• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It will be very interesting to see if the mods consider Joobz continued asking of a question that DOC has been cowardly dodging is considered "flooding".
 
paximperium said:
It will be very interesting to see if the mods consider Joobz continued asking of a question that DOC has been cowardly dodging is considered "flooding".
Click to expand...
Doubtful.
My guess is that if DOC continues to complain as such, the mods will move this to AAH. IF one party refuses to participate(As DOC has clearly decided to do), it would be the logical answer.

Until then, I will continue to ask the ON TOPIC and RELEVANT question that remains unanswered.

six7s said:
Originally Posted by DOC
If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.

Originally Posted by DOC
You don't feed babies prime rib. Jesus was speaking in ways the unlightened of that time could digest. That's why he spoke in parables.
---
Serious question: How do these two seemingly incongruous statements gel - in your view - DOC?
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
Why are you making this statement to a post I directed at Six7s. This is deceptive. Why don't you use your own post and question, to make this statement?
Click to expand...

How is it deceptive? You had said that you had already addressed six's question, (although your response was brief and didn't really address the point of his question) and I simply pointed out that you never responded to *my* question at all.

My question is basically a rewording of six's question. Instead of asking how two viewpoints gel (which requires a complicated answer, and thus is easier to evade with a "fake" answer) I am summarizing all of your points and simply asking you if my summary is correct. (which requires merely a very simple answer: yes or no.)

This was your *only* response to my question:

DOC said:
DOC, correct me where I'm wrong. You're saying that the Bible is "the most moral teaching ever known to man", but also that it can't be taken at face value, and you need to remember that some morals in the Bible are only correct for their time, or that Jesus needed to make some moral concessions in order to get his overall point across.

Is this what you think?

--------------

DOC: I assume this question has to do mainly with slavery which I've responded to at least 20 times? I have nothing further to say on this. If those 20 or so responses don't satisfy you then go to another thread or start your own thread in this area.
Click to expand...

So your only response to my question is to say you are tired of talking about slavery. That's a particularly odd response coming from a person who has over 3,000 posts (as you like to brag) of Bible discussion. (Well, I am assuming most of your posts are about Bible discussion... I haven't seen you around the science section of the forum.)

All I am trying to do is to get you to clarify your viewpoints. This is the only purpose of my question. What exactly is your purpose here on this forum? Is it to make your viewpoints known, or not? If it is to make your viewpoints known, then there is no reason why you shouldn't jump at the chance to answer my question. I am only asking you to be clear.

So again... here is my question. I would really, really like an answer. Please keep in mind... if the answer is yes, you need only answer with one word!

L The Detective said:
DOC, correct me where I'm wrong. You're saying that the Bible is "the most moral teaching ever known to man", but also that it can't be taken at face value, and you need to remember that some morals in the Bible are only correct for their time, or that Jesus needed to make some moral concessions in order to get his overall point across.

Is this what you think?
Click to expand...
 
Excellent Distillation

L,

That is an outstanding distillation of this monotonous electromagnetic monstrosity.

DOC,
I would humbly submit that L's rephrasing of the 6's query would satisfy all parties if answered.

Simply.

Either "No, I disagree with this " [specific portion of text] ", and here's why..."

or

Yes.
 
Doc, you could simply be honest and say you are not going to answer a question when you come across one that is too disurbing. I don't think anyone would mind that so much. It's this business of giving evasive responses and claiming you answered a question that makes you look bad.
 
I think the problem is that he believes that he has answered the question. I can think of no other reason for his stubbornness.

So how about we take a different tack, and see if we can explain why we don't consider his "answer" to actually be an answer, and see where we get?
 
arthwollipot said:
So how about we take a different tack, and see if we can explain why we don't consider his "answer" to actually be an answer, and see where we get?
Click to expand...
Ummm... I think we've tried that...

six7s said:
You have responded only with dodges, not answers
Click to expand...

joobz said:
DOC, you never once answered that question.
You may think you did. But you did not.

DOC how can something be the best teaching in history but be in code? Teaching means that you pass along information and understanding of that information to people in a way that makes the most people understand that information completely.

CODE is meant to hide information from plain sight. It is meant to ensure that only CERTAIN people know what the information is saying.
Click to expand...

NavyPack said:
DOC,
I would humbly submit that L's rephrasing of the 6's query would satisfy all parties if answered.

Simply.

Either "No, I disagree with this " [specific portion of text] ", and here's why..."

or

Yes.
Click to expand...

​

I think AAH beckons
 
I find the last point most interesting. The desciples stayed true to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of death. Athiests have difficulty in explaining that away. Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place. This is so important. These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible. They were actually there they saw His miracles and heard Him preach. Is not their testimony better than the opinion of someone writing 2000 years later who's intent it is to rubbish the gospel accounts. I think it is.

Hello everyone i'm new on here.
 
Hilary Sinclair said:
I find the last point most interesting. The desciples stayed true to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of death. Athiests have difficulty in explaining that away. Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place. This is so important. These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible. They were actually there they saw His miracles and heard Him preach. Is not their testimony better than the opinion of someone writing 2000 years later who's intent it is to rubbish the gospel accounts. I think it is.

Hello everyone i'm new on here.
Click to expand...

Was the guy called Jesus declared death? was it sure he was indeed death or was he just in dead faint?

and why did that resseruction not convince the jews, i mean isnt that a pretty clear sign he was the messias? (if the resseructiuon myth is true)
 
Last edited:
Hilary Sinclair said:
I find the last point most interesting. The desciples stayed true to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of death. Athiests have difficulty in explaining that away. Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place. This is so important.
Hello everyone i'm new on here.
Click to expand...
Welcome.

It's not that interesting nor is it that difficult to "explain away". They believed in the legend. That's it.

That's as relevant as stating that the 9/11 attackers, the cathars who were tortured, Hindus who started suicide bombing or Buddhist who burn themselves are right. It is nothing more than a measure of their belief NOT the truth of their belief.
These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible. They were actually there they saw His miracles and heard Him preach. Is not their testimony better than the opinion of someone writing 2000 years later who's intent it is to rubbish the gospel accounts. I think it is.
Click to expand...
No. The Bible CLAIMS this. No one knows who wrote the Bible and the earliest gospel was written at least 30-40years after the supposed death of jesus. There is no independent verification of any of the Bible's claims and each of the gospels contradict themselves repeatedly.

There is no reason to believe anything the bible claims as fact or truth.
 
DOC said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4574964#post4574964
Click to expand...


OK, in reply to:
joobz said:
Is that the same Luke who has Jesus condoning slavery and the beating of slaves for violating rules that were unaware of?
Click to expand...


...you say:
DOC said:
I've already given a lengthy response to your point about the beating of slaves in post in post #2752:
Click to expand...


...and refer us back to another earlier post in which you said:
DOC said:
Jesus was speaking in ways the people of that brutal period could understood and would remember. The beating of some slaves was probably normal in that brutal society, just like the severe beating Jesus would eventually receive was normal in that day.

There is no doubt about it, in Christianity (according to the bible) if you disobey God's will (and do not sincerely ask for forgiveness) you will be punished, and Jesus does a good job of getting that point across in a way the people (some of whom might only hear him speak once) will remember.

But if you also break God's laws and you are unaware of what you are doing you are still going to receive a punishment. For example if you disobey God's laws by being sexually promiscuous and are not aware of what you are doing is wrong, you might get an STD or you might get the person pregnant and suffer that way. Your punishment won't be as great as it you knew it was wrong but you will still be punished in some way. A price always has to be paid for unforgiven sin -- either a big price or a small price depending on the circumstances.

It is would seem obvious that it would be much more important for Jesus to get his point across about God's rules and disobeying those rules with regards to the individuals listening than to spend a lot of time on a deeply ingrained social and economic policy like slavery that as I've pointed out before would probably do more harm than good to abolish immediately in that time and place of history.
Click to expand...


It appears that you're saying that Jesus was a moral relativist*. Is that right?

*ETA: i.e. he accepted slavery, and the beating of slaves for violating rules that they were unaware of, because they were part of the norms for the time.
 
Last edited:
Hilary Sinclair said:
I find the last point most interesting. The desciples stayed true to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of death. Athiests have difficulty in explaining that away. Why did they not cave-in and go back to their old ways? Because they were totally convinced the Resurrection had taken place. This is so important. These people were eye-witnesses to the events described in the Bible. They were actually there they saw His miracles and heard Him preach. Is not their testimony better than the opinion of someone writing 2000 years later who's intent it is to rubbish the gospel accounts. I think it is.

Hello everyone i'm new on here.
Click to expand...
Welcome Hilary

I think we can all agree that the disciples Believed. That they would risk harm or death for their religion is not at all unusual, either then or now. If you accept this as evidence of a particular religion, you will have a hard time explaining away its occurence in religions and cults that you don't believe in.

As far as believing in supernatural events like the Resurrection, that's all too common, and not suprising at all, people will believe just about anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom