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

[Mr Clingford]

Who says the massacre of the innocents involved thousands?
If a massacre did occur surely it would be under a hundred type thing.

 

[Simon39759]

Matthew mentions:

Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.

All children 2 or younger within a whole region.
Now, I don't know the size of the region involved, and what size was Bethlehem then, but, too me, thousands would be a logical estimates... But, of course, this story, as is the rest of the nativity myth, is quite certainly fictional.

 

[six7s]

One of either DOC or Joobz is Tyler Durden. You decide which.

Well... as DOC is Mr. Ed... it must be joobz, I s'pose

 

[Elizabeth I]

...so let's stick to the New Testament which is in the title of this thread.

Yes, let's. Weren't you supposed to be providing evidence of something?

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
If the Jews captured 500 hundred Roman soldiers when they revolted in 66ad what would you have them do with the soldiers.

1) Kill them

2) Let them go free

3) make them slaves

It's a non-sequitor question combined with a false set of choices. I'd say the right thing to do would be imprisonment or setting free.

Do you think the revolting Jews had a prison that could hold, feed and guard 500 Roman soldiers. And remember, they had no guns back then, so guarding 500 professional soldiers would be extremely difficult.

Your second choice was to let them go free. What would stop them from returning to the remaining Roman army regroup and attack you again. This would be a military disaster.

So that leaves us with killing them or making them slaves. Since you believe slavery is not right under any circumstances, the only option that makes sense using your no slavery ever thinking would be to kill all 500 of them. Thus joobz I've shown that your no slavery under any circumstances thinking would lead to much death, and much more work for the victors. Thus the victors of the battle lose by having to do more work than they would of had to do and the 500 dead soldiers lose by being dead. Everyone loses in this situtation but Joobz who feels good because there was no slavery involved..

DOC, these same reasons exist today.
Are you saying it'd be better for us to kill or enslave our prisoners?

And yes, I feel slavery is a morally wrong choice. I see no example that justifies it's practice. This is why I think your religion is immoral.

The same reasons/conditions do not exist today. The revolting Jews (or many waring tribes and armies back then) would of had no huge facility to house the 500 prisoners. And even if they did where are they going to get the food to feed the 500 prisoners. Today with wealthy nations and modern food packaging, feeding a large number of prisoners is possible. Also today you can guard a large number of people with relatively few guards because of modern prisons and firearms. That would have not been possible in biblical times. It would probably take a hundred guards with swords to guard 500 professional soldiers. Back then there would have been only 3 feasible options: kill them all, let them go free (a military disaster), or use them as slaves (which would increase the strength of your tribe or nation) and save work and time.

It is ridiculous to compare our modern wealthy society with modern equipment and facilities to biblical times. Yes, slavery is evil but back then it was a necessary evil because of the evil non-enlightened society. If Jesus had convinced the people that the practice of slavery was wrong then every time a nation or tribe was in a war or a revolt the best solution would be to kill everyone because you couldn't make slaves of them. This might make joobz happy but not those that were killed rather then being made slaves.

Also I've already shown earlier in the thread (through a published source) that many slaves were actually better off then the rural poor free people. To abolish slavery at that time would have most likely increased unemployment and starvation. Joobz, it is obvious to me anyway that the society of that time under harsh Roman rule and harsh economic times (as evident by the fact that some people in biblical times had to sell their children into slavery just to pay their debts) was in no way ready to abolish slavery and in fact the abolition of slavery could have overall made things worse.

Christ told the apostles that he did not tell them everything because there was some things they could not bear. And after looking at the times logically I contend one of the things the society could not bear (at that time and place) was the abolition of slavery. You don't feed a baby prime rib, some things take time before it can be digested. Joobz I think you want to force feed a policy on a society that was in no way ready for it and a policy that could have done more harm than good at that time and place in history.

__________________

 

[Mr Clingford]

Matthew mentions:


All children 2 or younger within a whole region.
Now, I don't know the size of the region involved, and what size was Bethlehem then, but, too me, thousands would be a logical estimates... But, of course, this story, as is the rest of the nativity myth, is quite certainly fictional.

Thank you, Yes, Matt 2:16. Like most events and places in antiquity, they were probably smaller than we imagine. Matthew appears to be evoking a Moses parallel here, with Herod as the Pharaoh and Jesus, therefore, being presented as the rescuer of Israel/ the world. That to me is the main message of the passage - as to the historicity, I have no idea.

 

[DOC]

Matthew mentions:


All children 2 or younger within a whole region.
Now, I don't know the size of the region involved, and what size was Bethlehem then, but, too me, thousands would be a logical estimates... But, of course, this story, as is the rest of the nativity myth, is quite certainly fictional.

Thousands seems very high, and how can you be so certain the story is fiction when Herod killed his own two sons in 7 and 4 BC.

http://jewish-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_death_sentence_upon_children_two_and_younger

If Herod was willing to kill his own two sons, you have to believe he wouldn't think twice about killing children in another city if it would increase the chances he'd stay in power. And the article points out Josephus reported other times when Herod killed to preserve his power.

All these stories of Herod killing his sons and Nero killing his wife and mother tells you just how badly the world needed a Savior and just how brutal that time was. Nero was the most powerful man in the world around that time and look at what he was capable of. If you don't have God in your life, these two leaders are the perfect examples that anything goes.

 

[paximperium]

Back then there would have been only 3 feasible options: kill them all, let them go free (a military disaster), or use them as slaves (which would increase the strength of your tribe or nation) and save work and time.

So now you're a Moral Relativist Doc? It sure suits you to be a moral relativist when you feel like it but claim moral absolutes when it suits you. Slavery is slavery. It is wrong. It was wrong back then and is wrong today.

For your Jesus and God to not speak up against it because of a societal or economics issues is nothing more than an excuse for the complete impotence and powerlessness of your god.

It is ridiculous to compare our modern wealthy society with modern equipment and facilities to biblical times. Yes, slavery is evil but back then it was a necessary evil because of the evil non-enlightened society. If Jesus had convinced the people that the practice of slavery was wrong then every time a nation or tribe was in a war or a revolt the best solution would be to kill everyone because you couldn't make slaves of them. This might make joobz happy but not those that were killed rather then being made slaves.

What a ridiculous strawman.
Do you believe your Jesus is truly that stupid that if he had spoken up against slavery that he wouldn't have told his followers to set the slaves free? Why did Jesus tell his followers how to beat and treat their slaves?

So Doc, you're agreeing that Jesus supported slavery because he was trying to save the Jewish enemies, am I getting you right?

Also I've already shown earlier in the thread (through a published source) that many slaves were actually better off then the rural poor free people. To abolish slavery at that time would have most likely increased unemployment and starvation.

You are truly vile to believe that justification for the enslavement is for the betterment of the slaves.

Not only are you a sexist, you are also a slavery apologist. Disgusting.

 

[paximperium]

Thousands seems very high, and how can you be so certain the story is fiction when Herod killed his own two sons in 7 and 4 BC.

http://jewish-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_death_sentence_upon_children_two_and_younger

If Herod was willing to kill his own two sons, you have to believe he wouldn't think twice about killing children in another city if it would increase the chances he'd stay in power.

What a big if you have there. Let me see, history records down Herod killing his 2 kids(one was executed by the Roman emperor for plotting to kill Herod) but does not record this so called massacre of innocent children, and no where does a Jewish historian even mentions this "incident."

I smell fiction written all over this little Bible story.

 

[DOC]

So now you're a Moral Relativist Doc? It sure suits you to be a moral relativist when you feel like it but claim moral absolutes when it suits you. Slavery is slavery. It is wrong. It was wrong back then and is wrong today.

There is a difference between being a moral relativist and being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

I believe slavery is always wrong but starving to death and being killed (instead of being made a slave) are greater wrongs.

 

[DOC]

What a big if you have there. Let me see, history records down Herod killing his 2 kids(one was executed by the Roman emperor for plotting to kill Herod) but does not record this so called massacre of innocent children, and no where does a Jewish historian even mentions this "incident."

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who live in Rome) knew it.

 

[Wally]

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who live in Rome) knew it.

So actually doing it didn't incite revolt, but writing about it would????
That's a bizarre logic system you got there.

 

[joobz]

The same reasons/conditions do not exist today.

So the all powerful, almighty god.
The god who killed all but one family using a flood.
the god who killed entire towns because of sinners
the god who sent plagues to egypt to free the jews.
This god couldn't change slavery because it was a different time?

In other words, your god is the great, is he?


BTW, do you advocate slavery today for homeless children?

 

[joobz]

There is a difference between being a moral relativist and being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

No there isn't. That's the complete foundation of moral relativism.


DOC, would you advocate slavery of homeless children?

 

[joobz]

DOC, god demanded that we worship him exclusively and reject all other gods. Arguably, this single command has led to the slaughter of millions of people who worship gods other than the christian god.

Yet, for some reason, god doesn't show any concern for this loss of life.

Yet, according to your argument, Jesus allowed slavery because the ends justify the means? That this approval of jesus' even went so far as to condone the beating of slaves who violated a rule they were unaware of.

 

[L The Detective]

Your second choice was to let them go free. What would stop them from returning to the remaining Roman army regroup and attack you again. This would be a military disaster.

Ok, I'll just say it. So what? Isn't this clearly the most
"Christian" choice? Is it really a "Christian" moral to kill or enslave your enemies, so that they can't come back and kill you later? I bet a lot of Christians would disagree with you, DOC.

 

[joobz]

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who live in Rome) knew it.

So your best argument is that the complete lack of evidence supporting the massacre is evidence of the massacre?

 

[joobz]

Ok, I'll just say it. So what? Isn't this clearly the most
"Christian" choice? Is it really a "Christian" moral to kill or enslave your enemies, so that they can't come back and kill you later? I bet a lot of Christians would disagree with you, DOC.

DOC's perfectly demonstrated how his morality amounts to the ends justify the means. Using his reasoning, it would be perfectly justifiable to conduct warrentless searches, torture, sacrifical killings... And, he's even come up with a way to say that Jesus condones such moral slipperyness.

In other words, DOC helped prove that christianity (and religion in general) doesn't provide a universal moral code. They provide a universal justification system for claiming that any behavior (that the person wants to commit) is moral.

 

[wollery]

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who live in Rome) knew it.

Roman rule was based on brutal subjugation of those under its rule. The punishment for its own troops showing cowardice in battle, or failing to follow orders was to kill one in ten of the unit in question, from whence we get the word decimate!

Romans were used to death and violence, particularly they were used to stories of extreme violence and bloody oppression being committed on subjugated tribes in the provinces. So no, a story about a local governor killing a few hundred children wouldn't have been bad PR for Rome, particularly seeing as the governor in question wasn't actually a Roman, but the King of Judea.

 

[Simon39759]

It wouldn't have made sense for Josephus (the famous Jewish historian who was in the pocket of the Romans and lived in Rome) to mention this because it's very bad PR for Roman rule. Don't you believe this incident would have truly outraged the native citizens of that area and greatly increased the chances of a revolt . History is written by the victors and the Romans were the victors at that time, and Josephus (who live in Rome) knew it.

Man; you don't know what you are talking about.
Such outrage would have been a good thing for the Romans. Herod was not a Roman governor.
In fact, the Romans took control of Judea because the local inhabitants asked them to depose Herod's own son.
Recalling atrocities for before the Roman occupation would have been good PR for the Romans, the same way that mentioning how bad Saddam was is good PR for the US.


But, it is beside the point. Josephus did recall many horrors and shocking passage, including the cannibalism of an infant by his own mother. Or is cannibalism good PR?
It's funny how quick you are at attacking Josephus credibility while, at the same time, calling Luke a great historian...