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

[DOC]

To Hokulele, you should retract your statement that most scholars do not believe in the accuracy of the biblical accounts of Pontius Pilate's actions since you haven't been able to produce a source for that statement.

 

[joobz]

To Hokulele, you should retract your statement that most scholars do not believe in the accuracy of the biblical accounts of Pontius Pilate's actions since you haven't been able to produce a source for that statement.

As you should retract your statements that
1.) Jesus and the bible don't condone slavery.
2.) That the 10 points of geisler doesn't provide evidence that the bible writers told the truth.
3.) Josephus' account describes what the christians believed, not that jesus really did rise from the dead.

 

[DOC]

As you should retract your statements that
1.) Jesus and the bible don't condone slavery.
2.) That the 10 points of geisler doesn't provide evidence that the bible writers told the truth.
3.) Josephus' account describes what the christians believed, not that jesus really did rise from the dead.

Never said 2) or 3) and I don't believe I directly said 1).

 

[Cactus Wren]

And what is your source for this?

The Wikipedia article you cited in your own posting.

 

[joobz]

As you should retract your statements that
1.) Jesus and the bible don't condone slavery.
2.) That the 10 points of geisler doesn't provide evidence that the bible writers told the truth.
3.) Josephus' account describes what the christians believed, not that jesus really did rise from the dead.

Never said 2) or 3) and I don't believe I directly said 1).

DOC, I can't help but notice that you refused to retract 1, not becuase it's a false characterization of your position and not because it's true. But rather, because, you didn't say that exact statement.

As for 2 and 3, I meant to write your position, Instead I wrote the factually accurate statements. It's funny how hard it is for me to actually write lies. It must come easier to some than others.

 

[DOC]

DOC, I can't help but notice that you refused to retract 1, not becuase it's a false characterization of your position and not because it's true. But rather, because, you didn't say that exact statement.

As for 2 and 3, I meant to write your position, Instead I wrote the factually accurate statements. It's funny how hard it is for me to actually write lies. It must come easier to some than others.

How can I retract something you don't accurately report on. Tell me exactly what I said and the post it came from and I'll tell you whether or not I"ll retract. All this is a red herring anyway on Hokulele not retracting on a statement where she has no source.

And I'm sorry to see you're degenerating into the stuff about lies. Name one post out of my 395 posts in this thread where I lied. Of course you won't be able to.

 

[DOC]

And what is your source for this?

[qimg]http://message.snopes.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/qimg] The Wikipedia article you cited in your own posting.

Yes the article talks of Eusebius as a source. He received a letter regarding the incident. But nowhere in the article does it talk of Eusebius as an inventor of martyr-stories and as an originator of the tradition of "holy lying". That sounds like something you just made up in your quote below:

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".

 

[joobz]

How can I retract something you don't accurately report on. Tell me exactly what I said and the post it came from and I'll tell you whether or not I"ll retract.

So you do believe that jesus and the bible condone slavery?
Why don't you advocate for slavery today?

All this is a red herring anyway on Hokulele not retracting on a statement where she has no source.

Not really, as I'm sure she hasn't seen your charge just yet. I'm interested in her sources to. She's proven to be quite reliable on matters of biblical history.

And I'm sorry to see you're degenerating into the stuff about lies. Name one post out of my 395 posts in this thread where I lied. Of course you won't be able to.

I didn't say you lied. I simply said It's extremely hard for me to.

 

[DOC]

So you do believe that jesus and the bible condone slavery?

Jesus' priority was to save mankind, and that included slaves. Your missing the big (eternal) picture which is what I believe people like the Reverend Martin Luther King (who actually had a book of his sermons published) saw.

 

[paximperium]

Jesus' priority was to save mankind, and that included slaves. Your missing the big (eternal) picture which is what I believe people like the Reverend Martin Luther King (who actually had a book of his sermons published) saw.

Ahhhh...so your justification is that slavery was not important enough in the "big" picture? The slaves were apparently not important enough to warrant his time? Nuff said.

DOC, no one is missing the "big" picture. I'm just not accepting that cowardly cop-out as an excuse.

 

[joobz]

Jesus' priority was to save mankind, and that included slaves. Your missing the big (eternal) picture which is what I believe people like the Reverend Martin Luther King (who actually had a book of his sermons published) saw.

Then why did he state that you should pay taxes? Was this part of the big picture?


ETA: Why do you mention Martin Luther King?

 

[six7s]

Jesus' priority was to save mankind, and that included slaves.

Did that also include slave owners, i.e. those who might need a heads-up that they would need to repent (for their perhaps unwitting sins) before entering the gates of heaven?

Or is subjugating generations of certain families and/or whole cultures not a sin in the eyes of your god?

 

[Hokulele]

To Hokulele, you should retract your statement that most scholars do not believe in the accuracy of the biblical accounts of Pontius Pilate's actions since you haven't been able to produce a source for that statement.

No, you are misquoting me.

Many scholars have seen the wide variety of reports of Pilate's actions in the various gospels to be evidence of the roots of Christian anti-Semitism.

What, you thought the gospels all said the same thing about Pilate's words and deeds?

I also provided the names of two of the scholars who have written about this very topic. The fact that you are unable to do the minimum amount of research to follow up on these sources speaks much towards your willingness to have an honest debate. You have done similar things with your "tl;dr" comments in past threads.

Let's make a deal, I will provide a specific citation in all its gory detail if you agree to actually read every word of what I provide and carry on an honest debate regarding the content. If you do agree, you must realize that there will be a test at the end.

If you don't agree, well, let's just say that it will be used as evidence for the fact that you are wrong and are probably afraid to face that fact.

 

[GreNME]

Hokulele, you might also want to bring James Carroll into the discussion if you want to talk about Pilate. His book Constantine's Sword is an excellent dissertation on not only the long history of anti-semitism throughout history in terms of dogma and doctrine, but he also dedicates part of the book to explaining that it's highly unlikely the Jews played any influential role in Pilate's decisions even if the basic timeline of events in the gospels took place. He was allegedly a pretty brutal guy, and a lot of that got redacted out of the later Christian gospel story.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, you might also want to bring James Carroll into the discussion if you want to talk about Pilate. His book Constantine's Sword is an excellent dissertation on not only the long history of anti-semitism throughout history in terms of dogma and doctrine, but he also dedicates part of the book to explaining that it's highly unlikely the Jews played any influential role in Pilate's decisions even if the basic timeline of events in the gospels took place. He was allegedly a pretty brutal guy, and a lot of that got redacted out of the later Christian gospel story.

Thanks, I haven't read that one yet.

 

[DOC]

No, you are misquoting me.

Many scholars have seen the wide variety of reports of Pilate's actions in the various gospels to be evidence of the roots of Christian anti-Semitism...

Then you should say that and not this:

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

As it stands, you have no source for your "rather than any type of historical accuracy" statement used with the wording "most scholars".

 

[paximperium]

Then you should say that and not this:



As it stands, you have no source for your "rather than any type of historical accuracy" statement used with the wording "most scholars".

I notice a none answer from DOC(as usual) but an attempt to back away from a challenge.

So are you refusing to read whatever evidence(something that you are sorely lacking) that Hokulele has agreed to present to support her case or are you going to run away and change the topic into some other nonsensical claim that has nothing to do with your failed OP?

 

[joobz]

Then you should say that and not this:

As it stands, you have no source for your "rather than any type of historical accuracy" statement used with the wording "most scholars".

DOC, this is a clear avoidance of Hok's honest request.

Let's make a deal, I will provide a specific citation in all its gory detail if you agree to actually read every word of what I provide and carry on an honest debate regarding the content. If you do agree, you must realize that there will be a test at the end.

Why are you reluctant to take her up on her offer?

 

[Hokulele]

As it stands, you have no source for your "rather than any type of historical accuracy" statement used with the wording "most scholars".

Once again, you are wrong. GreNME even offered an additional source that supports my point. Pilate was a nasty man and any attempts by the gospel writers to whitewash his role in anyone's execution is historical inaccuracy at best. Lying or fictionalizing would be more appropriate.

And you are right, I should have said "most reputable scholars of early Christianity". Geisler doesn't qualify.

Once again, I would be more than happy to refer you to a particular source. Will you read and discuss it honestly?

 

[GreNME]

It should also be noted that at least Ehrman and Carroll are not hostile sources disagreeing with DOC. They both write rather positively of the issue of faith in religious terms, but are also honest scholars who don't deny their findings in order to ham-fistedly fit the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Ehrman, despite his writings about the various versions of the gospels that exist outside of the Christian canon that were written around the same time or the history of changes in Christian interpretations of the early writings, he still believes that there was a historical Jesus even if that man may not have been the divine being he's considered today. Carroll used to be a priest, went through a period of loss of faith, and now isn't very descriptive of his own beliefs but has given the impression that he's no longer atheist, yet his Constantine's Sword book is still an exhaustive work that underscores some very long-standing flaws within Christianity's more dogmatic doctrines. From listening to Ehrman speak several times (in interviews and speeches) and having read Carroll, they seem to instead be of the opinion that there are periods that come around regularly where people work too hard to place evidence into their foregone conclusions or make assumptions based on their predispositions-- basically, confirmation bias-- and the ripples of those periods are evident in most modern interpretations of what was written two millenia ago.