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

[BobTheDonkey]

Actually Jesus said the servant who didn't know beating several other servants was wrong would receive a lesser punishment than the servant who did know it was wrong. This would be like someone as a youth who doesn't know it is wrong to beat up someone who laughs at him when he trips. He will not be punished as much as someone who knows that beating up the guy is wrong but still does it.

So, you're advocating beating kids?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Actually Jesus said the servant who didn't know beating several other servants was wrong would receive a lesser punishment than the servant who did know it was wrong. This would be like someone as a youth who doesn't know it is wrong to beat up someone who laughs at him when he trips. He will not be punished as much as someone who knows that beating up the guy is wrong but still does it.

He is still advocating beating a subordinate - whether you call that person a slave or a servant, the topic is the appropriate ways to beat a subordinate. And you are supporting that.

Maybe the guy made a mistake on that one point. It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. Einstein was wrong to think the universe just always existed but not many people hold it against him.

That was Einstein's belief that was wrong. Anybody can believe anything (as this thread amply proves.) Einstein's math, as I understand, has been borne out by every bit of research that has been done since.

 

[zooterkin]

Maybe the guy made a mistake on that one point. It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. Einstein was wrong to think the universe just always existed but not many people hold it against him.

Nice evasion. Now, how about answering the question. Why did you use that reference when it didn't support your position?

 

[joobz]

Einstein was wrong to think the universe just always existed but not many people hold it against him.

BTW, DOC, The universe has ALWAYS existed. The only way one could say something hasn't always existed is to say there was a time when that something wasn't around. But since time and the universe started at the same point, it has ALWAYS existed.

 

[Akhenaten]

That was Einstein's belief that was wrong. Anybody can believe anything (as this thread amply proves.) Einstein's math, as I understand, has been borne out by every bit of research that has been done since.

I wonder what Sir William Mitchell Ramsay has to say about it.

 

[zooterkin]

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:

The majority of the posts in this thread are opposed to your contention that there is any evidence for why the New Testament writers told the truth (with particular regard to the supernatural elements). In your frequent mentions of the number of posts you have made, you omit that the great majority of the posts in thread disagree. This shows you are totally incapable of being objective about this issue.

 

[Paulhoff]

Maybe the guy made a mistake on that one point. It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. Einstein was wrong to think the universe just always existed but not many people hold it against him.

That was the understanding of the time, I'm sure that when it was found out that it wasn't he changed his belief.

Like most people you forget to update your information. Do you know that at the end of the stories the Grinch was good at heart and Scrooge was a good person. So being called a Grinch or Scrooge should be a good thing.


Paul

 

[Waterman]

Maybe the guy made a mistake on that one point. It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. Einstein was wrong to think the universe just always existed but not many people hold it against him.

Yes this is a factual something that is actually true! He did make a mistake and when confronted with sufficient information and data it amended his position.

Throughout this thread you have be presented with a considerable amount of information that contradict many of your points and you have YET to concede even the minor points or amend your position. You even present points that are in direct contradiction with one another then deny that it they conflict.

This was entertaining for a while, but...

 

[TSR]

Actually Jesus said the servant who didn't know beating several other servants was wrong would receive a lesser punishment than the servant who did know it was wrong. This would be like someone as a youth who doesn't know it is wrong to beat up someone who laughs at him when he trips. He will not be punished as much as someone who knows that beating up the guy is wrong but still does it.

.
And he also said that the servant who simply didn't prepare for his master's return should be beaten -- why not just fire him, if he was an ordinary servant?

And what about being sold? Is that what should happen to servants?

Funny that you seem to have missed that post...
.

 

[TSR]

Maybe the guy made a mistake on that one point. It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. Einstein was wrong to think the universe just always existed but not many people hold it against him.

.
And how are you determining which details are right and which wrong?
.

 

[DOC]

So it given that the authors of the NT could be right about some things and wrong about others what evidence do you have that they are right about the supernatural?

You're implying I said the authors of the NT could be right about some things and wrong about others which would be false.

And many of my 1500 posts answer your question about evidence.

 

[DOC]

I have absolutely no clue what you are asking me for.
If you believe the area of Rome/Judea (where the Jesus story was supposedly from) didn't commonly use slaves, then present the information.
THat's your claim, not mine.

You said this "servants were almost always slaves during biblical times"

I asked what is your source for that regarding Palestine.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You're implying I said the authors of the NT could be right about some things and wrong about others which would be false.

And many of my 1500 posts answer your question about evidence.

No Doc. Not a single one of your 1500 posts answers any question about any evidence.

That, in fact, is the problem...

 

[DOC]

exactly! You do realize that this is proof that you are being fully dishonest when making the Ramsay quote. Luke being right about some facts has no bearing on the accuracy about magical elements in the bible. Even Ramsay said as much.

So, why do you lie instead of present evidence? Isn't it sad that the best you can do to support your religion is to lie through your teeth about it?

So it is your logic that I am being fully dishonest and lying through my teeth by giving a truthful quote about the fact that Ramsay said Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians. These emotional shock words you use are empty fluff.

Skeptics lose credibility when they keep saying this over and over. Many skeptics hate what Ramsay said and simply can't accept it and move on. I never said Ramsay's quote was proof that Luke was right about the supernatural, but it certainly increases the likelihood he was right over some author who was never given such praise by a respected academic and we know nothing about. That should be obvious, but some skeptics just can't accept it, and I think that hurts those skeptics credibility as being unbiased.

 

[DOC]

No Doc. Not a single one of your 1500 posts answers any question about any evidence.

That, in fact, is the problem...

You've got the right to your opinion.

 

[joobz]

You said this "servants were almost always slaves during biblical times"

I asked what is your source for that regarding Palestine.

You keep saying Palestine, why is this?
Well, this is interesting. Let's see how far you take this DOC.

Slavery was extremely common in Rome and all Roman territories.
http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Romans/slavery/slavery2.html

Jesus preached in the Roman Empire, which Judea was a part of when Jesus was preaching. As such, any reference to a dolous is clearly a slave reference, not merely a servant.

Your move.

 

[joobz]

I never said Ramsay's quote was proof that Luke was right about the supernatural, but it certainly increases the likelihood he was right over some author who was never given such praise by a respected academic and we know nothing about.

No, it doesn't.
As you said, DOC, "It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. "

 

[DOC]

He is still advocating beating a subordinate - whether you call that person a slave or a servant, the topic is the appropriate ways to beat a subordinate. And you are supporting that.

The main focus of the parable is that God punishes sin {unless sincere forgiveness is asked}.

Christ probably used that parable because his audience (in that brutal era) could understand exactly what he was talking about. But the focus of the parable is not the economic institution of servitude or slavery, the main focus is that God punishes sin. Joobz and some others are concentrating on the servitude and slavery aspect but the focus of the parable is on punishment for sin not servitude or slavery.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

I never said Ramsay's quote was proof that Luke was right about the supernatural, but it certainly increases the likelihood he was right over some author who was never given such praise by a respected academic and we know nothing about.

No, it doesn't.
As you said, DOC, "It is possible to be right about one thing and wrong or make a mistake about something else. "

So then you believe if a teacher is awarded the national teacher of the year award it is not more likely that that teacher would be better for your child than some random teacher.

And you would have no preference as to which teacher your child had.

 

[joobz]

The main focus of the parable is that God punishes sin {unless sincere forgiveness is asked}.

by using a boss/subordinate (or more accurately master/slave) analogy where showing that it is acceptable for a boss to beat up subordinate

Christ probably used that parable because his audience (in that brutal era) could understand exactly what he was talking about.

how callous and morally relativistic of jesus.

But the focus of the parable is not the economic institution of servitude or slavery, the main focus is that God punishes sin.

which proves that Jesus didn't care about slavery. If he really was moral (by today's standards), he would have fought against it entirely. But....

Joobz and some others are concentrating on the servitude and slavery aspect but the focus of the parable is on punishment for sin not servitude or slavery.

because Jesus callously used a horrible institution to describe a horrible notion. That god will punish people for committing sins that they didn't know were sins. That's evil, DOC. You worship an evil being.