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

[paximperium]

Oliver Stone had the incentive of making a lot of money by making his film dramatic in any way he could. The only incentive Luke had was informing his friend in a letter of the facts relating to the Jesus phenomenon that was sweeping the nations. He had no reason to be dramatic.

You mean he wasn't attempting to convert someone to his shiny new religion? That sounds like a major incentive to me.

In fact he had every reason to get the facts absolutely right because by being a traveling companion of Paul he was certainly risking his life in the brutal Roman occupied areas.

How do you know Luke wrote anything at all and is not a made up character?

Remember Paul wrote some of his letters from prison and according to tradition was beheaded.

You got that ABSOLUTELY correct. Now apply it to everything else and we have an agreement.

The physician Luke obviously wouldn't risk his life traveling with Paul if he thought the many facts he was gathering about Christ were false.

Since you have yet to even show a tiny little bit of effort to show that some Luke person even existed or wrote this so-called letter, your continued claim continues to be worthless preaching.

 

[paximperium]

There were no historians like Josephus and Tacitus who considered Sherlock Holmes Jesus to be real.

Fixed it for you.

 

[joobz]

Oliver Stone had the incentive of making a lot of money by making his film dramatic in any way he could. The only incentive Luke had was informing his friend in a letter of the facts relating to the Jesus phenomenon that was sweeping the nations. He had no reason to be dramatic. In fact he had every reason to get the facts absolutely right because by being a traveling companion of Paul he was certainly risking his life in the brutal Roman occupied areas. Remember Paul wrote some of his letters from prison and according to tradition was beheaded. The physician Luke obviously wouldn't risk his life traveling with Paul if he thought the many facts he was gathering about Christ were false.

Luke had the incentive to spread the word of his cult. Much like L. Ron hubbard and his followers.

BTW, Since you reject the truth of the movie JFK, I assume you also admit that the claim that the inclusion of historically accurate facts into a work of fiction doesn't make that work of fiction true?

 

[wollery]

There were not many other writers who also wrote about Sherlock Holmes as a real person.

Au contraire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_of_new_Sherlock_Holmes_stories

And there's huge amounts of web space dedicated to the sayings and methods of Sherlock Holmes.

There were no historians like Josephus and Tacitus who considered Sherlock Holmes real.

We've covered the Josephus writings. There's no evidence that Josephus' original text even mentioned Jesus, and Tacitus talks about Christians and their beliefs.

And many people haven't been martyred for Sherlock Holmes.

You haven't seen many amateur plays based on the stories have you, loads of actors have died in that role!

 

[joobz]

Since DOC seems to believe that his arguments in page 1 are ironclad, let us summarize the problems with them here.

Now I am going to use the standard of logic that if an argument to be true it must be true in all circumstances otherwise it is false. This is the logical grounds by which mathematical proofs are made.

Hence, if I present an example which contradicts a premise, then we can state that that premise if false and does not prove the bible true.

Let's begin:

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

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

Multiple works of fiction include this type of first person humility/embaressment

Stephen King's The Dark Tower Series
James Frey's A Million Little Pieces
Chris Elliot's Shroud of the Thwacker

This premise is destroyed.

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.

Various works of fiction will include discenting viewpoints of the protaganist as a means of providing a more intriguing/believable story. Examples include:

Ennis and Dillon's The Preacher Series
Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth Series
Stephen King' Dark Tower Series

This Premise is Destroyed.

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."

The difficulty of the "sayings" or demands of Jesus do not make the story true. Multiple works of fiction have near insurmountable and conflicting demands placed upon people.

Examples include:
L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics
Robert. Prisig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence
J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter (Snape often gave harry impossible tasks)

This premise is destroyed.

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.

The style in which the remarkable is presented is dependant upon the skill of the writer not in the truth that the writer speaks. read any fantasy literature to see that this is the case.

Examples of "bland" miracles in fiction include

Stephen King's "The stand" The ending was rather blandly written but contained a miracle
J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. Magic was written as a simple matter of fact. Especially in the last several books.


This Premise is destroyed

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 one has multiple premises in it:
1.) The testament writers were the apostles
2.) They were martyered
3.) They weren't born into the religion

Each of these are clearly unconfirmed at best, but let's take it at face value and state that all of these statements are true.

Fact is, dying for a belief does not justify that belief. This has been repeated multiple times, but needs to be repeated again. If martyerdom doesn't proof the truth of other religions (who have countless number of martyrs as well), than it doesn't prove the truth of christianity. Geisler's handwaving argument against this clearly logical defeat of his point was a blatant example of affirming the consequent.

This premise is destroyed.
As such, DOC, you have not provided any evidence in support of your argument, that the bible writers told the truth.


BTW, I am certain there are other examples for each of these premises. They are not needed, but I think people should feel free to provide more examples which contradict the points made by Geisler.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Talk about cherry picking at its worst -- and this non-story related city might have existed 2000 years ago but not now. This is why archaeologists like Sir William Mitchell Ramsay mentioned earlier used Luke and the bible as a valuable research resource. -- and I noticed other than the one footnote there are no sources for your bunch of geographical and historical details he supposedly got wrong. I think the 84 detailed facts written by Luke mentioned on pages -256 - 260 of Geisler's book that can be accessed through the site below speak volumes of his detailed accuracy.

So id an ancient author appears to be an authoryty on contemporary geography, all his writings must be assumed to be true?

In that case, I suggest you start reading Homer. It was based on his writings that Troy was located.

What iexactly is so surprising in the fact that a scolar (and obviously, Luke was a scolar) is well versed in in the geography of his era?

I'm pretty well versed in present-day geography (well above average, I think), so if I write a manifest and fill it with geographical info, then future readers will have to accept whatever else I put in there as the Truth?

Hans

 

[joobz]

Talk about cherry picking at its worst -- and this non-story related city might have existed 2000 years ago but not now. This is why archaeologists like Sir William Mitchell Ramsay mentioned earlier used Luke and the bible as a valuable research resource. -- and I noticed other than the one footnote there are no sources for your bunch of geographical and historical details he supposedly got wrong. I think the 84 detailed facts written by Luke mentioned on pages -256 - 260 of Geisler's book that can be accessed through the site below speak volumes of his detailed accuracy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...eisler+Luke+Colin+Hemer+84+facts&lr=&as_brr=0

Now, DOC, I don't think you understand cherry picking very well.

You made the claim that Luke was an amazing historian. You made this by claiming his geographical accuracy.

Hok. presented a counter claim which showed but one mistake (rather huge mistake considering it was a geographical one) that the author of Luke made. As such, this example undermines the claim of Luke being amazingly accurate.

 

[cj.23]

Since you have yet to even show a tiny little bit of effort to show that some Luke person even existed or wrote this so-called letter, your continued claim continues to be worthless preaching.

I was just reading through this, saw this and was a bit baffled. The author of Luke-Acts presumably existed, as he wrote it - though that is not to say he was called "Luke" of course! I think I'm missing something here. Or are you querying the tradition which ascribes it to the companion of Paul?

The earliest MSS ascribe it to Luke on the title page (Gospel of Luke) but we do not know which Luke. The Muratorian Canon, usually dated as I recall to around 160 or 170 (on internal evidence) says

The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

The Patristic evidence for Luke as author is extremely strong: I certainly would not say it was compelling to the point of proof, but by the mid-second century it was certainly the widely held belief of the Church. You can find a large number of references easily enough. Questions of Johannine authorship are more my area, but while DOC's claim is not proven, it seems extremely likely to me with my historian hat on from the evidence we have today.

cj x

cj x

 

[Hokulele]

-- and I noticed other than the one footnote there are no sources for your bunch of geographical and historical details he supposedly got wrong.

Translation: I am complaining about a book I have not read, and I cannot address the main point of the post to which I am responding.

 

[cj.23]

Um. DOC appears to be having a rough time with the geographical issue of the swine. Er, I would have thought the presence of a swine farm immediately suggested a situation in the Decapolis, as I can't imagine Jewish pig farming was a growth industry, so we need to look to a gentile region - and while Galilee was referred to as Gallilee of the Gentiles, it sure wasn't post-Maccabean times. So we need to look in the Decapolis - and as we have apparently two different names (at least) we might want somewhere that sounds like either.

It's not the solution though. DOC, historically Γάδαρα was an autonomous city in the χώρα τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν. That reconciles the MS discrepancies, and neatly resolves the issue - and places it where the Gospels say.

Sorry guys, there are a lot of you and only one DOC, and my sense of fair play and history cut in. He could have easily refuted this particular critique if he looks at a map of the area in the middle 1st century. Mind you, there are plenty of other geographical issues with Luke - but in many cases I would be hesitant to impart too much meaning to them.

EDIT: "historically Gadara was an autonomous city in the region of Gerasa"

And even if the geography was dead right, that does not prove accuracy on other thinsg I'm afraid, as os many people have said. Still, the legion incident is not really a mystery. (Crossan is interesting here - he claims it was actually a veiled reference to an incident in Ceasarea, and the pigs are symbolic of an anti-Roman incident. Dunno: I doubt it though.)

cj x

 

[Hokulele]

Mind you, there are plenty of other geographical issues with Luke - but in many cases I would be hesitant to impart too much meaning to them.

I had read somewhere that the geographical errors in Luke might be attributed to the fact that he was not originally from the area, and there were even more errors in earlier manuscripts that were corrected by later scribes and scholars. Sure, there are ways the various manuscripts can be interpreted, aligned, or edited to match geographic reality, but how do we know Luke had it correct in the first place?

As to the second half of the it I have quoted, I agree, the vast majority of the errors have no larger meaning, but that was not DOC's argument. Since you haven't participated in many of his threads, he seems to waver between an inerrant Bible, and a metaphorical one. He also seems to view the Bible as a single document, and doesn't take into account the actual history of its development.

 

[cj.23]

I had read somewhere that the geographical errors in Luke might be attributed to the fact that he was not originally from the area, and there were even more errors in earlier manuscripts that were corrected by later scribes and scholars. Sure, there are ways the various manuscripts can be interpreted, aligned, or edited to match geographic reality, but how do we know Luke had it correct in the first place?

As to the second half of the it I have quoted, I agree, the vast majority of the errors have no larger meaning, but that was not DOC's argument. Since you haven't participated in many of his threads, he seems to waver between an inerrant Bible, and a metaphorical one. He also seems to view the Bible as a single document, and doesn't take into account the actual history of its development.

Hey, just try and work out where Emmaus was. I'm certain it existed -- but read the gospel accounts of the road to Emmaus, and then try and decide which of the possible candidates fits the bill. A recent dig has turned up a strong possibility, but I'm still far from certain! There are all kinds of interesting issues like this from the pericope - each was passed orally one assumes, then collected, and "Luke" may well not have known the context. Stuill, some famous issues like the supposed non-existence of Nazareth in the frist century are now defintely resolved by archaeology - well beyond much doubt. One can still quibble! (three recent papers on digs show this appears to be not the case - Nazareth was inhabited at the time.)

Still, that tells us nothing beyond the fact people who lived in the region would not have accepted a gospel which made no sense at all, and as they did, most such isues are probably either very minor or a result of gaps in our knowledge - or were just found amusing like the mountains of Norfolk, UK in that dragon film a few year back!

Anyway, it's a shame DOC is not interested in Bib Crit, with his obvious curiosity about such things. At $65 membership of the Society of Biblical Literature is not that cheap, but the online archoive and other resources mean to someone interested it's a great deal, and the journal has plenty of very readable articles refelcting the cutting edge in Biblical studies. It might occasionally be painful reading to someone committed to a depply conservative religious belief at times, but I don't think we shoud ever be afriad of a rigorous search for truth. If my religious beliefs are wrong I want to know!

http://www.sbl-site.org/membership/default.aspx

Recommended to anyone interested in these questions, regardless of belief or lack thereof. Alternatively Bart Ehrman has done a few readable books, though I'm cautious about some of his presentation, and Bruce Metzger is always very sound. The Jewish scholar Geza Vermes is always worth reading and the Christian NT Wright and EP Sanders are solid enough too.

Have a look DOC!

cj x

 

[DOC]

I had read somewhere that the geographical errors in Luke might be attributed to the fact that he was not originally from the area, and there were even more errors in earlier manuscripts that were corrected by later scribes and scholars. Sure, there are ways the various manuscripts can be interpreted, aligned, or edited to match geographic reality, but how do we know Luke had it correct in the first place?

As to the second half of the it I have quoted, I agree, the vast majority of the errors have no larger meaning, but that was not DOC's argument. Since you haven't participated in many of his threads, he seems to waver between an inerrant Bible, and a metaphorical one. He also seems to view the Bible as a single document, and doesn't take into account the actual history of its development.

The best source or example in this whole quote is in the first sentence when you said "I read somewhere".

 

[DOC]

I had read somewhere that the geographical errors in Luke might be attributed to the fact that he was not originally from the area, and there were even more errors in earlier manuscripts that were corrected by later scribes and scholars.

We know Geisler's book listed 84 highly detailed facts that Luke got right.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...eisler+Luke+Colin+Hemer+84+facts&lr=&as_brr=0

Can you name only 3 of these so called geographical errors you talk about that we know can be attributed to Luke.

 

[paximperium]

I was just reading through this, saw this and was a bit baffled. The author of Luke-Acts presumably existed, as he wrote it - though that is not to say he was called "Luke" of course! I think I'm missing something here. Or are you querying the tradition which ascribes it to the companion of Paul?

Exactly. DOC keeps making the claim that Luke, the "physician", the companion of Paul wrote Luke when we actually have no idea who wrote that specific gospel. While the Luke-Acts author is believed to be one specific person, continuing to make this claim to give false authenticity to this gospel continues to be dishonest.

The earliest MSS ascribe it to Luke on the title page (Gospel of Luke) but we do not know which Luke. The Muratorian Canon, usually dated as I recall to around 160 or 170 (on internal evidence) says

You forget that some attribute the Muratorian fragments even later but I can accept that it was written during the end of the 2nd century. However:

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9)

What we have is an untitled gospel attributed to Luke even if lets assume is true is not an eyewitness to the accounts he mentions and is essentially heresay anyway.

The Patristic evidence for Luke as author is extremely strong: I certainly would not say it was compelling to the point of proof, but by the mid-second century it was certainly the widely held belief of the Church.

Just curious, what patristic evidence do you have?
Just because the early Church attributes things to specific personas, that popular belief does not automatically make this belief true.

You can find a large number of references easily enough. Questions of Johannine authorship are more my area, but while DOC's claim is not proven, it seems extremely likely to me with my historian hat on from the evidence we have today.

I disagree. We have a gospel with no name, where the earliest known manuscript of the gospel of luke written around the same time as the Muratorian fragment does not give any attribution to Luke at all.

Besides the point, even if it was written by Luke "the physician", he is not an eyewitness, just a storyteller repeating said story.

 

[paximperium]

The best source or example in this whole quote is in the first sentence when you said "I read somewhere".

Who cares? You can look up your own apolegetics.

Luke made errors. His geography lessons are not error free therefore your claim that because he was sooooooo accurate therefore all his claims are true is falsified.

 

[joobz]

Hi DOC, will you answer this question?

Luke had the incentive to spread the word of his cult. Much like L. Ron hubbard and his followers.

BTW, Since you reject the truth of the movie JFK, I assume you also admit that the claim that the inclusion of historically accurate facts into a work of fiction doesn't make that work of fiction true?

 

[six7s]

Fascinating!

Sorry to change the subject, but I can't help wondering...

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

I'll answer this question in the same way I've answered Zooterkin and everyone else who trollishly asked it.

Posted by zooterkin
Are you going to produce any of the evidence in support of the OP?



Others will probably continue to trollishly ask this already answered question and I will continue to get the run around when I then ask what is the least amount of evidence that will satisfy them.

As a reminder, I gave answers.com and my definition for the word "evidence" in post #13.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4063010#post4063010

Duh! Just because you have no answers does not mean that the questioners are trolls

For the hard-of-thinking:

• Remember: This is a critical thinking forum
  
  If you can't or won't substantiate your claims, be prepared to be regarded as troll

As a reminder, a few of us (including me) gave you exceedingly simple and straightforward examples of the level/style of evidence that would be satisfactory; that you choose to continually ignore us serves to illustrate (to all those participating and reading this thread) that you are a troll, a liar (in your messiahs name!) and/or an idiot

 

[Harpyja]

"Embarrassing details," as according to whom? The people of the time, or the people of today? After all, we are talking about a society that existed more than 2,000 years ago with a radically different culture. It's hard to argue against this when all we know are that "specific passages" portray the disciples as "dim-witted, uncaring... cowards." The passages need to be cited. Even if I decided to go through the New Testament myself, it's unlikely that I would pick out the exact same list of passages. Which only helps to further my point - what we consider embarrassing, dim-witted, detached, and cowardly can even differ from person to person. This also applies to the "embarrassing details and difficult sayings" and "very demanding statements" quoted in the Bible.

The last reason is probably the most interesting point. The New Testament writers may have abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and practices for those of Jesus Christ and may have been faithful to him, but that does not lead credence to the legitimacy of their works - no anecdotal evidence does.

 

[DOC]

Since DOC seems to believe that his arguments in page 1 are ironclad, let us summarize the problems with them here.

Now I am going to use the standard of logic that if an argument to be true it must be true in all circumstances otherwise it is false. This is the logical grounds by which mathematical proofs are made.

Hence, if I present an example which contradicts a premise, then we can state that that premise if false and does not prove the bible true.

Let's begin:

Multiple works of fiction include this type of first person humility/embaressment

Stephen King's The Dark Tower Series
James Frey's A Million Little Pieces
Chris Elliot's Shroud of the Thwacker

This premise is destroyed.

Are the authors you're talking about telling embarrassing things about themselves or their characters. And have any of the Fictional characters in the works you mentioned been reported by historians as real historical persons. And are there any instances of multiple people being being martyred for any of the characters in the books you mentioned. And have any of the characters in the novels caused the downfall of major religions like Christianity helped to do to the belief in Greek and Roman gods.