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

[Achán hiNidráne]

True since the vast majority have been killed off and the remnants have been indoctrinated to accept the religion of their killers.

Thank you Great White Father, may I please have another?!

Speaking as someone with a little bit of Native American in his family tree, I find DOCs idea that my ancestors should be grateful that the French and English came along to take away their land in exchange for religion, trinkets, and small-pox infected blankets to be... Oh, I don't know... RACIST.

These fools remind me of an exasperating anecdote: I temped for a couple of months at the Milwaukee chapter of the Red Cross, and one day they had a meeting for members all the local private welfare agencies. I was manning the front desk while two attendees held a conversation in the nearby waiting room. One of them was going on about how he truly believes that blacks were the result of Noah's curse of Ham (Genesis 9:22-27) and that their Lord had intended them to be subservient to whites as atonement.

Now I've heard this line of crap come out of the mouths of white supremacists claiming a Biblical justification for racism, but this guy was African American! I was left to wonder just who had filled his head with such bull and how much he had to loathe himself to believe it?

My only conclusion is that 500 years of slavery and discrimination, all backed with the blessings Christianity, could do that.

 

[zooterkin]

Remember Christ lived in an evil time.

What exactly do you base that statement on?

 

[six7s]

I think what Christ was saying is that there would be no easy way to turn the sinful world around, you're going to have to be able to give all for the cause, even if it meant to go against your family members. And obviously, as seen by the many martyrs, many did give all for the cause.

Still didn't work though, did it? Or are you suggesting that the last 2,000 years have been free of evil?

I think

If this really is a thought, you will be explain the thought processes involved

It seems likely that this is yet another inane belief-driven piece of bunk

Please, do try to prove me wrong

 

[DOC]

Remember Christ lived in an evil time.

What exactly do you base that statement on?

Well for starters, Nero who was of that same era was the most powerful man in the world. He killed his mother and his wife, not to mention burning alive, feeding to the dogs, and crucifying Christians. And Herod supposedly killed all the male babies in Bethlehem. Now if you don't want to believe that, then how bout the fact Herod killed 2 of his sons. I would say Christ lived in an evil time.

 

[DOC]

Well, that's unfair.
The ones who are most unhappy about it are dead....thanks to the christians.

Ah, yes, it's all "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy" Jesus' fault.

And, I assume you believe if the English and French and Spanish were atheists (like Stalin) and came to America they would have been much more loving and kind to the Indians.

 

[zooterkin]

Well for starters, Nero who was of that same era was the most powerful man in the world. He killed his mother and his wife, not to mention burning alive, feeding to the dogs, and crucifying Christians. And Herod supposedly killed all the male babies in Bethlehem. Now if you don't want to believe that, then how bout the fact Herod killed 2 of his sons. I would say Christ lived in an evil time.

What does Nero have to do with what happened while Jesus was alive?

 

[DOC]

Except that the Matthew passage totally contradicts one of you supposed benefits of believing in Jesus as the Christ, temporal peace. Jesus clearly stated that he's NOT a bringer of peace, but "of the sword".

The national emblem of the US is an Eagle with 13 arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other claw. The Christ of the bible seems to have a similar quality. In other words he, like the USA, seems to be saying, I want peace, but when you mess with me or my laws, there is a price to pay.

Ok, so you have no evidence for eternal peace...

I do have evidence that a man named Jesus lived. I do have evidence that he rose from the dead which I've already presented. I do have evidence that Thomas Jefferson basically said Christ's teachings were the most moral and sublime in human history. I do have evidence that Christ was prophesied to come in at least 2 places. I do have evidence that there are other very accurate prophecies in the bible. And I do have evidence that this Christ who I have evidence rose from the dead and whom I have evidence was the most moral and sublime teacher in history said "ye do the will of the father and ye shall have eternal life."

So, yes, I do have evidence there is eternal life. I don't have proof of it, just like you (and science) don't have proof that humans and living cells came from (over time) non-living material (because it's never proven in an experiment); but yes I do have evidence there is eternal life.

 

[Wally]

The national emblem of the US is an Eagle with 13 arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other claw. The Christ of the bible seems to have a similar quality. In other words he, like the USA, seems to be saying, I want peace, but when you mess with me or my laws and here is a price to pay.




I do have evidence that a man named Jesus lived. I do have evidence that he rose from the dead which I've already presented. I do have evidence that Thomas Jefferson basically said Christ's teachings were the most moral and sublime in human history. I do have evidence that Christ was prophesied to come in at least 2 places. I do have evidence that there are other very accurate prophecies in the bible. And I do have evidence that this Christ who I have evidence rose from the dead and whom I have evidence was the most moral and sublime teacher in history said "ye do the will of the father and ye shall have eternal life."

So, yes, I do have evidence there is eternal life. I don't have proof of it, just like you (and science) don't have proof that humans and living cells came from (over time) non-living material (because it's never proven in an experiment); but yes I do have evidence.

And I have 3189 pieces of evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[DOC]

What does Nero have to do with what happened while Jesus was alive?

Are you saying the conquering occupying Romans were ruled by a bunch of nice guys until Nero came along. I was referring to that general era.

 

[DOC]

And I have 3189 pieces of evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

That's fine, but you don't have any proof.

ETA: Oh, now I see, you were referring to my # of posts. You've got the right to your opinion.

 

[zooterkin]

Are you saying the conquering occupying Romans were ruled by a bunch of nice guys until Nero came along. I was referring to that general era.

You were talking out of your hat, as usual.

ETA: The longer version. You once again demonstrate your lack of understanding of the meaning of 'evidence'. The actions of someone born after the generally accepted date of Jesus's death can have no relevance on whether the time during which Jesus lived were 'evil', unless you can demonstrate that he was merely continuing what others had done before. In which case, you might as well quote the others, anyway.

Regardless; there were some people in power who committed what we regard as cruel acts. Just as 'evil' acts are done today. Do you regard the current times as more or less evil?

You seem to think the Romans were inherently evil, rather than one of the great civilisations of history. Why is that?

 

[Wally]

That's fine, but you don't have any proof.

Make that 3191.

 

[joobz]

Ah, yes, it's all "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy" Jesus' fault.

If he's responsible for the good of christianity, he's also responsible for the bad.

And, I assume you believe if the English and French and Spanish were atheists (like Stalin) and came to America they would have been much more loving and kind to the Indians.

Well, for starters, they wouldn't have felt like they were endowed with divine/moral right over the indians.

And Obviously, had they been like Stalin, it'd be no better.
But if they were like the non-christians:
Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Mark twain, Susan B. Anthony, ... things could have been different.

 

[joobz]

Are you saying the conquering occupying Romans were ruled by a bunch of nice guys until Nero came along. I was referring to that general era.

Ok.
Let's pretend that Rome was the most evil time ever, ever.
Are you saying that God was powerless to change it dramaticall? I mean the omnipotent/omniscient benevolent creator of all and everything had to rely on sending someone down who would speak in riddles and criptic messages to get his message across? And even then, he'd avoid making any difinitive claims on things like slavery, women's rights, ...

 

[Belz...]

appeal to popularity.

My question stands. Why should someone like me, for instance, believe that your gut feeling is any more valuable than the gut feelings of a member of a rival religion ?

I take it you think that adding gut feelings together makes you more right than a lesser amount of gut feelings ? What would you say if your religion has fewer followers ? Don't worry, you'd find another "argument". This is why i ask my question, because i'm trying to establish what evidence one has for the truth of christianity other than pure faith. There is none.

Doc ?

 

[kmortis]

The national emblem of the US is an Eagle with 13 arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other claw. The Christ of the bible seems to have a similar quality. In other words he, like the USA, seems to be saying, I want peace, but when you mess with me or my laws, there is a price to pay.

Except, that's not what the passage in Matthew is about, is it? It's not a conditional statement, it's a declarative. He doesn't say "If you mess with me, I'll bring a sword", he says "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." those are not conditional words.

I can accept that he's telling potential followers that following a teacher like him would cause some waves in that society, but not that "if you play by the rules, I'll bring you peace; if not, I won't".

So again, no temporal peace.

I do have evidence that a man named Jesus lived.

Ok, man named Jesus lived. He may have even been an itinerant preacher, he may have even had some local popularity. But...

I do have evidence that he rose from the dead which I've already presented.

...no. You've presented opinion and innuendo. Go ahead and find documented incidences of other people being resurrected. I understand there's a case in Maryland that you could watch. I'm sure the kid will be up and walking around soon.

I do have evidence that Thomas Jefferson basically said Christ's teachings were the most moral and sublime in human history.

Ok. And as much as I admire TJ, his opinion doesn't make any of the Bible true. Some of what Jesus said was moral and sublime. Other things were horrific and banal. Hrm...just like everyone else.

I do have evidence that Christ was prophesied to come in at least 2 places.

Ew. Just ew.

I do have evidence that there are other very accurate prophecies in the bible.

Anything documented? Something that isn't someone with an axe to grind touting the Bible as true because this event can be retrofit to meet this passage over here?

Though not.

And I do have evidence that this Christ who I have evidence rose from the dead and whom I have evidence was the most moral and sublime teacher in history said "ye do the will of the father and ye shall have eternal life."

So, yes, I do have evidence there is eternal life. I don't have proof of it, just like you (and science) don't have proof that humans and living cells came from (over time) non-living material (because it's never proven in an experiment); but yes I do have evidence there is eternal life.

No. There is no evidence of eternal life. Everything you listed above, even if true and correct, was not evidence for eternal life. Jesus could have done every thing listed in the NT, from the manger to the golden chariot, and it still would not be evidence for eternal life. By definition, you cannot give evidence for eternal life. To be eternal, it has to be timeless. We live in a universe with time, vis not timeless. Even the California Sequoia will die and crumble into dust one day; even the universe itself will disintegrate in about 10⁴⁰ years. That's not eternal.

As for your non sequitor, there have been some preliminary experiments showing that self organizing molecules can be formed by mixing commonly found chemicals and adding pressure and energy. No, does it necessarily prove that that's how life started, but it does show that it's possible. Compare that to the evidences you've provided and you'll find that you've not presented anything that shows that your hypothesis is plausible, let alone probable.

 

[kmortis]

Well for starters, Nero who was of that same era was the most powerful man in the world. He killed his mother and his wife, not to mention burning alive, feeding to the dogs, and crucifying Christians. And Herod supposedly killed all the male babies in Bethlehem. Now if you don't want to believe that, then how bout the fact Herod killed 2 of his sons. I would say Christ lived in an evil time.

Cause these guys were SOOOOOOO much better...
Idi Amin^WP
Jim Jones^WP
Pol Pot^WP
Papa Doc^WP Duvalier
Andrei Chikatilo^WP


My point is, this time is not any nicer, really. Yes, we have better toys, but humans are still as big of schmucks as ever. 2000 years of Christian influence hasn't changed that.

So, where's this peace we've been promised?

And didn't Jesus say that he was coming back before some of the Apostles died?
When did John the Apostle^WP die?

 

[X]

Ah, yes, it's all "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy" Jesus' fault.

And, I assume you believe if the English and French and Spanish were atheists (like Stalin) and came to America they would have been much more loving and kind to the Indians.

Non sequitur.

All that kmortis pointed out was that, contrary to your oft-repeated statements, Christianity did not bring peace, and never intended to.

 

[kmortis]

Ah, yes, it's all "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy" Jesus' fault.

And, I assume you believe if the English and French and Spanish were atheists (like Stalin) and came to America they would have been much more loving and kind to the Indians.

No. I assume that people will act like people. In large masses, they'll act like the lowest common denominator, i.e. like schmucks. Combine that with a healthy dose of xenophobia, and you'd end up with the same result whether the Conquistadors were Christian, Atheist, Buddhist or Discordian. Each would have a unique rationalization for the treatment they gave, but the end result would be the same.


ETA: what does your first sentence mean?

Ah, yes, it's all "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy" Jesus' fault.

I've read it a few times and I'm not sure what you meant to say here. Are you meaning to say that "love you neighbor/enemy" is Jesus' fault?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think he was being sarcastic -- that Jesus message of love was not the cause of later atrocities that might have been committed in his name.