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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which part of Jesus' imagination are you must impressed with:
His supposed inabiliy to argue against slavery or his support of beating slaves?

Actually the parable in Luke 12;47 was not really about slavery per se, it was Christ trying to get a point across that people who know God's laws and don't do them will be punished just like it was probably common knowledge back then that sometimes when slaves did not do their master desires they would be punished. Jesus was just speaking in ways the people could understand. He also mentioned in the same passage that some slaves would be rewarded even to the point of being given control over all his master owns.

Joobz, you seem to imply that the slaves back then were all like the plantation slaves of the South. Here is some info on slavery in biblical times:

From the article "How People Made a Living in the Time of Jesus"

Often the Bible is not always clear when describing the work of servants, because the word “servant” may mean either a slave or a person hired to do some task. Slavery in many forms was fairly common in Bible times. Some people sold themselves into slavery to pay back a debt, or because they were desperately poor and that was the only way they could get food and shelter. Many slaves in Bible times were prisoners of war. Most slaves performed household work rather than field work or manual labor. There are some rules regarding slavery in the Bible, including ones that put a limit on the customs for slavery and recommended when a term of slavery should come to an end (Exod 21.2-6; Lev 25.10, 38-41). There was also some expectation that slaves would be treated fairly and without cruelty (Deut 23.15,16).

http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/MadeaLiving
 
Last edited:
Doc says:

"So the downfall of slavery in the West owes a lot to Christianity. "

Ummm. Sort of. Mainstream Christians were shamed into it.

But the incentive came from the new humanist ideals of the Enlightenment. The same ones that inspired the concept of democracy.

There was little or no incentive to end slavery on the part of Christians before then. In fact, the majority of Popes approved it -- as long as the slaves were 'heathens' or heretics.

Some of the Roman Catholic Scottish rebels (1745) were sold as slaves in the sugar trade in the West Indies. The children of blacks and Jacobites were prized because of their mulatto skin, which brought a good price in the slave markets.

There was one good pope, Gregory XIV , in 1591, who spoke against the enslavement of Indians in South America . He didn't just speak against it. Talk's cheap - especially pious talk. He threatened to excommunicate slave owners who didn't free their slaves!

So even a pope could be a good man in some respects!

I would hazard a guess His guilty concious must have had something to do with that. He was trying to right the mistakes of earlier popes.
 
Doc, what is it about Luke that fascinates you? Luke had the Q document and Mark in front of whoever was the real author of the gospel of that name. This gospel was written around 70-80 AD. There were very few if any live witnesses to Jesus by that time, that's providing a historical Jesus existed at all.
 
The Bible says God is perfect and just, so Christians believe God will give everyone a perfect and just judgment.
"God is good because the Bible says god is good."

Who needs to think for themselves when the Bible does the thinking for you? What a pathetic morality.
 
Yes, but the physician Luke spoke of Christ's miracles and other miracles performed by apostles in the same matter-of-fact diarist's way that he talked about the many minor detailed facts we know he got right. It is only because of a supernatural bias that people accept the numerous highly detailed facts he got right and not the miracles.

Anne Rice, in her descriptions of New Orleans in her novel Interview With The Vampire contain so many minor details that we know are accurate, and by your reasoning this confirms that vampires are not simply mythical creatures of fiction but actual real.

The Bible says God is perfect and just, so Christians believe God will give everyone a perfect and just judgment.

The Quran says that it is true as well, and Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) presented the true and righteous word of God. By your criteria here this means the Quran equally meets the standard that your Bible does.
 
Well here are 10:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC..._brr=0#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

And you will find more in my 900+ posts in this thread.

Well, it becomes apparent that you have not bothered to read most of the 5145+ posts in this thread, if you think you made valid points supporting the OP in any of yours. In particular, those 10 points of Geisler's have been thoroughly taken apart more than once. I have also pointed out, more than once, that the link you give does not work for anyone outside the US, but again you don't appear to take that in.
 
Actually the parable in Luke 12;47 was not really about slavery per se, it was Christ trying to get a point across that people who know God's laws and don't do them will be punished just like it was probably common knowledge back then that sometimes when slaves did not do their master desires they would be punished. Jesus was just speaking in ways the people could understand. He also mentioned in the same passage that some slaves would be rewarded even to the point of being given control over all his master owns.

I guess that makes up for beating slaves who didn't know they broke a rule?


Joobz, you seem to imply that the slaves back then were all like the plantation slaves of the South. Here is some info on slavery in biblical times:

From the article "How People Made a Living in the Time of Jesus"

Often the Bible is not always clear when describing the work of servants, because the word “servant” may mean either a slave or a person hired to do some task. Slavery in many forms was fairly common in Bible times. Some people sold themselves into slavery to pay back a debt, or because they were desperately poor and that was the only way they could get food and shelter. Many slaves in Bible times were prisoners of war. Most slaves performed household work rather than field work or manual labor. There are some rules regarding slavery in the Bible, including ones that put a limit on the customs for slavery and recommended when a term of slavery should come to an end (Exod 21.2-6; Lev 25.10, 38-41). There was also some expectation that slaves would be treated fairly and without cruelty (Deut 23.15,16).

http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/MadeaLiving
Slavery is the loss of one's freedom.
During Jesus' time, a slave could also be born into slavery, could be a spoil of war that they lost or a father could sell his daughters into it. DO you really want to argue that this is all "Ok" and only US slavery is bad?
I'm serious here. You're whole point hinges on the concept that slavery in Jesus' time is morally acceptable and US slavery is morally unacceptable.

I fully disagree and I think both systems are flawed as it takes away a basic human right, the right to lead one's life as they see fit.
 
"God is good because the Bible says god is good."

Who needs to think for themselves when the Bible does the thinking for you? What a pathetic morality.
You still have to look past the parts where
1.) god kills millions of innocent babies, children, and animals in a flood
2.) god tortures A man on a bet.
3.) god kills the first born children to teach the parents a lesson
4.) He condones beating slaves
5.) God says that he creates evil

I could go on, but really. Does any of this logically show god as "good" or "Just" or, more likely, "just no good"?
 
The Bible says God is perfect and just, so Christians believe God will give everyone a perfect and just judgment.
So believing in God isn't necessary after all?

Well, that's nice to know.
 
I have also pointed out, more than once, that the link you give does not work for anyone outside the US, but again you don't appear to take that in.
I know some can't get it -- so you don't want me to give the link because some outside the US can't get it?

If someone is really interested they can buy a used copy of the 420 page book cited in post #1 for about 9 dollars on Amazon. The book spends 22 pages on the 10 reasons we know the NT authors told the truth. I tried to condense these 22 pages into the first post. Obviously that is difficult to do which is why one should read the following link or buy the book if they don't get all the information in the link (those outside the US).

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC..._brr=0#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false
 
Last edited:
I guess that makes up for beating slaves who didn't know they broke a rule?

If you ever go to court for a speeding ticket tell the judge you didn't know what the speed limit was and see if that works.
 
If you ever go to court for a speeding ticket tell the judge you didn't know what the speed limit was and see if that works.


It does work pretty often. A friend of mine got a speeding ticket in an area where the signs were obscured by bushes. Since they could show that they truly didn't know the speed limit in the area, they didn't have to pay, and it didn't go on their traffic record.

In other words, it is the state's responsiblity to make sure laws are clear and unambiguous in order for them to be able to prosecute people.

Unlike your god...
 
It is evident that he traveled with Paul on his journeys, which Acts chronicles. It is also self evident that he did not personally witness the miracles...

If it is evident that the author of Acts (Luke) traveled with Paul why is it evident he did not witness the miracles that Paul did.

Are you implying he (Luke) witnessed the miracles in the gospel? Life expectancy in the Roman empire was likely 35, though that is weighed down by high child mortality. The majority who made it to 15 died by 50. He would have had to be 55 minimum to have witnessed the miracles personally as a 20 year-old...

I wasn't talking about Luke's Gospel, I was talking about The Book of Acts which the Catholic Encyclo. states was likely written about 64 AD. Paul died around 64-66 AD. Luke wouldn't have had to been old at all to witness the miracles of Paul.

And regarding age, some of the oldest living people on the planet today have no contact with modern society or modern medicine. And Moses, Abraham, and the apostle John all lived to a very old age.
 
<snip>
And regarding age, some of the oldest living people on the planet today have no contact with modern society or modern medicine.
Actually DOC they are in their early 20's, they just look old because they've not had contact with modern medicine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom