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

[Lothian]

Genesis 9:24-26 (amended edition)




Ooh! Slaves!

Makes a nice change for Ham to be the one giving the good stuffing.

 

[Lothian]

An abomination. HTH

I heard it was "bootiful"

 

[TSR]

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Jesus doesn't state that parable with the idea that it is acceptable to force the sale of people and property to pay off debt. Instead, the parable states that if you forgive others as god forgives you, all's cool. If you don't, then you'll be tortured.

.
Disagree.

No, the idea of selling the servant isn't the moral of the story, just one of the details. A detail that is related with, at best, indifference. The sale of the man and his family was called off, not because it was *wrong*, but as an act of charity which it is made clear is undeserved.

And being tortured for a debt is even worse, since there is nothing to say they might have been mistreated by their new "owner."
.

 

[Hokulele]

Sure there is when your talking about something that happened over a day ago. Someone like Luke who has proven he is highly accurate in details is not likely to to be loosey goosey with the facts like some random person off the street.

Answer me this Joobz if your life was on the line if you answered wrong who would you say was the one who is most likely to be right about the sandwich. And they both claimed to eat the sandwich 3 days ago.

A Famous historian who was called one of the world's greatest.

B Some random person off the street.

C Either one because its a 50 50 propositon.

You do realize that claiming to have eaten a ham sandwich is completely different from claiming to have seen a person levitate 3 years ago, yes?

For this particular hypothetical, which has nothing to do with your original hypothetical mind you, I would pick C as I have met any number of academically famous people who were completely scatter-brained about their day-to-day life.

Again, for those who seem completely unfamiliar with how formal logic and debate work, just because someone is good at one field, does not make them good at all fields (appeal to false authority). In addition, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[kmortis]

Having made it this far, I've been granted a Vision^tm from They That Grant Visions^sm. The Vision^tm is thus:

DOC, upon a great body of water, wearing a leather jacket, swimming trunks and water skiis. He is being pulled, via a long rope, by a boat toward a long ramp. On the far side of this ramp is a shark...

 

[Akhenaten]

.

 

[Paulhoff]

I seems, in more words or less, that we are still waiting for this Proof. I will not hold my breathe.

Paul

 

[Lothian]

.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/JawsMusic.jpg[/qimg]​

Is that Haydn's miracle symphony arranged for the lyre.

 

[Akhenaten]

Not quite, but very, very similar.

'tis John Williams 'Requiem for a Swimmer', arranged for Carcharodon carcharias.



ETA: Your title is much more subtle. I lol'd

 

[joobz]

.
Disagree.

No, the idea of selling the servant isn't the moral of the story, just one of the details. A detail that is related with, at best, indifference. The sale of the man and his family was called off, not because it was *wrong*, but as an act of charity which it is made clear is undeserved.

While I wish I could agree with this, I just can't. It's clear that Jesus offered up that point as the "horrible doom awaiting the servant" but the wonderful Master, in his infinite grace, allowed the servant a pass on his fate.

the story offers up the selling the family as a horrible outcome to be avoided. To claim that the story teller was indifferent to this seems to be unlikely.

And being tortured for a debt is even worse, since there is nothing to say they might have been mistreated by their new "owner."
.

I think either outcome is vile. But, like I said before, the more subtle and insidious point of the parable is the implicit assumption that we are like the servant. This is to say that we ALL hold a debt to a master, who is willing to forgive that debt if we "play nice".

A debt that was set BY the master.
A debt, mind you, that I never agreed to participate in.
The punishment for that debt is also set by that master. And I'm supposed to believe that the creature that created this vile mafia-esque protection scheme has my interests at heart and loves me? please.

 

[Cactus Wren]

In which post did they answer either person A or person B.

DOC, have you stopped masturbating in public places? Answer A or B:

A: "Yes, I have stopped masturbating in public places."

B: "No, I have not stopped masturbating in public places."

 

[amb]

Maybe Jesus chose to be subjected to the science he created that makes levitation possible. But he was certainly not restricted by those laws unless he chose to be while on earth.

We at least know levitation is possible in theory for humans so logically speaking that makes it more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth about Christ walking on water or ascending into heaven even if you don't believe that Christ was divine. If you do believe he was divine it really doesn't matter what science says about levitation. But most people in here don't believe Christ was divine so I brought it up as an intellectual argument.

Some here like yours truly doesn't even believe there ever was a historical Jesus, let alone an exalted one with the power of the universe in his grasp.

 

[realpaladin]

The apostles did see the resurrected Christ.

No they did not. It was written in a book they did. But that has the same value as me now saying I just saw Ganesha.

 

[amb]

I have seen Jesus looking very cross just this morning. He appeared in my fried eggs.

 

[sphenisc]

I have seen Jesus looking very cross just this morning. He appeared in my fried eggs.

Hmmm.... did he quote Matthew 11:30 ?

 

[amb]

No, he just seemed to sizzle.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have seen Jesus looking very cross just this morning. He appeared in my fried eggs.

Were you cooking bacon as well? Maybe he was upset that you didn't have enough bacon...

 

[amb]

At least he didn't appear on my toast as he has a habit of doing.

 

[six7s]

...some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.

ETA: The Jews killed by stoning, not crucifixion.

For the fourth time:

DOC, do you have any references that might substantiate your vague claim?

I've already answered that, if you don't like my question so be it.

Its not that i don't like it... I skimmed about five pages of the backlog and saw nothing in the way of a reply...
Please, do repeat it

If you agree to apologize for making me look it up I'll do it.

Ordinarily, I only apologise for things that I regret in retrospect...

But... if it'll make you happy, I hereby apologise for 'making you look it up'

OK?

So... for the fifth time...

DOC, do you have any references that might substantiate your vague claim?

 

[Simon39759]

We at least know levitation is possible in theory for humans so logically speaking that makes it more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth about Christ walking on water or ascending into heaven even if you don't believe that Christ was divine. If you do believe he was divine it really doesn't matter what science says about levitation. But most people in here don't believe Christ was divine so I brought it up as an intellectual argument.

We don't believe that he has access to science that would be, if at all possible, at least 2100 years ahead of his.

Maybe Jesus chose to be subjected to the science he created that makes levitation possible. But he was certainly not restricted by those laws unless he chose to be while on earth.

Maybe Jesus chose not to do actual miracle and leave the story of his divinity develop through inaccurate account and purely cultural myth making (people making up cool stories or looking into the OT and supposing that it filled the gap of what they ignored about Jesus' life)...