e.g.) had talked of kings, queens and heros who became gods (were immortal) but the afterlife was grim (shades in hades ) or non-existent for everyone else. In Ephesians, the New testament says:
"All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

That's why some slaves turned to Christianity.

What we have been saying is that Jesus spoke out against many things: greedy moneychangers, child molesters (and the Roman emperors were infamous for that crime) , faithless people, etc., but he is not recorded as speaking out against slavery. Not once. Ever.

You may invent reasons all you like. He feared the Romans, whatever. If you believe that, you throw doubt upon Christ's divinity. If you believe Jesus chose to come to earth and be born as a human and then to die to save our souls, why should he fear death?

According to the testaments he did not fear death. Why should the god of the universe fear the Romans?

All that does is display your lack of integrity.

 

[AWPrime]

In short, christianity doesn't speak against slavery because slaves make some of the very best believers.

 

[Hokulele]

This kind of thing happens all the time in a dictatorship. We know how the ex Soviet Union hardly put out any information to the rest of the world.

What? The Soviet Union was a dictatorship? They hardly put out any information? Have you never read Pravda back in the 70's and 80's?

Your understanding of history seems to equal Geisler's grasp of logic.

 

[Mojo]

In around 177 AD, so she wasn't an eyewitness to any of the events in the New Testament.

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't 160 years old when she was martyred? Well do you?

Didn't think so.









Don't know what came over me...

 

[DOC]

In around 177 AD, so she {the slave girl "Blandina"} wasn't an eyewitness to any of the events in the New Testament. What does this have to do with the topic of this thread

You must have missed the 8 to 12 times Joobz brought up slavery in here. I'm pointing out how some slaves at that time embraced Christianity. Funny how not one person other than myself has ever complained to Joobz for being off topic with his slavery obssession even though I would estimate he has brought it up at least 25 times in various threads. I've responded to his issue at least 10 times with various responses. But my best response I feel can be summed up with 4 people: The Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Reverend Al Sharpton. The bible's dealing with slavery doesn't seem to bother them, probably because they see the big picture with regard to the Bible.

This will be my last post in this thread regarding slavery, unless I find some new info on slaves during biblical times.

 

[joobz]

You must have missed the 8 to 12 times Joobz brought up slavery in here. I'm pointing out how some slaves at that time embraced Christianity. Funny how not one person other than myself has ever complained to Joobz for being off topic with his slavery obssession even though I would estimate he has brought it up at least 25 times in various threads.

Do you really beleive it off topic? I think it's a clear difficulty for christianity and one that completely contradicts any truth claims of the bible.

I've responded to his issue at least 10 times with various responses.

responded is not the same as refuting.

But my best response I feel can be summed up with 4 people: The Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Reverend Al Sharpton. The bible's dealing with slavery doesn't seem to bother them, probably because they see the big picture with regard to the Bible.

And I asked before: Why do you think the opinion of 4 black men hold special sway in interpretations of the bible?

This will be my last post in this thread regarding slavery, unless I find some new info on slaves during biblical times.

In other words, You can't explain why Jesus condoned slavery.
You can't explain why god in the bible permitted slavery.
Yet you believe that this god "true" is against slavery.

If god's morality isn't absolute, the how is it any different from a moral relativist view?

 

[DOC]

What? The Soviet Union was a dictatorship? They hardly put out any information? Have you never read Pravda back in the 70's and 80's?

Your understanding of history seems to equal Geisler's grasp of logic.

It's common knowledge that the Soviets gave very little info to the rest of the world regarding their affairs. They wouldn't even report the illnesses or deaths of top leaders right away. You must not have lived during that time like I did.