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

[paximperium]

But when you think about it, you can't truly know what is like to be human unless you experience hunger and forgetfulness.

Or being apathetic to slavery or acting like a crazy nutbar.

 

[Simon39759]

All this comes from tradition. Nearly all scholars in the past two centuries start the ''Quest For The Historical Jesus'' by taking it for granted that he actually existed in time.
But if you seek this Jesus outside of the N/T, the evidence as I said is scant at best. Christians, and others point to a reference to Jesus from such ancient writers as Josephus, Tacitus and a couple of others who I feel were writing what was already tradition when they put quill to paper. In Josephus's case, it may have been a complete forgery by later Christians. All his earlier work makes no mention of any Jesus.
There is a bona fide case that Jesus was a complete construction based on the O/T.
Someone ought to start a new thread on the historicity or otherwise of Jesus on this forum.

Yes, I agree that we have no contemporary (or even near contemporary) account of the existence of Jesus. It's all based on later Christian traditions.

But, then again, one would not particularly expect to be if Jesus was a relatively minor preacher during a time replete with them.
He probably never was nearly as famous as John the Baptist; for example, during his lifetime.

On the other hand, what we know of the emergence of Christianity do point out at it being based on Jewish apocalyptic teachings from the early first century.
At that point, one can give the tradition the benefit of the doubt, especially on the crucial details and admit that there is a good likelihood that the teacher in question did indeed bear the common first name of 'Jesus', was indeed from Nazareth and was indeed crucified by the Roman authorities as we know they were very prone to do with suspected trouble makers...

None of these particularly stretch my credulity...

 

[joobz]

Yes, I agree that we have no contemporary (or even near contemporary) account of the existence of Jesus. It's all based on later Christian traditions.

But, then again, one would not particularly expect to be if Jesus was a relatively minor preacher during a time replete with them.
He probably never was nearly as famous as John the Baptist; for example, during his lifetime.

On the other hand, what we know of the emergence of Christianity do point out at it being based on Jewish apocalyptic teachings from the early first century.
At that point, one can give the tradition the benefit of the doubt, especially on the crucial details and admit that there is a good likelihood that the teacher in question did indeed bear the common first name of 'Jesus', was indeed from Nazareth and was indeed crucified by the Roman authorities as we know they were very prone to do with suspected trouble makers...

None of these particularly stretch my credulity...

exactly!

but the whole, Walking on water, turning water to wine and resurrecting from the dead.... Call me skeptical.

 

[amb]

There are very good tales written about Robin Hood, King Arthur and some others that very few people actually believe they existed. From the O/T we have Moses who some historians think never existed as was the great Kingdoms of King David and the splendor of Solomon who more and more historians doubt ever existed. There is no evidence for either story in the archeology digs of practically the whole Middle East.
A very superstitious people create superstitious stories of their often non-existent heroes.

 

[amb]

exactly!

but the whole, Walking on water, turning water to wine and resurrecting from the dead.... Call me skeptical.

If this had taken place for real, the history accounts of those days would be unable to be held in the largest of libraries.

 

[WaterBreather]

There are very good tales written about Robin Hood, King Arthur and some others that very few people actually believe they existed. From the O/T we have Moses who some historians think never existed as was the great Kingdoms of King David and the splendor of Solomon who more and more historians doubt ever existed. There is no evidence for either story in the archeology digs of practically the whole Middle East.
A very superstitious people create superstitious stories of their often non-existent heroes.

The Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon is documented in ancient Ethiopian tradition. Except, it adds to the story.

Solomon's first son is of Sheba, but he (Menelek) is rejected by Israel for being black.

The Ethiopian tradition also tells of how the Ethiopians took the Arc of the Covenant to Ethiopia, and the church it is held in exists to this day.

...

For I,
the best evidence one can present to those who have not witnessed
is quite simply
that the Christian Church is the most powerful organisation
that the world has ever known.

How many western leaders profess to be not Christian?
most people here cannot distinguish between
proof (witnessing)
and evidence which can ALWAYS be said to have been faked
in any situation
as regards
anything

Evidence is there to lead one to the proof.
The only proof can be to witness.
The method is to look within with a clear conscience
and to have a solid moral reason for doing so.

(Be naked on a rock)

 

[amb]

The Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon is documented in ancient Ethiopian tradition. Except, it adds to the story.

Solomon's first son is of Sheba, but he (Menelek) is rejected by Israel for being black.

The Ethiopian tradition also tells of how the Ethiopians took the Arc of the Covenant to Ethiopia, and the church it is held in exists to this day.

...

For I,
the best evidence one can present to those who have not witnessed
is quite simply
that the Christian Church is the most powerful organisation
that the world has ever known.

How many western leaders profess to be not Christian?
most people here cannot distinguish between
proof (witnessing)
and evidence which can ALWAYS be said to have been faked
in any situation
as regards
anything

Evidence is there to lead one to the proof.
The only proof can be to witness.
The method is to look within with a clear conscience
and to have a solid moral reason for doing so.

(Be naked on a rock)

If these events actually took place, they were just local happenings. Israel was never the Empire described in the O/T.
If the arc of the covenant exists in this church, why haven't we ever seen it?

 

[DOC]

Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus OR god had a problem with slavery. Indeed, Slavery was one of the greatest evils of past civilizations. An evil that was surprizingly NOT on Jesus' radar.*



Further, All evidence in the bible points to the contrary. His willingness to use the beating of slaves for unknowingly breaking a rule as an example of acceptable action clearly suggests that slavery wasn't a big issue with him.

This is a sad post. You once again omit that the great majority of bible translations translate the verse in question as servant not slave. This shows you are totally incapable of being objective about this issue. If you were really objective and truthful you would say something like:

Jesus' willingness to say a parable about a land owner -- who gives a servant (9 translations use servant - 2 use translations slave) some lashes because this servant/slave beat several maidens and beat several manservants -- in order to convey to the people (in language they can understand) that punishment from God will occur for severe sins.

and if you would actually bother to stop lying, we could finally close this thread. But, obviously, truth isn't important to you so I will continue to point out your lies/falsehoods/and general lack of logic.

And this is another example of some people wanting this thread closed. At least 3 skeptics and probably 4 have made comments similar to this. The question is why, why do 3 or 4 skeptics want this thread closed. They should welcome the chance to be objective and let the facts speak for themselves. If I am a liar they should welcome the chance to specifically point this out in a reasoned argument and let a Christian look bad before everyone. If someone thinks I show a general lack of logic they should welcome the chance for this to be seen by everyone. It would seem if all the above were true the last thing you would want is for this thread to be closed because it would be showing a Christian looking bad.

Also I find it interesting that no skeptics call out Joobz on his continued using of the word slave (at least 40 times) and omitting the word servant when the great majority of translations use servant. And yet when I give a true fact and do not give another true fact I am called a liar in big red oversized print. This is an obvious double standard. Some skeptics should have the courage to call Joobz out on his behavior otherwise it makes the skeptics look bad in this thread by their continued silence.

Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased about this servant/slave issue, and hopefully at least one skeptic out of the over 200 that have posted in this thread can call him out on his behavior when he is not. Otherwise you become conspicuous by your silence.

 

[DOC]

Or being apathetic to slavery or acting like a crazy nutbar.

Another example of fudging by using the word slavery (when 9 translations say servant and 2 slave).

 

[joobz]

This is a sad post. You once again omit that the great majority of bible translations translate the verse in question as servant not slave. This shows you are totally incapable of being objective about this issue. If you were really objective and truthful you would say something like:

I am being objective.
Dolous = slave, bond-servant. That's the original greek.
the accurate and honest translation (historically accurate) translation is slave.

Jesus' willingness to say a parable about a land owner -- who gives a servant (9 translations use servant - 2 use translations slave) some lashes because this servant/slave beat several maidens and beat several manservants -- in order to convey to the people (in language they can understand) that punishment from God will occur for severe sins.

Now who's being dishonest?
Luke 12:47-48
"47That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. 48But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. "

Jesus states that it is ok To BEAT another human being for doing something they didn't know was wrong to do. End of story.

 

[TSR]

Another example of fudging by using the word slavery (when 9 translations say servant and 2 slave).

.
And beating a servant is better than beating a slave because ...?

And you *do* know what a bonded servant is, and how that differs from the downstairs maid, right?
.

 

[DOC]

.
And beating a servant is better than beating a slave because ...?

If you want to say a land owner in the parable (during that brutal era) gave some lashes to a servant who beat several men and woman -- fine -- but it is not fine to go around to many threads and say Jesus condones slavery without being honest about the context and what the vast majority of translations actually say.

 

[joobz]

Also I find it interesting that no skeptics call out Joobz on his continued using of the word slave (at least 40 times) and omitting the word servant when the great majority of translations use servant.

Interesting. here you claim that popular opinion equals fact. That because most translations say servant, I'm wrong.

However, when people argued that Psalm 22 couldn't be a prophecy of christ because Crucifixion would mutilate forearms not hands, you explain that all of the bible texts were wrongly translated...

I don't know where the forearm info came from but lesson 1 of the Mooring website says this

"When the Bible says that the risen Jesus had nail prints in His hands and side (John 20:25), the Greek word for "hands" takes in the wrists as well (16)".

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/crucifixion/cruc.html

And the bible says this:

“Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe." (Gospel of John, 20:25)

So, which is it DOC? You can't have your argument both ways. Is accurate use of the greek an acceptable way to interpret the intended meaning, or is popular opinion the right way to interpret the biblical meaning?

And yet when I give a true fact and do not give another true fact I am called a liar in big red oversized print.

You didn't give a true fact, you quote mined. That's the same as lying. Indeed, you likely know this and are merely lying again.

Some skeptics should have the courage to call Joobz out on his behavior otherwise it makes the skeptics look bad in this thread by their continued silence.

If I'm wrong, I admit it. In this case, I'm not wrong.

Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased about this servant/slave issue,

I am.

and hopefully at least one skeptic out of the over 200 that have posted in this thread can call him out on his behavior when he is not. Otherwise you become conspicuous by your silence.

I agree. people should speak up if someone lies and makes false claims.

That's why I'll come out and say, DOC, you have lied repeatedly in this thread and it is not acceptable anymore.

 

[DOC]

I am being objective.
Dolous = slave, bond-servant. That's the original greek.
the accurate and honest translation (historically accurate) translation is slave.

The second definition of the word doulos in the website you originally brought in was servant.

And I brought in a website that said in that Palestine culture (not Greek culture) the word servant is more appropriate. Joobz your fudging. Why don't in the future you just always say 9 translations say servant and 2 slave and quit trying to be a translator yourself to help your case.

 

[DOC]

However, when people argued that Psalm 22 couldn't be a prophecy of christ because Crucifixion would mutilate forearms not hands, you explain that all of the bible texts were wrongly translated...

No I don't. And show me in the bible where it says Jesus was nailed in his forearms.

 

[TSR]

If you want to say a land owner in the parable (during that brutal era) gave some lashes to a servant who beat several men and woman -- fine -- but it is not fine to go around to many threads and say Jesus condones slavery without being honest about the context and what the vast majority of translations actually say.

.
Of course, Luke 12:45-48 doesn't mention any offense on the part of the servant than he "knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will" for which heinous acts he "shall be beaten with many stripes."

Then, in Matthew 18:23-25 talks about someone being sold with his his wife and his children and all that he had. Do servants usually get sold, Doc?

Not to mention how many times the distinction is made between bond and free. Or do you not want to talk about that context?
.

 

[joobz]

The second definition of the word doulos in the website you originally brought in was servant.

servants were almost always slaves during biblical times. It is you who must prove that Jesus didn't mean slave when "dolous" was used.

And I brought in a website that said in that Palestine culture (not Greek culture) the word servant is more appropriate.

Please repost this. I do not remember the link. I would find it funny if you are trying to claim that slaves didn't exist in Judea and in Rome.

Joobz your fudging. Why don't in the future you just always say 9 translations say servant and 2 slave and quit trying to be a translator yourself to help your case.

I would never say that because it is misleading.
Dolous = slave.
Jesus condoned the beating of dolous.
Those are the accurate statements.



BTW, do you have any comment about your hypocrisy regarding when translations are or are not accurate?

 

[TSR]

No I don't. And show me in the bible where it says Jesus was nailed in his forearms.

From the Moorings Website: The Crucifixion of Christ
Lesson 2: Psalm 22 as Prophecy

"* "They pierced my hands and my feet." Could there be clearer proof that the psalm describes a crucifixion? In what other mode of execution does the victim suffer a piercing of his hands and feet? Earlier, we showed that Jesus was held to the cross by three nails, one through each forearm and one through both heels.


"When the Bible says that the risen Jesus had nail prints in His hands and side (John 20:25), the Greek word for "hands" takes in the wrists as well (16)".

.
Your source. Are you saying they are wrong?
.

 

[joobz]

No I don't. And show me in the bible where it says Jesus was nailed in his forearms.

You are intentionally misrepresenting my argument and your previous argument.
Why do you continue to lie?

 

[Simon39759]

The second definition of the word doulos in the website you originally brought in was servant.

And I brought in a website that said in that Palestine culture (not Greek culture) the word servant is more appropriate. Joobz your fudging. Why don't in the future you just always say 9 translations say servant and 2 slave and quit trying to be a translator yourself to help your case.

Last night, I went ahead and translated these passages 75 times in a row. Each time I used the word 'slave' rather than servant.
So now, you see, your argument is moot (well, it always was).

It matters not what the numbers of translation are, especially when many Biblical translations are known to be terribly innacurate (King James, for example).
What matters is the real expert opinion born out of modern, serious scholarship. And it does, quite clearly, translate the word dolous as meaning slave (the first two links are a rather interesting article, too bad Doc will never read it).


These translations is not perfect, mostly, because slavery was a different institution back then that it was in modern times: it was not race-based, and it could be temporary and the slaves tended to be better treated back then.
But still, on a crucial feature, being the property on another being, the word slave is more accurate.