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

[DOC]

Because Luke was not a physician, never there and never existed?

Because someone decided to make his fictional Luke seem intelligent by adding all that accurate padding into the text to make his story seem real?

Because the writer is lying?

Why is the geography of Greece and the known world sooooo real and accurate in the all the stories of the ancient Greek Gods? The Greek gods must be real!!!

Sources??

 

[paximperium]

Another post with no sources

Why do I need sources? You asked for a reason why your current infatuation, Luke, has this little pile of useless irrelevant facts that somehow makes a fiction magically real and I gave you some reasons why your statement could be complete garbage.

As have been pointed out to you multiple times. Having some "facts" in a work of fiction does not make this fiction automatically real.

 

[DOC]

Translation: I didn't read your excerpt, nor did I read your article, and since I already know it destroys my argument, I will close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears, and wish myself back to my happy place. La la la la la.

How many times in the entire article does it mention Luke specifically? I doubt you will answer that question.

 

[paximperium]

Sources??

How about YOU start by telling us how you know Luke wrote anything in this work of fiction?

 

[DOC]

Sources??

How about YOU start by telling us how you know Luke wrote anything in this work of fiction?

I guess you don't have any sources to your post.

 

[paximperium]

I guess you don't have any sources to your post.

You got that completely 100% right. I have zero sources. I'm wrong. I retract my entire statement.

Now YOUR turn:

How about YOU start by telling us how you know Luke wrote anything in this work of fiction?

 

[joobz]

The point of the post was that Luke "the physician" was highly detailed and accurate in his writings as you can see if you read pgs. 256 to 260. (see post 1107) Why would he go from a physician who reports 84 things in pinpoint detail to a loosey goosey fiction writer who makes up miracles of his traveling companion Paul, it doesn't make sense.

So, are you claiming, then, that Jesus was on the mountain and Could see the whole world?

And, by the way, the 84 details were highly trivial nonsense.

I could describe to you great detail the eating habits of the people in Kentucky and tell you I'm a superhero.

Am I a superhero because of it?

And then why would he present these made up miracles as fact in a letter to his friend, Theophilus.

Why do so many normal/rational people believe in scientology?
Why do so many normal/rational people believe in bigfoot?
Why do so many normal/rational people believe in 9/11 conspricies?


The answer is that even the best of us can beleive in complete bizarre things.

 

[boloboffin]

My goodness. I'm currently scribbling a little horror novel in which I've borrowed the location and street map of my birthplace, Demopolis, Alabama. It doesn't mean some unspeakable being actually resides in the old cemetery! I do it to aid verisimilitude, and also so I don't have to keep track of a mythical city I've made up, and maybe, just maybe if it become a movie, it will be shot there and boost the local economy a bit.

There are plenty of reasons why the author of Luke would try to be accurate as possible when relaying traveling information, and one is so that easily verified falsehoods wouldn't trip up the rubes in believing the story. I mean, why lie about the location of cities in Asia Minor? Yiminey Christmas.

 

[DOC]

And, by the way, the 84 details were highly trivial nonsense.

I could describe to you great detail the eating habits of the people in Kentucky and tell you I'm a superhero.

Am I a superhero because of it?

No, but then you wouldn't have a famous anthropologist like Sir Ramsay going around saying your a great historian, quit his scholarship, and devote his life to studying the people of Kentucky. either.

 

[VotGs]

Also posts that attack me and add no new info to the thread are really an insult to the readers. Because it is obvious (to me anyway) they are designed to sway any readers who might not have the time to read the whole thread. In actuality you are insulting their intelligence because by giving a personal opinion that attacks me personally without a reasoned explanation with examples you are really saying to the reader:

"Hey your not intelligent enough to make up your own mind about the posts you need my no new info opinionated post to help you make up your mind for you."

DOC,

I am one of those lurkers/readers you claim the JREF forum is trying to sway with 'empty posts'.

I was raised Christian, and left the faith--but most of my family is still in it. I am always interested in -new- information in the historicity of things in the Bible, as its a nice, relatively neutral topic to discuss with my family.

However, in the last two years since I joined this forum, I've noticed your threads over....and over....and over....and over....and over...again.

The first time I clicked on the last page of one to see what the arguments were, I -did- wonder if you had just gotten lost in your own argument, and they were being a little unfair. I know that people I care about who truly believe tend to have good points, though shaky logic/historical accuracy.

....and then I read from the beginning. I have, in fact, read -this- thread from the beginning, because it -claimed- to have new facts, the exact sort of thing I was interested, as I stated above.

I have followed your arguments, and the JREF arguments. Everytime this thread pops back up, I keep -hoping- for something that's solid. Something that will actually....make me question?

I am an open skeptic. I would have -loved- to have been convinced of God's love during my tour in Iraq. It failed to happen. I would have been thrilled to have been convinced of God's love when my father died suddenly two Thanksgivings ago. It failed to happen.

If God had reached out, this past year, during my nervous breakdown, I would have taken -that- with open arms, as I needed someone badly to help me out. It was neither God nor religion--it was the Veteran's Administration that helped me out.

And yet I do wander about, seeking more information. If I'm wrong about being an atheist, I'd love to know.

This thread stated that was its aim--to give actual evidence. I looked eagerly for it, and found -none-.

By this stage of the thread, JREFers are exhausted with your ephemerality...there's nothing solid in your arguments, nothing that belief -should- be built on. Even seekers such as myself, who hope for a nugget of -something- that they could build at least a comforting half-assed agnosticism out of....

Yeah, we get nothing out of your arguments. Nothing. I -am- the person you are supposedly reaching out to. All I ask is something -solid-, something -true-, something that I can have trust in....

Give me that, and I'll return to church. But please, -quit- claiming that JREFers are trying to sway people like me. It's you, who is doing that, with posts like that. It's you who are reaching out to the 'anonymous' and saying that we are too terrified of JREFers scarcasm to post in agreement with you.

That is not the case. I am the lurker. I am the reader. I am a seeker of truth. And I am not afraid to put myself out here and say I have found nothing of truth in your words.

Please, stop appealing to this 'hidden majority'.

 

[six7s]

Pardon the interruption

DOC, have you got any "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."?

--------

ETA

Hi VotGs!

Great post!

 

[joobz]

No, but then you wouldn't have a famous anthropologist going around saying your a great historian either.

DOC, you made this point before, Remember? It was wrong then, too.

If your favorite anthropologist claimed that the resurrection is true because luke knew the geography, he'd be wrong.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Read pages "256 to 260" on this. And finish at the sentence where Geisler says all 35 miracles were told with the same unembellished level-headed narrative. Now I think we know why Sir William Mitchell Ramsay classifies Luke as one of the world's great historians.

Interestingly enough I just happened to get a gift card to Borders, bought several books, and ran across Geisler's book while I was there -- so I read those pages.

Geisler makes the same errors as he does elsewhere. He creates a false dilemma by proposing that Luke gets the geography and customs right, so why would he lie about the miracles? How about he just recounted the stories that he heard?

As analogy, can I ask you if you know any other early histories? Livy wrote a multi-volume History of Rome. This multi-volume history includes an absolute wealth of detail about the Roman Republic, the early kingdom, the wars with the Latins, etc. But he also recounts the escape of Aeneas from Troy and his travels to Latium. And he mentions that Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she-wolf. And he casts Numa Pompilius as the originator of their religious and moral customs. Is this what really happened? Did the miracles recounted in his books really occur?

Herodotus wrote a long history of Greece centered on the Persian War. In it he repeats exquisite details about Greece, Asia Minor, Persia, Egypt, Lybia, Scythia, etc. But he also repeats stories about a half-woman-half-snake who had children with Herakles on his journey through Scythia. Did this really happen? Are all of his details about Egypt correct? Did the Spartans and the Persians really fight over the body of Leonidas, or did Herodotus simply cast this story like a Homeric battle complete with the fight over the body?

Luke recounted the stories that he knew. That does not insure that the stories reflect reality.

 

[Hokulele]

How many times in the entire article does it mention Luke specifically? I doubt you will answer that question.

There are more references to Luke in the article than there are logically sound arguments by Geisler in that entire book you are currently so fond of. There are far, far more references to issues with the Gospel of Luke in the book the article is based on, and which you will never read (in spite of my offer to loan you my copy).

Plus, what Ichneumonwasp just said.

And welcome VotGS. Well said and I am sorry to hear about your rough past few years. I hope to hear more from you in the future.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Well, Darat asked me a few days ago what is the least amount of evidence that would make me believe Jesus did not rise from the dead?..

That was missed, but a few days earlier, Mrs, Miriam Wensleydale caught this one clip on her cell phone - video machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

 

[MIKILLINI]

29 pages and still no evidence, DOC. Perhaps I should rephrase that: The evidence in your mind that enhances your belief and solidifies your conviction is not factual proof.

You are a Christian and presenting other believers opinions as evidence, but this is the point your missing. Your evidence is not real evidence because it requires faith to believe it is evidence without facts to back it up.
In other words; "Trust Me, it's evidence because I was told it's evidence and therefore must be true".

 

[VotGs]

There are more references to Luke in the article than there are logically sound arguments by Geisler in that entire book you are currently so fond of. There are far, far more references to issues with the Gospel of Luke in the book the article is based on, and which you will never read (in spite of my offer to loan you my copy).

Plus, what Ichneumonwasp just said.

And welcome VotGS. Well said and I am sorry to hear about your rough past few years. I hope to hear more from you in the future.

Thanks, Hokulele and six7s. I got turned onto this forum by JamesB., who I know a little bit in the real world.

This is a great place, very interesting, and I've learned a lot. I like to discuss religion, the concepts, ideas, and history of it--it's really fascinating, once you set aside the dogma and zealotry some insist on.

As I said above, show me something that doesn't make me wilfully suspend my disbelief!

I like that in movies and books. Not in philosophies that are supposed to guide my life.

I'll be around, silent, but reading everything. The world is a good place, no matter how awful it can seem.


A little OT, but has anyone here read 'A History of Christianity' by Paul Johnson? I thought it was interesting, and pretty objective even though it was written by a Catholic apologist.

If there are serious issues with the book, I'd like to know, or be directed to a better history of Christianity and all its schisms, and their roots. :-D Thanks!

 

[rikzilla]

DOC,

I am one of those lurkers/readers you claim the JREF forum is trying to sway with 'empty posts'.

I was raised Christian, and left the faith--but most of my family is still in it. I am always interested in -new- information in the historicity of things in the Bible, as its a nice, relatively neutral topic to discuss with my family.

However, in the last two years since I joined this forum, I've noticed your threads over....and over....and over....and over....and over...again.

The first time I clicked on the last page of one to see what the arguments were, I -did- wonder if you had just gotten lost in your own argument, and they were being a little unfair. I know that people I care about who truly believe tend to have good points, though shaky logic/historical accuracy.

....and then I read from the beginning. I have, in fact, read -this- thread from the beginning, because it -claimed- to have new facts, the exact sort of thing I was interested, as I stated above.

I have followed your arguments, and the JREF arguments. Everytime this thread pops back up, I keep -hoping- for something that's solid. Something that will actually....make me question?

I am an open skeptic. I would have -loved- to have been convinced of God's love during my tour in Iraq. It failed to happen. I would have been thrilled to have been convinced of God's love when my father died suddenly two Thanksgivings ago. It failed to happen.

If God had reached out, this past year, during my nervous breakdown, I would have taken -that- with open arms, as I needed someone badly to help me out. It was neither God nor religion--it was the Veteran's Administration that helped me out.

And yet I do wander about, seeking more information. If I'm wrong about being an atheist, I'd love to know.

This thread stated that was its aim--to give actual evidence. I looked eagerly for it, and found -none-.

By this stage of the thread, JREFers are exhausted with your ephemerality...there's nothing solid in your arguments, nothing that belief -should- be built on. Even seekers such as myself, who hope for a nugget of -something- that they could build at least a comforting half-assed agnosticism out of....

Yeah, we get nothing out of your arguments. Nothing. I -am- the person you are supposedly reaching out to. All I ask is something -solid-, something -true-, something that I can have trust in....

Give me that, and I'll return to church. But please, -quit- claiming that JREFers are trying to sway people like me. It's you, who is doing that, with posts like that. It's you who are reaching out to the 'anonymous' and saying that we are too terrified of JREFers scarcasm to post in agreement with you.

That is not the case. I am the lurker. I am the reader. I am a seeker of truth. And I am not afraid to put myself out here and say I have found nothing of truth in your words.

Please, stop appealing to this 'hidden majority'.

Nominated.

I was right there with you about ten years ago...I've stopped the seeking. There's nothing there but myth and coersion. Atheism can't be leaned on, it's useless as a crutch...but it's satisfying to know you have the inner strength to handle the truth.

-z

...and BTW, thank you for your service to our country.

 

[rikzilla]

As I said above, show me something that doesn't make me wilfully suspend my disbelief!

I like that in movies and books. Not in philosophies that are supposed to guide my life.

When I was a "seeking agnostic" I read Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". A great read, and it turned me onto Mr. Randi...and hence the forum... I recommend it to you, you won't be disappointed.

-z

 

[Cactus Wren]

Surely there were many people alive who could have disputed any falsehoods in the Gospels if they were written 27 - 32 years after the crucifixion. Remember how Dan Quayle in 1988 said he had more experience than Kennedy but Lloyd Benson easily remembered his friend Jack Kennedy from 28 years earlier.

The gospels were written in backwater areas and only transmitted within small communities. First, how would any eye witness see them? Second, who among the eyewitnesses was literate? Third, how would we even know if someone objected?

DOC apparently would argue that Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom were lovers during the filming of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, because there are so many fan-written stories portraying them that way.

In fact, Kiera Knightley may have been miraculously resurrected, because I read one story in which the three were stranded on a desert island: according to this account, Knightley died and Depp and Bloom ate her (!!) before engaging in all manner of activities detailed description of which would be subject to Rule 9.

And neither Depp nor Bloom have "disputed any falsehoods" in these accounts. Nor has Knightley, although she is notably alive.