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

[paximperium]

It is if God chooses to punish those who sin in a similar manner to the servant who beat several men and woman like the servant did in Luke 12:47.

And like I said before receiving some lashes is probably more lenient than making a person spend several years in jail.. If you were to ask people who have to spend 4 years in jail if they would submit to 10 lashes on the back if they could walk free, I doubt anyone would not agree to do it.

Bottom line if you read the bible, there is a price to pay for any unforgiven sin. God, being perfect, is not flippant about sin.

Since this is not what is stated in your piece of babel, it is irrelevant. What sin are you talking about?

Do you think it is okay to "...that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."?

 

[John Jones]

Yes, if a word has two definitions and the translator believes the second definition is the most accurate representation of what the text is saying, he should choose the second definition. Many words have several definitions. Translators shouldn't limit themselves to always choosing the first definition of a word.

Strawman.

 

[DOC]

So you're okay with Jebus saying
"47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more"?

I will not answer your question unless you use the name Jesus, Christ, Yeshua, or Yahshua in reference to the quote. You might ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable using the name of a historical person.

So you lied when you claimed you already answered this question?

What are you talking about? Where did I claim I already answered the question you are referring to, in what post?

 

[paximperium]

Oh yes DOC boy, whenever you use "god", you need to put an asterisk next to it and clearly state if you are mentioning Yahweh, the Canaanite god and child of El; Yahweh an early Hebrew god that was married to Ashera; El the lord of the Canaanite pantheon and father to Yahweh; Elohim the name of "god" before Moses(or I as I call him, Momo) and which Yahweh supplanted; Yahweh the Christian lovey dovey god; Yahweh, the Jewish stern father god; Allah, the Islamic god or Monkeypoo, you version of god?

Be very specific.

 

[Akhenaten]

Got any evidence that the people who wrote that story were telling the truth, DOC?

Yes, it was written by gospel writer Luke.

This is a lie. This ridiculous claim has been debunked in more places and by more people than you and I have had hot breakfasts. You know this, and yet you persist.

How do you think that makes your entire pathetic excuse for an 'argument' look?

Luke is the person respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian regarding things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

This statement is so utterly lacking in meaning that it fails of description as either true or false. It's gibberish, resulting from a pitiful attempt at equivocation. Yet another abject failure for this tired old line of anti-reasoning.

Given that fact . . .

Not given and not a fact.

Fail²

. . .it is more likely than not this is what the man Jesus (whom most historians believe was a historical person) said.

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you? Pathetic, DOC, absolutely pathetic, and it's right out there for everyone to see.

Your posts are without any value whatsoever, other than as a demonstration of what happens when reason, logic and critical thinking are abandoned in favour of slavish adherance to a primitive fairy tale.

What a sad and sorry spectacle your words portray.

 

[paximperium]

I will not answer your question unless you use the name Jesus, Christ, Yeshua, or Yahshua in reference to the quote. You might ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable using the name of a historical person.

Why are you uncomfortable answering such a simple question? Why do you feel uncomfortable in facing the words uttered by Yeshua, the character in the Bible?

What are you talking about? Where did I claim I already answered the question you are referring to, in what post?

I'm sorry. I misread your other drivel filled post. I apologize for assuming you tried to answer a question that has been asked of you...about hundred plus times already. For that my apologies.

 

[Akhenaten]

It is if God chooses to punish those who sin in a similar manner to the servant who beat several men and woman like the servant did in Luke 12:47.

And like I said before receiving some lashes is probably more lenient than making a person spend several years in jail.. If you were to ask people who have to spend 4 years in jail if they would submit to 10 lashes on the back if they could walk free, I doubt anyone would not agree to do it.

Bottom line if you read the bible, there is a price to pay for any unforgiven sin. God, being perfect, is not flippant about sin.

What does any of this piffle have to do with the topic, DOC?

 

[paximperium]

Yes, it was written by gospel writer Luke. Luke is the person respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian regarding things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence. Given that fact it is more likely than not this is what the man Jesus (whom most historians believe was a historical person) said.

You mean Luke, the guy who never witnessed anything that he supposedly wrote down?

 

[paximperium]

What does any of this piffle have to do with the topic, DOC?

Bring forth the rotting Red Herring.

 

[Akhenaten]

I will not answer your question unless you use the name Jesus Osiris, Christ Horus, Yeshua Seth, or Yahshua Isis in reference to the quote. You might ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable using the name of a historical person.

FTFY, blasphemer.

What are you talking about? Where did I claim I already answered the question you are referring to, in what post?

Your lies. Right here in this thread.

 

[paximperium]

Your lies. Right here in this thread.

Well to be honest, he has steadfastly refused to answer such a simple question that has been asked repeatedly for multiple pages so far and instead thrown irrelevant stinking rotting apologetics around.

 

[joobz]

I would agree, that is why I have brought in websites like this:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Nothing in that link provides evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
Nothing in that link rises to the quality of a common birth certificate (Which as you state, can be faked).

What does that say about your evidence?

 

[joobz]

I will not answer your question unless you use the name Jesus, Christ, Yeshua, or Yahshua in reference to the quote. You might ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable using the name of a historical person.

Ok.
Jesus, Christ, Yeshua or Yahshua is highly immoral, as he condones the beating of servants (also known as slaves). Not only does he condone their beating, he condones their beating for when they break rules they didn't know existed.

Anyone who agrees with Jesus on this point is equally immoral and deserves nothing but scorn.


ETA:
I wonder why DOC would choose to ignore this question.

The parable also says that those who didn't know they were breaking a rule, would still be beaten (just not as badly). How would you feel if your boss one day whipped you so that your flesh would be torn and bleeding if afterwards, you found out it was because you hadn't responded to his memo that he didn't give you?

Good thing I'm not his boss....

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm sorry. I misread your other drivel filled post. I apologize for assuming you tried to answer a question that has been asked of you...about hundred plus times already. For that my apologies.

Bring forth the rotting Red Herring.

It's unanimous.

 

[jwalker1960]

Point by Point Reply

Note – I’ve put my replies in bold to make my responses clearer.

Reason #1
The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

This is a literary device that uses the disciples as proxies for bad believer. By doing this, the writers are trying to show believers how they should behave by using the contrast of how not to behave.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

These details you mention were recording what non-believers during Jesus’ time were saying about him. It is meant to show how he was ridiculed by many. It serves to contrast what the writers want the reader to come away with, that Jesus’ was not anything like what these other people claimed he was.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

If that is what Jesus really said, then of course they will include it. They weren’t trying to win popularity contests; they were trying to teach believers what they should believe. It also supports the central early Christian idea that being truly faithful was a VERY difficult thing, up to and including the believer’s death.

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

You are making an assumption based on 21st century ideas of what is “news worthy”. The writers considered these things to be true and reported them as such. They weren’t trying to write a Greek or Roman tragedy and they weren’t trying to impress outsiders, they were writing a guide for the faithful, people who were already believers, so there was no reason to resort to grandiose and extravagant images.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

This proves nothing. The most zealot of believers are converts to a new belief system. As far as dying and being persecuted, so did the followers of Rama, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Mithras, and don’t forget the million of soldiers who died for their kings and generals. All that proves is that people will die for things they believe deeply in.

In conclusion, your “evidence” is based on supposition, conjecture and a lack of understanding of historical literary criticism. It certainly wouldn’t qualify as evidence in a rational and scientific inquiry.

Also, you seem to assume that the writers of the New Testament were the actually disciples. Only the Epistles of Peter, the Epistles of John, and Jude (held to be written by James) could in anyway be considered to be written by an actual disciple of Jesus, and even these are only considered so by tradition, not by any actual evidence as none of the original books or letters of the bible are actually known to exist.

The Gospels themselves and the rest of the epistles, except those writen by Paul (who was not a disciple of Jesus and never actually saw, heard or met Jesus in his lifetime) were written by author’s unknown.

The earliest Gospel known to have existed in anything like its current form wasn’t written until well over 100 years after the death of Jesus and all of the Gospels were based on earlier lost writings or oral traditions.

All the New Testament is evidence of is the beliefs and teachings of early communities of believers spread about Asia Minor in the teachings of a man called Jesus during the first few centuries BCE. The majority of modern Christian thoughts and beliefs (anything after say 150 BCE) is actually the result of the teachings of one man and he is not Jesus. He is Paul of Tarsus (St Paul). By rights, Christianity should be called Paulism or Paulianity because it has far more to do with Paul’s own ideas and beliefs than any that Jesus may have taught.

I suggest taking some time and studying the history of the early Christian community, especially it’s writings and how they became the New Testament we know today. And make sure you study ALL of the sources, not just the Christian apologists’ ones.

 

[paximperium]

Welcome Jaywalker.
Unfortunately like any punching bag, DOC is immovable and only useful for practice.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Nonsense. Consider the word cleave. Is the reponsible translator free to choose any definition?

Yes, if a word has two definitions and the translator believes the second definition is the most accurate representation of what the text is saying, he should choose the second definition. Many words have several definitions. Translators shouldn't limit themselves to always choosing the first definition of a word.

ROFL. A further spotlight on your ignorance. Did you look up the word cleave before you answered John Jones' post?

And one slight derail: you seem to think that "translation" means looking up text word-by-word in a dictionary. In fact, accurate translation is a difficult, highly skilled discipline, combining knowledge, art and craft, and requiring a great deal of intelligence and almost total immersion in at least two languages. A good translator thinks almost simultaneously in both languages and the words flow.

The word-by-word translation can lead to your making yourself look really ignorant, and, worse, becoming a figure of fun.

One example: a guidebook I once bought in Guadalajara discussed a church which out-baroqued Baroque, and in Spanish said its design was, "...barroco, casi herreriana," meaning that its design and ornamentation reached almost the level of that created by a church architect named Herrerra. The English translation read, "baroque, almost a heresy."

Another, very simple, example: in Spanish, there are two words for fish: pez and pescado. You will look stupid if you use one for the other.

Helen may want to correct my thoughts on translation. Having tried it a few times, I am in awe of those who can do it well enough to earn a living at it.

Bottom line if you read the bible, there is a price to pay for any unforgiven sin. God, being perfect, is not flippant about sin.

....aaand here we are back again quoting the Bible as evidence the Bible is true.

 

[Paulhoff]

It is if God chooses to punish those who sin in a similar manner to the servant who beat several men and woman like the servant did in Luke 12:47.

Gee, again, is it OK for a person to beat someone.

Paul

 

[tsig]

Yes, it was written by gospel writer Luke. Luke is the person respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian regarding things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence. Given that fact it is more likely than not this is what the man Jesus (whom most historians believe was a historical person) said.

Did Sir William M. Ramsay have some special conduit to god?

 

[tsig]

Note – I’ve put my replies in bold to make my responses clearer.

Reason #1
The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

This is a literary device that uses the disciples as proxies for bad believer. By doing this, the writers are trying to show believers how they should behave by using the contrast of how not to behave.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

These details you mention were recording what non-believers during Jesus’ time were saying about him. It is meant to show how he was ridiculed by many. It serves to contrast what the writers want the reader to come away with, that Jesus’ was not anything like what these other people claimed he was.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

If that is what Jesus really said, then of course they will include it. They weren’t trying to win popularity contests; they were trying to teach believers what they should believe. It also supports the central early Christian idea that being truly faithful was a VERY difficult thing, up to and including the believer’s death.

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

You are making an assumption based on 21st century ideas of what is “news worthy”. The writers considered these things to be true and reported them as such. They weren’t trying to write a Greek or Roman tragedy and they weren’t trying to impress outsiders, they were writing a guide for the faithful, people who were already believers, so there was no reason to resort to grandiose and extravagant images.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

This proves nothing. The most zealot of believers are converts to a new belief system. As far as dying and being persecuted, so did the followers of Rama, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Mithras, and don’t forget the million of soldiers who died for their kings and generals. All that proves is that people will die for things they believe deeply in.

In conclusion, your “evidence” is based on supposition, conjecture and a lack of understanding of historical literary criticism. It certainly wouldn’t qualify as evidence in a rational and scientific inquiry.

Also, you seem to assume that the writers of the New Testament were the actually disciples. Only the Epistles of Peter, the Epistles of John, and Jude (held to be written by James) could in anyway be considered to be written by an actual disciple of Jesus, and even these are only considered so by tradition, not by any actual evidence as none of the original books or letters of the bible are actually known to exist.

The Gospels themselves and the rest of the epistles, except those writen by Paul (who was not a disciple of Jesus and never actually saw, heard or met Jesus in his lifetime) were written by author’s unknown.

The earliest Gospel known to have existed in anything like its current form wasn’t written until well over 100 years after the death of Jesus and all of the Gospels were based on earlier lost writings or oral traditions.

All the New Testament is evidence of is the beliefs and teachings of early communities of believers spread about Asia Minor in the teachings of a man called Jesus during the first few centuries BCE. The majority of modern Christian thoughts and beliefs (anything after say 150 BCE) is actually the result of the teachings of one man and he is not Jesus. He is Paul of Tarsus (St Paul). By rights, Christianity should be called Paulism or Paulianity because it has far more to do with Paul’s own ideas and beliefs than any that Jesus may have taught.

I suggest taking some time and studying the history of the early Christian community, especially it’s writings and how they became the New Testament we know today. And make sure you study ALL of the sources, not just the Christian apologists’ ones.

Good post. Shame that DOC will ignore it.