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

Status
Not open for further replies.
people should be thankful they learned some new information today about a great American regarding this issue of slavery (that others have brought up probably 20 more times than I have).


Well, I suppose you may have learned how his name was spelled.
 
DOC,what is the matter with you? An American was against slavery. I am foursquare against it too. Why in the name of the FSM would you think that is evidence of the new testament writers telling the truth?
 
I don't see Douglass's call for everyone to be converted to Christianity in either of DOC's links (the first one reads as if it were written for six-year-olds) or in the Wiki page. I may be missing it, though.

However, Mr Douglass's life and beliefs, inspiring as they may be, are not evidence that the NT writers told the truth. Do you have any of this evidence, DOC?
 
[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/EachWayBet.jpg[/qimg]
Evidence for the each-way bet

Thank you for providing evidence that Aussies play the ponies. Someone has to provide evidence for something in this thread, isn't it? I only forgot who and for what. :D

BTW, what was horse #17's name? Luke by any chance? Considering the amount you didn't put much trust in him though. ;)
 
Thank you for providing evidence that Aussies play the ponies. Someone has to provide evidence for something in this thread, isn't it? I only forgot who and for what. :D

BTW, what was horse #17's name? Luke by any chance? Considering the amount you didn't put much trust in him though. ;)


Its name was Simon, as a matter of fact, and I didn't bet too much because I thought he might have been a ring-in. A horse with exactly the same credentials was racing that day at seven different venues and it looked a bit suspicious to me.

As it turned out, he ran dead last, and was apparently carted off to the knackery to be sawn up into pet food.
 
Last edited:
Its name was Simon, as a matter of fact, and I didn't bet too much because I thought he might have been a ring-in. A horse with exactly the same credentials was racing that day at seven different venues and it looked a bit suspicious to me.

As it turned out, he ran dead last, and was apparently carted off to the knackery to be sawn up into pet food.
That settles the mystery where he came to his end. Not Lincolnshire or Antioch or Samaria or the Caucasus, but down under in an abattoir as an impostor. :p
 
I wish famous Civil War era escaped slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglas was alive to back me up against you guys.

Surely he wasn't a slave. Wasn't he just a servant?

And if he'd had the odd 'scolding' with one of these:



Or maybe one of these:



At least he'd only have had experience a small amount of pain, say, like a sun-burn.



Personally I rather receive 10 lashes and be sore for a few days, kind of like a sunburn.
 
silly mistake, noticed too late for edit function.

I know what you mean. I'm anal enough to spend 5 hours on a 5 paragraph post, proofreading, editing, rewriting clumsy sentences, and then I miss one little thing; like an apostrophe or an "s" where there should have been a "c," that I only catch after the edit function times out.

But at least it keeps (most but not all) people (relatively) honest, so they can't change crappy arguments after the fact (that doesn't happen on this thread does it?).


GB
 
I know what you mean. I'm anal enough to spend 5 hours on a 5 paragraph post, proofreading, editing, rewriting clumsy sentences, and then I miss one little thing; like an apostrophe or an "s" where there should have been a "c," that I only catch after the edit function times out.

I'm pretty anal myself, but not to the degree of which you speak.


But at least it keeps (most but not all) people (relatively) honest, so they can't change crappy arguments after the fact (that doesn't happen on this thread does it?).


GB

If only that were the case, if only.
 
However, Mr Douglass's life and beliefs, inspiring as they may be, are not evidence that the NT writers told the truth. Do you have any of this evidence, DOC?

I think that we can safely say that Doc has none.
 
Well I guess if Joobz can talk about slavery 40 or so times in here. I can talk a few times about it too.

Certainly.
For instance, you could present evidence that Jesus didn't condone slavery.

Just to set the record, I have presented evidence to the contrary that you have yet to refute.
 
Better still. Prove this Jesus actually was a historical person.

Remember:the burden of proof is on the claimant.
 
I don't see {Frederick} Douglass's call for everyone to be converted to Christianity in either of DOC's links...
Well I said I was done with this issue of slavery if everyone else was but I guess that is not the case.

It's strongly implied in his autobiography when he says this:

I consulted a good colored man named Charles Lawson, and in tones of holy affection he told me to pray, and to "cast all my care upon God." This I sought to do; and though for weeks I was a poor, broken-hearted mourner, traveling through doubts and fears, I finally found my burden lightened, and my heart relieved. I loved all mankind, slaveholders not excepted, though I abhorred slavery more than ever. I saw the world in a new light, and my great concern was to have everybody converted. My desire to learn increased, and especially, did I want a thorough acquaintance with the contents of the Bible. I have gathered scattered pages of the Bible from the filthy street-gutters, and washed and dried them, that in moments of leisure I might get a word or two of wisdom from them. While thus religiously seeking knowledge, I became acquainted with a good old colored man named Lawson. This man not only prayed three times a day, but he prayed as he walked through the streets, at his work, on his dray--everywhere. His life was a life of prayer, and his words when he spoke to any one, were about a better world. Uncle Lawson lived near Master Hugh's house, and becoming deeply attached to him, I went often with him to prayer-meeting, and spent much of my leisure time with him on Sunday. The old man could read a little, and I was a great help to him in making out the hard words, for I was a better reader than he. I could teach him "the letter," but he could teach me "the spirit," and refreshing times we had together, in singing and praying. These meetings went on for a long time without the knowledge of Master Hugh or my mistress. Both knew, however, that I had become religious, and seemed to respect my conscientious piety.

http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/slaverevolt.html

And all of this can be considered some evidence for the truth of the NT because it shows how the power of the gospel can transform the life of a poor brokenhearted slave into becoming a great man who met Lincoln and became the most well known black man in America. Also Martin Luther King's grandparents were slaves and his father and grandfather were ministers like he was.

Could phony gospels written by liars 2000 years ago have had this kind of power to help produce these great men out of broken hearted poor slaves?
 
Last edited:
Thank you; I had missed it in the wall o'text on that page. See how easy it is to admit error?

You made a claim, I didn't see a reference to the claim in the links you posted. I asked for clarification, you posted the exact passage and I returned to the link to verify that it was indeed there, I thanked you and admitted I had made a mistake. You should try to do the same when you are shown to be in error, DOC; it's how we all learn.

Is it now your contention that because a particular story can inspire people, it must be true? Because I really don't think that's a very wise route to take. Inspirational tales can be fictional and yet still inspire people to do great things.

The "phony gospels written by liars" is a strawman argument of yours which has been addressed several times already. The authors of the gospels, whoever they were, may not have been intentionally lying, they may quite well have believed that what they were writing was true.

But belief is not the same thing as knowledge, and as there are parts of the gospels which are quite clearly at odds with the historical record (Luke's census, for example), it is clear that the gospels are not all fact.
 
Well I said I was done with this issue of slavery if everyone else was but I guess that is not the case.

<blah blah, blah>


I wonder what it means that you're so fixated on the issue of slavery that you feel the need to add this disclaimer to a passage that doesn't even address slavery other than tangentially as beeing the former 'occupation' of your latest apologist du jour.


And all of this can be considered some evidence for the truth of the NT because it shows how the power of the gospel can transform the life of a poor brokenhearted slave into becoming a great man who met Lincoln and became the most well known black man in America.


Piffle.


Also Martin Luther King's grandparents were slaves and his father and grandfather were ministers like he was.


Explain how this is evidence that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.


Could phony gospels written by liars 2000 years ago have had this kind of power to help produce these great men out of broken hearted poor slaves?


Yes.

The gospels, for all that they're fabrications, contain any number of useful principles which, if adhered to, can inspire men (and women) to greatness.

This in no way speaks either to the NT authors' originality in shaping these principles or to the truthfulness of the fables and fairytales in which they presented them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom