• 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.
kurious_kathy said:
Hokulele, I am not the woman I was, Jesus changed me. I was once lost and drowning in my sin but now I am forgiven and set free. It truly is astonishing when Jesus saves a person, not just heresay. Are there any other believers you know that have shared with you?
Click to expand...

"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those person. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other; and consequently, they ar enot obliged to believe it.

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call any thing a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only is word for it that it was made to him."
-- Thomas Paine
 
DOC said:
Remember none of the Gospels were signed --which made sense since promoting Christianity could get you killed in Roman occupied Palestine.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we've been here before; do you have any evidence to support that statement? Specifically at the time when the gospels are supposed to have been written.
 
DOC said:
I don't see any whites or blacks asking to chisel Washington's and Jefferson's face off Mt. Rushmore. And according to this site Jefferson hated slavery:

http://www.thoughtsonobjectivism.com/certainty_site/12 Thomas Jeffersons Dilemma.htm

Also I remember one post from my "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" thread I had 1 1/2 years ago that Jefferson was in debt, it was difficult to release the slaves, without paying off his creditors (who would of had claim to the slaves) first.

Once again people are trying to transplant our modern concept of slavery into a culture that allowed Washington to inherit many slaves at age 10 and Jefferson to inherit many slaves at age 14.

I've already talked very much about slavery in the Jefferson thread and in this thread so I'm not going to spend much time repeating myself.
Click to expand...

1) Jefferson & Washington deserve every honor that the US has to bestow upon them. Without them, and a number of others, we wouldn't have a US to talk about.
2) Jefferson also talked about how blacks are inferior to whites and therefore it was better for them to be slaves to whites so they can be cared for. While he was philosophically opposed to slavery, he never took any practical steps toward ending it. True, he did introduce legislation in Virginia to end slavery, but was quickly talked out of it. Later in life, when offered the opportunity to end slavery, he declined stating that he was too tired. Yet he found the energy in the same period to start the University of Virginia. Strange.

Now, before you start to say that I'm just bashing a founding father in some weird re-write of history, let me state that Jefferson is my favorite founding father. I have a very Jeffersonian outlook on government and I would prefer that the US had taken his path. I just understand that the man wasn't perfect. He has warts, blind spots and less-than-honorable points of view that do not jibe well with a post-Enlightenment world. He was a consummate Enlightenment Southern Gentleman. Well read, well mannered and a tacit proponent of slavery. That he understood on some intellectual level that it was wrong speaks to his own internal morality. That he didn't take serious steps to stop it speaks to him being a man of his time.

As far as his religious views. It is apparent from his writings that while he did think that Jesus was the "most moral man" that he was just a man. No supernatural being need apply. Go give Jefferson's Bible a read. It's quite interesting.

While he was raised Anglican, like any good Southern Gentleman at the time would, his friend, Joseph Priestly, introduced him to Unitarianism which, by all accounts, is the faith Jefferson stayed for the remainder of his life.

So, here's an idea, and it's not just for your comments on Jefferson: get the facts before posting. Jefferson was not a Christian by any modern definition, or any theological one (e.g. he accepted the divinity of Jesus). He was a tacit supporter of slavery, while intellectually understanding the immorality of it. He was, arguably, the smartest man to ever hold the office of President, yet was taken to some very stupid ideas like the natural inferiority of blacks to whites.
 
Ahhhh, my favourite part of the Jefferson Bible:
CHAPTER 17.
61 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
62 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
63 There laid they Jesus,
64 And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Click to expand...

Jesus died...end of story.
 
DOC said:
I'm not embarrassed to say that Thomas Jefferson claimed that the teachings of Christ were the most moral and sublime the world has ever known and I'm not embarrassed to say that George Washington prayed twice a day and wrote around 50 letters in which he requested chaplains for the army during the revolutionary war.
Click to expand...

Why should you be embarassed by those people's opinions ?

I think yours would be better candidates for embarassment.
 
joobz said:
Yup and you still failed to explain why Jesus, being the most moral teacher, failed to say that slavery was bad. I mean, he went out of his way to explain how we are like slaves to the lord and explained that it is just to whip a slave for breaking a rule that he didn't know about, but he never said that slavery is immoral.

Crazy that, eh? The most moral teacher ever not thinking slavery was bad enough to speak out against it.
Click to expand...

See, <Fundie mode> the morals were different at the time. Jesus was simply a reflection of his time period. </Fundie mode>

How does that make Jesus a moral teacher for OUR time period ? Beats me.
 
kurious_kathy said:
What, exactly, has convinced you that all this is true, anyway ?
Click to expand...

Jesus showed me. Call it divine revelation but He truly does open the eyes of the blind!
Click to expand...

Circular answer. You are answering the question with the very thing that made me ask it.

What, exactly, has convinced you that Jesus showed you anything ? You have no physical evidence of this so I assume it's a gut feeling of some kind. In another thread I've pointed out that Muslims and Buddhists and others have the same kind of "evidence", so clearly we need something more to distinguish Christianity from them.

Any bright ideas ?
 
kurious_kathy said:
Jesus showed me. Call it divine revelation but He truly does open the eyes of the blind!
Click to expand...


You call it divine revelation. I call it delusion. How are you going to demonstrate which of us is wrong?

Hint: You'll need to be showing me a youtube of this Jesus curing blind people, at the very least.



kurious_kathy said:
There is no way the Apostles would have lied . . .
Click to expand...


O rly? How do you know this? How many times did Peter deny Christ?

Was he lying? But there's no way . . .



kurious_kathy said:
. . .they were called and chosen to start the church of Christ and it's still growing today . . .
Click to expand...


No, it isn't, it's just getting noisier. The real growth is in monoetheism. Have you considered making the switch yourself?



kurious_kathy said:
. . . because Jesus is very much alive.
Click to expand...


Email addy and Facebook page please.



kurious_kathy said:
It's a Spirit thing . . .
Click to expand...


So is Absinthe, which can cause hallucinations quite similar to those that you describe.

ETA:

Leviticus 20:27 (American Standard Version)

27 A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
Click to expand...


What's that mean?



kurious_kathy said:
. . . you could only understand if you had Jesus yourselves.
Click to expand...


You're being weird again. Is this Jesus bloke some kind of sexual fantasy of yours?


Cheers,

Waenre
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
Now, before you start to say that I'm just bashing a founding father in some weird re-write of history, let me state that Jefferson is my favorite founding father. I have a very Jeffersonian outlook on government and I would prefer that the US had taken his path. I just understand that the man wasn't perfect. He has warts, blind spots and less-than-honorable points of view that do not jibe well with a post-Enlightenment world.
Click to expand...

Uh oh. I think you're saying that one of the founding fathers was LESS than perfect.

That won't sit well with some people. Not. At. All.
 
Belz... said:
Uh oh. I think you're saying that one of the founding fathers was LESS than perfect.

That won't sit well with some people. Not. At. All.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I'm just a Bad Americantm. Whatever shall I do?

Truth of the matter is, I prefer them with their warts. I love the fact that Johnny Adams was an irascible bastard, that Washington was caught up in illegal land speculation, that Jefferson was the worst public speaker ever and that Hamilton was a huge womanizer. It makes them...um...human.

On the flip side, Adams was such an adherent to the idea that everyone is entitled to legal representation that he defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre (and got them off), Washington was willing to be the CINC and first President even though both jobs were totally undesirable, Jefferson was able to write - by himself - the Declaration of Independence knowing what it would cost the colonies, and Hamilton's ideas paved the way toward the US's financial stability in this day.
 
Akhenaten said:
Yes, but we have no evidence that the writers of the New Testament were telling the truth. If only there was someone who was able to provide some.
Click to expand...

Well, c'mon, be fair. There IS a city of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate did exist. the Romans did control the Middle East. And a group of believers following an obscure Judean prophet did come into existence.

Whether it was THE Jesus and not A Jesus (kind of like being A Bob as opposed to being THE J.R. "Bob" Dobbs) is a different story. I tend towards the "A Jesus" theory, myself. I find it totally plausible that an itinerant preacher named Jesus existed around that time period and he gained a following. Add in a couple of charismatic leaders and a healthy dose of sociological pressure and you got yourself a newly formed religion. No supernatural being necessary.
 
kmortis said:
Well, c'mon, be fair. There IS a city of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate did exist. the Romans did control the Middle East. And a group of believers following an obscure Judean prophet did come into existence.
Click to expand...


That's a fair cop. Perhaps a more sustainable OP would have been "Evidence for why we know the New Testament occasionally told the truth".

I'd be happy to argue in favour of that myself.



kmortis said:
Whether it was THE Jesus and not A Jesus (kind of like being A Bob as opposed to being THE J.R. "Bob" Dobbs) is a different story. I tend towards the "A Jesus" theory, myself. I find it totally plausible that an itinerant preacher named Jesus existed around that time period and he gained a following. Add in a couple of charismatic leaders and a healthy dose of sociological pressure and you got yourself a newly formed religion. No supernatural being necessary.
Click to expand...


I'd only need to add a passion for syncretism* to your analysis and it would match mine perfectly.


* The link isn't for you, kmortis; I know you understand the word, but there are others. ;)


Cheers,

Dave
 
DOC said:
Remember none of the Gospels were signed --which made sense since promoting Christianity could get you killed in Roman occupied Palestine.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
I'm sure we've been here before; do you have any evidence to support that statement? Specifically at the time when the gospels are supposed to have been written.
Click to expand...

(boldness added)

Jesus -crucified (see the Roman historian/senator Tacitus below)

John the Baptist - head on a platter

Stephen - stoned to death

James - 1st bishop of Jerusalem - killed (reported by Jewish/Roman historian Josephus)

And from Wiki:

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 34 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Saint Mark was dragged in the streets until his death
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew flayed alive and crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed with a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

And as written by the Roman historian/senator Tacitus concerning the time of 64 ad. - the time of Emperor Nero:

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2006/06/tacitus-on-roman-martyrs.html


So I would say it can safely be assumed it was dangerous to put your name on a manuscript that promoted Christianity. But as someone pointed out, we don't have the original manuscripts, only several thousands of copies that were made; so who knows, some might have have been signed and for whatever reason the copyist didn't attach the name of the author.
 
Last edited:
Yawn. Using DOC's "logic":

Greece exist, people did sail the Mediterranean, it describes Egypt very well, it tells the exact location for Crete and states the existence of the Phoenicians. We have strong evidence of Troy that was found solely from the writings from the Iliad and Odyssey.

Therefore Odysseus did battle the cyclops, found the Golden Fleece and therefore Zeus, Athena and Hermes are real gods.

I have more "evidence" for the existence of the Greek gods than DOC has for his little tribal god that was crawling around in mud when Zeus ruled Olympus.
 
paximperium said:
Yawn. Using DOC's "logic":

Greece exist, people did sail the Mediterranean, it describes Egypt very well, it tells the exact location for Crete and states the existence of the Phoenicians. We have strong evidence of Troy that was found solely from the writings from the Iliad and Odyssey.

Therefore Odysseus did battle the cyclops, found the Golden Fleece and therefore Zeus, Athena and Hermes are real gods.

I have more "evidence" for the existence of the Greek gods than DOC has for his little tribal god that was crawling around in mud when Zeus ruled Olympus.
Click to expand...

And Helen of Troy must have been the most beautiful woman in history. Why would People fight such a brutal war, risking being dipped into the river styx, and other hazards if she wasn't beautiful?
 
DOC said:
So I would say it can safely be assumed it was dangerous to put your name on a manuscript that promoted Christianity. But as someone pointed out, we don't have the original manuscripts, only several thousands of copies that were made; so who knows, some might have have been signed and for whatever reason the copyist didn't attach the name of the author.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Nero ruled Rome from 37-68AD and he was the "First Persecutor" of Christianity. He only started to persecute Christians in the later 60sAD. So unless you want to concede that the Bible writer's didn't put to paper their great superman story until after 60AD(30years after the death of an alleged god-man), it is not a valid excuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom