So what at least my explanation proves I'm more competent than you'd like to make me out to be!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The other earthquake is not relevant to the OP.
So what at least my explanation proves I'm more competent than you'd like to make me out to be!
#276, #280
Not the conventional format, but looks correct...I had reposted 276 and stated it was a repost...
But criticism duly noted..my apologies.
Warning: sarcasm alert.Who wrote any of history? The side that wants their side to be heard. Our own history books are no different - we only put in them what we want the next generation to know about. Roman history did not want Jesus to be known about - and so left it out.
Does the bible describe how much you're allowed to beat your slave?Slaves were commanded to be loyal, but to seek their freedom if possible.
(Slaves should Submit: ...Ephesians 6:5-6; Colossians 3:22; I Timothy 6:2; Titus 2:9; I Peter 2:18-19)
(Seek their freedom if possible:...I Corinthians 7:21-23)
Slave owners were commanded to treat their slaves kindly. (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1)
Slave traders were not viewed as being in any way fit for the Kingdom of Heaven:
I Timothy 1:8-11:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
We could go into OT LAW as well to see what type of slavery was originally sanctioned...the LAW provided for fairness to slaves and for their release in each Year of Jubilee. Sounds like many slaves were slaves b/c they were broke and thus sold themselves to their brothers as slaves. However, Israel also acquired slaves via conquest of heathen lands.
Yep, not to death...Does the bible describe how much you're allowed to beat your slave?
Then he gets punished....don't know what that punishment would include off hand. The other cultures of the time allowed a master to beat a slave to death with no repercussion; so it is a big step forward for the times. Please don't try to apply the mores of today to an ancient society it detracts from the debate.How magnanimous.
And if he does beat his slave to death?
Right, telling a society that rape and slavery ok, as long as you're not as bad as your enemies, is morally reprehensible, and falls on the big guy's shoulders. I mean, if he sees fit to warn against coveting your neighbor's jackass.Then he gets punished....don't know what that punishment would include off hand. The other cultures of the time allowed a master to beat a slave to death with no repercussion; so it is a big step forward for the times. Please don't try to apply the mores of today to an ancient society it detracts from the debate.
Is there anything you can do to change the past? Then try to view it objectively so you can learn the most from it....and maybe apply it to the here and now.Right, telling a society that rape and slavery ok, as long as you're not as bad as your enemies, is morally reprehensible, and falls on the big guy's shoulders. I mean, if he sees fit to warn against coveting your neighbor's jackass.
but it seemed you were so emotionally caught up with something in the past that you cannot change that you missed it. It was a big step forward for the times.Then he gets punished....don't know what that punishment would include off hand. The other cultures of the time allowed a master to beat a slave to death with no repercussion; so it is a big step forward for the times.
Is there anything you can do to change the past? Then try to view it objectively so you can learn the most from it....and maybe apply it to the here and now.
I said this
but it seemed you were so emotionally caught up with something in the past that you cannot change that you missed it. It was a big step forward for the times.
What makes you think I'm interested in changing the past? Don't be absurd.Is there anything you can do to change the past? Then try to view it objectively so you can learn the most from it....and maybe apply it to the here and now.
I said this
but it seemed you were so emotionally caught up with something in the past that you cannot change that you missed it. It was a big step forward for the times.
I stand corrected. My question should have read where is it written that they believed the resurrection miracle took place and not simply miracles. There were many miracles witnessed by the chief priest and yet they did not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Why do you imagine they would believe Jesus was resurrected? Jesus did not appear to anyone at that time (Matthew 28:6). They could very well have believed that the angel took his body.And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.How magnanimous.
And if he does beat his slave to death?
Yes, absolutely.Suppose he were to die and that three days later some of his fans claimed his grave was empty. Don't you think someone would bother to go check if it actually happened?
This is true. There is no record in any of the four Gospels that show anyone visiting the sepulcher after Easter Sunday. This is not proof that people did not visit but that the authors of the Gospels did not record it.And yet there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday, and there was certainly no record of a neutral party making the trip.
Here is where you make a slippery slope fallacy argument. The only argument you give to support the claim that the authors of the Gospels should have recorded an investigation performed after Easter Sunday is this:The complete lack of an investigation for a miraculous event is in fact evidence that no miracle occurred in the first place.
You have no proof that the authors needed to record an investigation by skeptics or it would “seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels”. Have you an answer as to why a record of an event of visitation or investigations after Easter Sunday should inevitably happen? How does an omission “cut against the narrative” of the Gospels message that Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead? Please describe in your own words what you believe the phrase “narrative of the gospels” means.Or did skeptics actually go visit? Why would it be the case that skeptics actually did visit the tomb, and yet the gospels did not record this? That would seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels, since everyone - including the disciples - were always skeptical of Jesus, and the gospels were always making a point of this.
Yes, absolutely.
There was an investigation of Jesus’s grave as recorded in Matthew. This didn’t happen after Easter Sunday but on that day however you discount it with absolutely no reason that you offered. Suppose that on the third day of David Blaine’s death an investigation was performed. Would you discount that investigation because it did not take place until the fourth day? Would you expect a second investigation to be performed? Is it not true that a second investigation would only be performed on further evidence becoming available due to advances in forensic investigation or a new witness testimony that contradicts the findings of the investigation?
This is true. There is no record in any of the four Gospels that show anyone visiting the sepulcher after Easter Sunday. This is not proof that people did not visit but that the authors of the Gospels did not record it.
Here is where you make a slippery slope fallacy argument. The only argument you give to support the claim that the authors of the Gospels should have recorded an investigation performed after Easter Sunday is this:
You have no proof that the authors needed to record an investigation by skeptics or it would “seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels”. Have you an answer as to why a record of an event of visitation or investigations after Easter Sunday should inevitably happen? How does an omission “cut against the narrative” of the Gospels message that Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead? Please describe in your own words what you believe the phrase “narrative of the gospels” means.
Isn’t it funny that the only time you directly addressed my questions is when I word it wrong. All the other questions you are unable or unwilling to answer go unanswered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?