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

[L The Detective]

Psychopaths don't create the greatest system of morality/ethics the world has ever known -- at least that is what Thomas Jefferson called the teachings of Christ.

Well, even smart men can be wrong. The system of morality/ethics in the Bible are pretty flawed, the 10 commandments are redundant and not particularly relevant in today's society, and there are other morally questionable or even reprehensible things in the Bible. If we're just going to choose a religion based on which has the best system of morals and nothing else, the Bible would not be my first choice.

 

[DOC]

While he was preaching the importantness of sin and salvation. About right from wrong. About what it means to be a good in the eyes of god, he failed to mention that slavery is wrong. Instead, he decided to teach how slave and slave owners should behave instead of teaching against slavery?

How does the law of non-contradiction work this one out?

As I've said before, your thinking implies that there would have been less slavery and slavery would have ended sooner if Christianity never existed. Of course that is a ridiculous implication as the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Reverend Jesse Jackson would have/will tell you. Since you insist on bringing up slavery again and again and again and again I'll just have keep pointing out to you how absurd it is to think Christianity didn't help reduce and end slavery sooner. Abraham Lincoln, a man who had a little something to do with ending slavery, didn't mention the Almighty or Providence 11 times in his 2nd inaugural address for the heck of it.

 

[DOC]

While we are focusing on this particular verse, according to Luke, he didn't exactly go around preaching to Gentiles, but hung around Damascus preaching to Jews (who would certainly not have been considered heathens) and then hung around Jerusalem being ignored by the apostles.

The statement I bolded above is absurd.

From Galatians 1:18 KJV:

Then after three years I {Paul} went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. And read Galatians 2:9 where it says in a meeting 14 years later that Peter, John, and James recognized the special task God had given Paul and shook hands with him as a sign they were all partners.

You do a lot of talking about me and the bible, maybe it's time to follow your own advice.

ETA: And the fact that the NT writer pointed out there was at first a difference of opinion about circumcision among the leaders of Christianity shows he was in fact telling the truth. If he was lying or whitewashing his story he would have ignored mentioning any conflicts amongst leaders in the history of the early church.

 

[Hokulele]

The statement I bolded above is absurd.

From Galatians 1:18 KJV:

Then after three years I {Paul} went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Not absurd in the least:

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

I told you to compare Acts to Galatians and mentioned that the two stories do not agree.

And read Galatians 2:9 where it says in a meeting 14 years later that Peter, John, and James recognized the special task God had given Paul and shook hands with him as a sign they were all partners.

Yeah, right up until he started chewing Peter out for being a dink.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

It gets even better after that. He and Peter really did have quite the tiff, and it spilled over into the split between the Jamesian and Paulian communities that lasted for decades.

You do a lot of talking about me and the bible, maybe it's time to follow your own advice.

I have clearly read more of it than you. You have even admitted this in the past.

 

[RobRoy]

As I've said before, your thinking implies that there would have been less slavery and slavery would have ended sooner if Christianity never occurred. Of course that is a ridiculous implication as the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Reverend Jesse Jackson would have/will tell you. Since you insist on bringing up slavery again and again and again and again I'll just have keep pointing out to you how absurd it is to think Christianity didn't help reduce and end slavery sooner. Abraham Lincoln, a man who had a little something to do with ending slavery, didn't mention the Almighty or Providence 11 times in his 2nd inaugural address for the heck of it.

That's not the point (or at least not the point that I read). The question wasn't about Christians, or those espousing "Christian values" ending slavery. The question was why didn't Jesus speak against slavery when he was teaching morality and right from wrong to his listeners?

As I recall, many abolitionists felt that the Bible was a detriment and major weakness to their arguments.

 

[joobz]

As I've said before, your thinking implies that there would have been less slavery and slavery would have ended sooner if Christianity never existed.

Nope. My thinking assumes nothing of the kind.

My thinking is based upon the fact that Jesus (who you say is god) was not against slavery. This is the same god who is "serious about sin". Since he condoned slavery and used it in his parables, it is clear that Jesus didn't think being a slave owner was sinful.

Make of that what you will.

Of course that is a ridiculous implication as the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Reverend Jesse Jackson would have/will tell you.

You keep refering to black preachers, neither of whom were slaves or slave owners, and yet fail to explain why you think thier opinion on this topic is any more important than anyone else's.

Since you insist on bringing up slavery again and again and again and again I'll just have keep pointing out to you how absurd it is to think Christianity didn't help reduce and end slavery sooner. Abraham Lincoln, a man who had a little something to do with ending slavery, didn't mention the Almighty or Providence 11 times in his 2nd inaugural address for the heck of it.

So, your defense is that Jesus was serious about sin but didn't think slavery was so bad as to make it a sin. Rather, he waited until humanity figured it out for themselves?

I bring up slavery, because you keep claiming Jesus was divine. If he was divine and was moral, then he would have been against slavery. He wasn't, so that means he wasn't divine or he wasn't moral. You decide.

 

[joobz]

That's not the point (or at least not the point that I read). The question wasn't about Christians, or those espousing "Christian values" ending slavery. The question was why didn't Jesus speak against slavery when he was teaching morality and right from wrong to his listeners?

Thank you, This is exactly my point.

I brought it up because DOC said "God (being perfect) is serious about sin; He is not flippant about it. " He claims Jesus is god, and is therefore serious about sin. He didn't speak against slavery, so it could be said that Jesus didn't think slavery was a sin.

I'd like to know if this means.
1.) Jesus wasn't perfect (got slavery wrong).
2.) We're not perfect (Jesus was right about slavery and we're wrong.)
3.) That he was against slavery, but the bible doesn't mention it. In which case, why should we trust the bible on anything if it got such a horrific issue so blatantly wrong.

 

[RobRoy]

Thank you, This is exactly my point.

Good to see my reading comprehension is still at an 8th grade level!

I'd like to know if this means.
1.) Jesus wasn't perfect (got slavery wrong).
2.) We're not perfect (Jesus was right about slavery and we're wrong.)
3.) That he was against slavery, but the bible doesn't mention it. In which case, why should we trust the bible on anything if it got such a horrific issue so blatantly wrong.

I vote not perfect. He seems like a pretty decent guy, but the nearest authors of his words were at least 30 years removed from their subject. I figure someone who hasn't met me, but heard about me from some of my friends, who told the story about the time that went to a party and brought some decent Scotch and then hit on the UK exchange student, would probably get the majority of my specific dialogue wrong.

 

[six7s]

Your question is absurd

Thank you, it was meant to be - simply because I think its absurd to assert - without any substantiating evidence other than your bible* - that "Paul, who was going to Damascus to "persecute" Christians did claim to personally witness the presence of Jesus on the way"

but you've got the right to your opinion about the 6th most influential person to ever live according to the book "The 100: the 100 most influential people in history"

Argument from what? Popular opinion? Pardon me if I fail to share your confirmation bias

its not Winnie the Pooh.

OK... Cool. I suspect you're using some rational criteria to make this pronouncement. Please explain if and how that same rationale promotes Paul

Thank you

--------------
*

A while ago, I asked you to name your bible. If you did so, I missed it, and I'm still curious​

 

[Hokulele]

A while ago, I asked you to name your bible. If you did so, I missed it, and I'm still curious.

DOC is a KJVist, unless he doesn't like the answer, as he shows here, then he switches to the New Sorta/Kinda Translation (sorry, New Living Translation):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4543089#post4543089

The NLT is well known to suffer from paraphrasing issues, but Fundies like it due to the fact that is uses plain English and it is the only translation that directly condemns both gays and lesbians by rewording Romans 1:26.

 

[zooterkin]

Your question is absurd, but you've got the right to your opinion about the 6th most influential person to ever live according to the book "The 100: the 100 most influential people in history" and its not Winnie the Pooh.

So, you believe that Muhammed was more important than Jesus Christ?

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

Your question is absurd, but you've got the right to your opinion about the 6th most influential person to ever live according to the book "The 100: the 100 most influential people in history" and its not Winnie the Pooh.

Interestingly, the book concluded that Muhammad was the most influential person in history. In fact, of the most influential top 5 (for what it is worth) only one was a Christian - and he was a most unorthodox one, as he is generally taken to have rejected Trinitarianism.

1) Muhammad
2) Isaac Newton
3) Jesus
4) Buddha
5) Confucius

-----------
Added - Zooterkin posted as I was writing.

 

[RobRoy]

So, you believe that Muhammed was more important than Jesus Christ?

What was the criteria for this list?

 

[six7s]

What was the criteria for this list?

The 100

... a 1978 book by Michael H. Hart. It is a ranking of the 100 people who most influenced human history. Since publication, the book has been hotly debated and its concept widely copied.

Michael H. Hart

... an astrophysicist who has also written three books on history and controversial articles on a variety of subjects.

...

Hart describes himself as a Jeffersonian liberal, while his critics call him a conservative and a racial separatist. At a 2006 conference hosted by the American Renaissance, a "race-realist" organization, Hart had a public confrontation with David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time Louisiana politician, over Duke's antisemitic remarks.[1]

...

Also controversial was his paper that suggested that a future of Yugoslavia-type ethnic conflict in the United States could be avoided by a voluntary partition of the country into three states: an integrated mixed-race state, a white state, and a black state. [2]

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

What was the criteria for this list?

According to Wikipedia (and I have no intention of buying the book to find out):

What mainly surprised readers was the first person on Hart's list. Hart decided to choose Muhammad over Jesus or Moses despite the fact that Islam was not the largest religion at the time of writing. Hart attributes this to the fact that Muhammad was successful in both the religious and political realms. He also writes that Muhammad's role in the development of Islam is far more influential than Jesus's collaboration in the development of Christianity. He attributes the development of Christianity to St. Paul, who played a pivotal role in the dissemination of Christianity.

 

[Simon39759]

That actually make sense, in fact, there are people seriously arguing that Jesus never even existed.

 

[joobz]

That actually make sense, in fact, there are people seriously arguing that Jesus never even existed.

It's difficult to know that Jesus exists when there's soo little non-biblical evidence for it.

 

[DOC]

So, you believe that Muhammed was more important than Jesus Christ?

The book was the 100 most influential people in history, not the 100 most important. And I think Western Civilization (and eventually the whole world) will reap the consequences of increasingly putting Christ and religion on the back burner. Read the paper and watch your nightly news -- you can see it happening before your eyes. I predict the farther Christ goes down the list of influential people in the future the more the world will literally and figuratively go to hell.

 

[DOC]

It's difficult to know that Jesus exists when there's soo little non-biblical evidence for it.

Then how come 10 non-Christian sources talked about Christianity and/or Christ within 150 years of his life and only 9 non-Christian sources about the Roman emperor as I've already mentioned. When you add Christian sources that's 43 sources for Christianity/Christ and 10 sources for the Roman emperor.

 

[six7s]

I predict the farther Christ goes down the list of influential people in the future the more the world will literally and figuratively go to hell.

Compared to which time in history?