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

[DOC]

So you lied.

No, I didn't. I responded to his post and realized I need more information from him to answer his partially unrelated question correctly. We were talking about a Jewish revolt, remember, not a Christian revolt.

 

[six7s]

So are you saying that when Geisler lists these 87 highly detailed facts written by the physician Luke that have all been proven correct by historical and archaelogical research that Geisler is not producing "evidence" that the NT writer Luke was a first rate historian as others have claimed.

No - simply because the emphasised bit is bollocks

The 87 facts can be seen on pages 256-260 of the website below.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA256,M1

Unless I'm mistaken, your '87 facts on pages 256-260' can't can be seen by following that link

Please, cut the crap and simply quote ONE of your idol's 'logical arguments'

 

[paximperium]

I've already brought in a website about evidence for the resurrection.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

But the greatest evidence of all might be that we're here talking about it right now 2000 years later. The "peaceful" growth of Christianity into the world's #1 religion without miracles during Christ's life could be considered a miracle in itself.

Do you:
1)Not understand English?
2)Not understand a simple sentence?
3)Unable to provide ONE of YOUR BEST example?
4)plain stupid?

Pick ONE and only ONE example and we shall discuss it. I have no interest in Christian apologetic vomited all over the forum.

 

[paximperium]

No, I didn't. I responded to his post and realized I need more information from him to answer his partially unrelated question correctly. We were talking about a Jewish revolt, remember, not a Christian revolt.

Which is IRRELEVANT to the question.
Why are you dodging this question?

Cmon DOC, address the slavery thing. You gave 3 choices:

1) Kill them
2) Let them go free
3) make them slaves

No matter what the context, the least evil and most "Christian" answer is number 2. Your response?

 

[DOC]

No - simply because the emphasised bit is bollocks

Not according to the book, it says the 84 facts have been historically and archaeologically confirmed and gives a footnote. see page 256 of this site

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA256,M1

You have to "give it time" to download and then hit the page arrows until you get to page 256

If the above site doesn't do it, go to this site and scroll back to page 256

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA275,M1

87 facts on pages 256-260[/I]' can't can be seen by following that link

Please, cut the crap and simply quote ONE of your idol's 'logical arguments'

Well, I see there are 84 detailed facts not 87, I have no problem seeing them after you give it time to download and hit arrows until you get to page 256.

The software on the site won't let you cut and paste.

 

[zooterkin]

Not according to the book, it says the 84 facts have been historically and archaeologically confirmed and gives a footnote. see page 256 of this site

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA256,M1

You have to "give it time" to download and then hit the page arrows until you get to page 256


If the above site doesn't do it, go to this site and scroll back to page 256

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA275,M1

You've either given the wrong link, or you see something different from the rest of us when you go there.

Well, I see there are 84 detailed facts not 87, I have no problem seeing them after you give it time to download and hit arrows until you get to page 256.

The software on the site won't let you cut and paste.

How long would it take to type out just the example which you think is the best one?

 

[joobz]

And I wouldn't be surprised if archaeologists still use it considering that one famous archaeologist I mentioned earlier became a Christian after studying all the detailed information in the Gospel of Luke. He also called Luke a great historian.

Is that the same Luke who has Jesus condoning slavery and the beating of slaves for violating rules that were unaware of?

 

[joobz]

Which is IRRELEVANT to the question.
Why are you dodging this question?

DOC is having a hard time with it because the bible gives bad moral advice on the topic. It's not easy to justify an argument when your moral source material is immoral.

 

[paximperium]

Pick ONE and only ONE example and we shall discuss it. I have no interest in Christian apologetic vomited all over the forum.

Still waiting DOC.

 

[joobz]

Still waiting DOC.

In the mean time, I'll give a reason why I think Geisler publishes books of complete idiocy and nonsense.


In the Introduction section of his book, "I don't have enough faith to be atheist", it is claimed that "university" is a compound word of "unity" and "diversity" and it went on to claim that this was the point of the university.

Not too much effort was required to see that university (om the academic sense) was derived from the phrase "universitas magistrorum et scholarium" which means a community of masters and scholars.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=u&p=7


Geisler may not have written the intoduction. It is likely written by his coauthor. However, this point demonstrates that Geisler has no problem what so ever with publishing stuff that was completely inveted and has no truth to it at all.

 

[Simon39759]

Corinthians 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Certainly, people of the time often have common meals.
And people in this time ate bread. And, certainly, you can break bread and they drank wine, and often, they drank it from a cup!

That's so amazing! That's like 5 truths confirmed by History in just four verses!
Surprising that Geisler could only get 87 ones in the whole gospel of Luke...
Maybe it's because having a few trivial facts right is meaningless and certainly does not 'prove' the rest of the statements!

 

[L The Detective]

We are discussing my contention that in the brutal economic, political, and military, environment of biblical times the fight for the abolition of slavery would have done more harm than good. I go into depth about this in post 2705.

That's all well and good. But at the very least, Jesus could have pointed out to his followers that slavery was wrong and should be one day abolished. Don't you think? Doesn't the fact that he didn't seem like evidence to you that he was merely a man who was the product of his times?

Your question is not totally about what we were talking about. But if you tell me all the details of this battle and why a Christian army is fighting it and who they are fighting. I will be able to answer your question.

DOC, I was answering your question directly. Remember your question, from post 2673?

If the Jews captured 500 hundred Roman soldiers when they revolted in 66 ad what would you have them do with the soldiers.

1) Kill them

2) Let them go free

3) make them slaves

If your question doesn't relate to what you were talking about, why'd you ask it? You tell *me* all the details of the battle. It was *your* question I was answering, remember? All I said was, option 2 is always the most moral, and "Christian" option. You disagree? Why?

 

[L The Detective]

OK, if you want to believe that the many people who walked into the gas chambers after being told they were going to get a shower knew what was going to happen that is your right.

Well they were rounded up at gunpoint and brought to camps, and forced into the gas chambers. Technically, they were probably lied to in order to actually get them into the chambers with as little fuss as possible, like someone else in this thread said, they were probably told that they were simply being showered.

But, why do you think this establishes how a secret can be kept for thousands of years? Your point seems to be "it is possible for secrets to be kept for a short amount of time, and it has happened to millions of people. Therefore, it is no surprise that a huge secret can be kept for thousands of years."

Do you see why that is not a very convincing argument? Of course there are secrets, forget the Holocaust, millions of people have secrets every day. However, that's not the point. The point is that, if a huge event happens like the extermination of a town, it's pretty tough to keep this secret for a long period of time.

 

[RobRoy]

I'm returning to this thread because last night I experienced what can only be called a religious event, and I wanted to share it with everyone.

I had been pondering the many words and posts made by DOC, his arguments and the supporting evidence he has so patiently provided, and I suddenly had an overwhelming sensation, a true "burning of the breast" in which my chest became hot to the touch. At first, I thought I was having a heart attack, but I lacked the shortness of breath and the painful sensations that are supposed to accompany them. Then, a realization outside of my own mind, struck me like a brick wall, to the very core of my being, such that I fell out of my chair and found myself kneeling on the floor. The weight and pressure on my mind filled me with such intense emotion and in that moment I knew DOC's words were, in every sense correct and righteous.

There is no contradiction in what DOC has claimed, there is only truth and the light. I urge you all to repent of your positions, open not just your minds but your hearts as well, and let the light of DOC's message in.

 

[L The Detective]

As long as people keep asking the same question, I've got he right to give the same answer. That is my answer, and that will always be my answer, if you don't like it. so be it.

You have a right to believe anything you want. But this is a forum for discussion, and the point of this particular thread is supposed to be for you to explain your beliefs. If people point out flaws in your explanation, then it's up to you to answer those points, and try to show why they aren't flaws. This is how discussion works.

There is a difference between a subjective opinion and a logical analyzation of many concrete facts. Logical thinking is not subjective and Geisler shows plenty of logical thinking in the above website and his books.

It's not a "logical analyzation." It's a subjective analyzation. He is taking the facts and giving his interpretation of them, which is inherently subjective.

 

[paximperium]

I'm returning to this thread because last night I experienced what can only be called a religious event, and I wanted to share it with everyone.

I had been pondering the many words and posts made by DOC, his arguments and the supporting evidence he has so patiently provided, and I suddenly had an overwhelming sensation, a true "burning of the breast" in which my chest became hot to the touch. At first, I thought I was having a heart attack, but I lacked the shortness of breath and the painful sensations that are supposed to accompany them. Then, a realization outside of my own mind, struck me like a brick wall, to the very core of my being, such that I fell out of my chair and found myself kneeling on the floor. The weight and pressure on my mind filled me with such intense emotion and in that moment I knew DOC's words were, in every sense correct and righteous.

There is no contradiction in what DOC has claimed, there is only truth and the light. I urge you all to repent of your positions, open not just your minds but your hearts as well, and let the light of DOC's message in.

Here is a prescription for some antacids for your heart burn. Take a couple and call me in the morning.

 

[L The Detective]

There is no contradiction in what DOC has claimed, there is only truth and the light. I urge you all to repent of your positions, open not just your minds but your hearts as well, and let the light of DOC's message in.

I had the same thing. But then the light said "South Park was right. Mormonism is the correct religion." I assumed the light was kidding.

 

[Greediguts]

Not according to the book, it says the 84 facts have been historically and archaeologically confirmed and gives a footnote. see page 256 of this site

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA256,M1

You have to "give it time" to download and then hit the page arrows until you get to page 256

If the above site doesn't do it, go to this site and scroll back to page 256

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA275,M1





Well, I see there are 84 detailed facts not 87, I have no problem seeing them after you give it time to download and hit arrows until you get to page 256.

The software on the site won't let you cut and paste.

DOC,

The 84 detailed historical "facts" offered by Geisler are not exactly historic in the sense that they prove any part of Christianity to be true. Geisler points out that the author knew proper terms, mentions several temples in the major cities, and seemed to understand basic sailing and sea navigation. Most of this could be explained by having an author that lived around the Aegean Sea and came into contact with one of Paul's churches...around 95 CE or later. The author is an historian in the sense that he describes life in the eastern Mediterranean around the first century. This actually helps to prove a later date of composition than what Geisler would like to admit.

(Where the author of Acts gets into trouble is when he describes Paul's words and deeds quite different then how Paul does in his own letters. Plus, did you ever notice how Paul refers to himself as an Apostle in his own letters, yet Luke, his supposed traveling companion, never refers to him as such...hmmm.)

Also, on page 270 Geisler shows a table that is titled "New Testament Figures Cited by Non-Christian Writers and/or Confirmed by Archaeology". The list contains many Roman leaders, Jesus, John the Baptist, and James, brother of Jesus. Josephus is listed for most as the primary non-Christian written source. The archaeological evidence presented are coins found that have different Roman leaders imprinted on them, an ossuary that contained the bones of Caiaphas, and a few inscriptions that mention these leaders by name. Yes, this is historical evidence that THOSE people existed. None of this proves that Jesus rose from the dead.

For Geisler to state that because "Luke" knew the correct language "spoken in Lystra was Lycaonian" (#5) and he mentioned "Zeus and Hermes" as the correct gods worshipped in Lystra (#6) means everything he wrote to be factual is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?

If by footnote you mean his quote from A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Historian), then I find it interesting that he snipped out a part of the sentence. Geisler has this:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming....Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear to be absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

Hmmm...What was edited out? Here's the line that was removed by Geisler:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions." - Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament by A. N. Sherwin-White pg 189.

So yes, there are genuine historical facts in Acts that are mixed-in with the author's propaganda, just like the other Gospels. Basically any text from history, even if completely fictional, would be of value to a historian because they would reflect the beliefs and ideas of the author and the audience for which it was written.

Doesn't mean those beliefs or ideas are true though...

 

[joobz]

If by footnote you mean his quote from A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Historian), then I find it interesting that he snipped out a part of the sentence. Geisler has this:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming....Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear to be absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

Hmmm...What was edited out? Here's the line that was removed by Geisler:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions." - Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament by A. N. Sherwin-White pg 189.

So, Geisler is a liar and a moron.
Interesting....

 

[Simon39759]

Good catch Joobz!