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

[DOC]

Doc, I know you are getting lots of posts to respond to but can you please clarify. Whose flat earth perspective?

Luke's. I assume Luke did not have knowledge the world was round. And also obviously he did not know how big the world was. But you can have all the scientific knowledge in the world but its not enough if you don't have Godly spiritual knowledge. The Nazi scientists were brilliant but we knew what they were capable of because they lived in spiritual darkness. The US sends men to the moon but we continue to daily watch murders on the news. All our scientific knowledge is not solving the problems of society. Just watch the news tonight. The only hope for societal problems is the teachings of the man born in the town of Bethlehem.

Yes some bad things were wrongly done in the name of Jesus but there is no doubt in my mind that this world would be a much more terrible place to live in if he never came to this planet.

 

[zooterkin]

Luke's. I assume Luke did not have knowledge the world was round. And also obviously he did not know how big the world was.

Huh? Why would he need to, surely he is reporting something he was told by Jesus, if you are correct and the gospel actually was written by the disciple Luke.

How does what the prevalent view of the earth was at that time (and you'd need to show it was a flat earth), affect what happened?

But you can have all the scientific knowledge in the world but its not enough if you don't have Godly spiritual knowledge. The Nazi scientists were brilliant but we knew what they were capable of because they lived in spiritual darkness. The US sends men to the moon but we continue to daily watch murders on the news. All our scientific knowledge is not solving the problems of society. Just watch the news tonight. The only hope for societal problems is the teachings of the man born in the town of Bethlehem.

Yes some bad things were wrongly done in the name of Jesus but there is no doubt in my mind that this world would be a much more terrible place to live in if he never came to this planet.

Do try to stick to the topic.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Luke's. I assume Luke did not have knowledge the world was round. And also obviously he did not know how big the world was. But you can have all the scientific knowledge in the world but its not enough if you don't have Godly spiritual knowledge. The Nazi scientists were brilliant but we knew what they were capable of because they lived in spiritual darkness. The US sends men to the moon but we continue to daily watch murders on the news. All our scientific knowledge is not solving the problems of society. Just watch the news tonight. The only hope for societal problems is the teachings of the man born in the town of Bethlehem.

Scandinavia. Japan. Canada. Iceland. Your call.

 

[DOC]

Actually, you are correct. The logical error is fully that of Geisler. It is not clear if Ramsay was making the same woefully dumb argument that Geisler was making.

Well, you must think he is as dumb as Geisler (your wording) because he quit scholarship and became an apologist.

From the DOXA website: Robert Jones

"One of the great archeologists of the 19th century and early 20th, Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

<snip>

Sir William Ramsay who devoted many fruitful years to the Archaeology of Asia Minor testifies to Lukes intimate and accurate acquaintance and the Greek East at the time with which his writings deal." (Bruce 90). Ramsay began as a Tubingen liberal, believing Luke to be a second century production with no validity. By the end of his life he was so persuaded of the truth and validity of Luke that he gave up scholarship and became an Evangelist and apologist using arguments based upon the discoveries he had made. (Ibid). It cannot be claimed that he was not an "objective" scholar, as he is one of the greats of the field. Dr. Henry J.Cadbury delivered the Lowell lectures in 1953 and produced a work on the Book of Acts in which he hailed Luke as a first rate historian (Ibid.)"

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Luke.html

 

[joobz]

The only hope for societal problems is the teachings of the man born in the town of Bethlehem.

Yes some bad things were wrongly done in the name of Jesus but there is no doubt in my mind that this world would be a much more terrible place to live in if he never came to this planet.

Is that the same Jesus who permitted slavery?
Sorry, but do you suggest that we should follow the laws of slavery that Jesus set forth and that this would result in a better world?

 

[six7s]

...you can have all the scientific knowledge in the world but its not enough if you don't have Godly spiritual knowledge.

Not enough for what?

 

[Lothian]

Luke's. I assume Luke did not have knowledge the world was round.

Huh? Why would he need to, surely he is reporting something he was told by Jesus, if you are correct and the gospel actually was written by the disciple Luke.

Indeed, I don't know if you are familiar with the bible Doc, but Luke 4 describes the devil and Jesus going up a mountain. Luke was not there. That gives two options. Jesus thought he could see all his father's kingdoms (is that the same as his own?) or the bible authors made bits up. Which are you going for?

 

[joobz]

Well, you must think he is as dumb as Geisler (your wording) because he quit scholarship and became an apologist.

From the DOXA website: Robert Jones

"One of the great archeologists of the 19th century and early 20th, Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

<snip>

Sir William Ramsay who devoted many fruitful years to the Archaeology of Asia Minor testifies to Lukes intimate and accurate acquaintance and the Greek East at the time with which his writings deal." (Bruce 90). Ramsay began as a Tubingen liberal, believing Luke to be a second century production with no validity. By the end of his life he was so persuaded of the truth and validity of Luke that he gave up scholarship and became an Evangelist and apologist using arguments based upon the discoveries he had made. (Ibid). It cannot be claimed that he was not an "objective" scholar, as he is one of the greats of the field. Dr. Henry J.Cadbury delivered the Lowell lectures in 1953 and produced a work on the Book of Acts in which he hailed Luke as a first rate historian (Ibid.)"

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Luke.html

Well, if he made equally dumb arguments like Geisler, then yes.

Why is that a problem?

Also, I've noticed that you haven't answered why my argument was wrong. Why does my paragraph not prove I have superpowers?

 

[DOC]

Scandinavia. Japan. Canada. Iceland. Your call.

Scandinavia. High suicide rate

Japan. High suicide rate

Canada. Ehh

Iceland. Bankrupt

 

[joobz]

Scandinavia. High suicide rate

Japan. High suicide rate

DOC, last time you made this claim, I performed a statistical analysis on the correllation between atheism and suicide rate. There was none.

Canada. Ehh

Is this somehow an answer?

Iceland. Bankrupt

Poor fiscal policy is a result of atheism?
Are you kidding me?

 

[six7s]

Scandinavia. High suicide rate

Japan. High suicide rate

Canada. Ehh

Iceland. Bankrupt

Yeah? And in the land of the free?

The US sends men to the moon but we continue to daily watch murders on the news.

This, despite how many years of control by men who believe in a talking snake?


Bill Maher asks Mark Pryor, Senator from Arkansas, about reality. Is it talking snakes from a magically book or science?

@55 seconds: "I believe that god wants me to be president"​

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Scandinavia. High suicide rate

Japan. High suicide rate

What does the alleged correlation in suicide rate and atheism have to do with anything? You blabber on about crime and genocide being the result of atheism, and I list regions with low crime and high degrees of non-belief. And you move the goalposts.

Iceland. Bankrupt

You were clutching at straws with the other examples, but now I see you're really desperate.

Oh, and:


The thing is, DOC, that unless you and your anti-atheist buddies can do better than mere correlation, we'll not be convinced.

Black countries: Lots of AIDS.
Non-black countries: Not so much AIDS.
Thus, the Sub-Saharan Africans got AIDS because they were black.

Do you see now how utterly worthless your approach is?

 

[Mojo]

Poor fiscal policy is a result of atheism?
Are you kidding me?

Oh man, everything is the result of atheism. Especially atheist buses.

 

[paximperium]

You call Geisler a terrible apologist. This implies that you think there are some good ones out there, but I don't think that is the case. Correct me if I'm wrong by naming some you think are good.

Wow. What a childish "gotcha" game you are playing.

How about you actually answer the question instead of acting like a petulant little child and throwing "gotcha" red herring around?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You call Geisler a terrible apologist. This implies that you think there are some good ones out there, but I don't think that is the case.

Really? I have to know of a good apologist in order to recognize a bad one?

 

[paximperium]

Saint Thomas Aquinas is a good start.

I think CS Lewis isn't too bad either.

Kinda funny how Aquinas developed such an interesting logical gymnastics to support his apologetics centuries ago. Smart guy if still wrong.

 

[joobz]

Really? I have to know of a good apologist in order to recognize a bad one?

I'm going to be generous and say there are definitely good apologists.

I'd call a good apologist one who has original well thought arguments. this does not mean that the arguments have to be iron clad, but rather represent an advancement in the philosphy.

For example, we know the problems with Pascal's Wager, but I'd contend that because of it Pascal was a good "apologist" as it was a groundbreaking concept in an appeal to probabilities.


By this gauge, Since...
1.) Geisler presents tired/discounted arguments
2.) Is incapable of honestly addressing the critiques of position
3.) Violates numerous logical fallacies repeatedly
he is a terrible apologist.

 

[joobz]

I think CS Lewis isn't too bad either.

Kinda funny how Aquinas developed such an interesting logical gymnastics to support his apologetics centuries ago. Smart guy if still wrong.

I'd also include G.K. Chesterton as well.

Man was he good at pith.

ETA:
one of my favorites of his:
"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people."

 

[paximperium]

I'd also include G.K. Chesterton as well.

Man was he good at pith.

Sigh...why can't our fundie debaters read "good" apolegetics instead of moronic ones? It would make for a more interesting debate.

 

[DOC]

Is that the same Jesus who permitted slavery?
Sorry, but do you suggest that we should follow the laws of slavery that Jesus set forth and that this would result in a better world?

Yes, Jesus so loved slavery, and he was so happy that his ancestors (the Jews) spent 400 years as slaves in Egypt and Babylon. I bet he wished they were slaves for 800 -- that would have made him twice as happy.