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

[Elizabeth I]

I don't think you can get your post rate with dial-up.

If you're going to reference a post, and it actually supports the point you're trying to make, it would not take a lot of time to put in a link to it, like this: post 2865.

One way to do this is, while you're looking at the post in question (which you presumably are, to get the post number), click on the post number at the top right of the post. This will open just that post. Copy the URL from the top of the browser window, and use the link in your new post.

If you don't do this, then people will tend to think you rude, and may even suspect that you are referring to posts which don't actually support your position and hoping that people don't take the trouble to find them and check...



And, as I and others have pointed out, those links to Google books do not give a preview of the book for us.

Now, see, I learned something from this thread. I didn't know how to do those "show post" insertions before.

 

[DOC]

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.)

Once again there is that word prove. I never said it proved it true. I'm saying the highly detailed accurate 87 facts are evidence that the physician Luke was an accurate historian who was very detailed with the facts. People really won't be able to understand what I mean unless they read the 87 facts. Here they are from pgs. 256-260 of the book cited in post #1. It takes a while for them to download:

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

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...)

He also points out several other highly detailed facts besides these. He wasn't called a first rate historian for the heck of it. And when he talks of the miracles he talks about them in the same cool matter of fact way that he talks about the highly detailed information.

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.)

Luke was a traveling companion of Paul (who died I believe in 63 ad). Isn't it strange that Luke never reports on the death of his friend and traveling companion, Paul, which would have been a major event. This supports that Luke wrote his gospel before 63 ad.

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.)

Any examples other than the Road to Damascus experience which I've already shown that there is no literal conflict in the King James version of the bible?

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.)

Much ado about nothing. Friends and companions don't refer to one another by official titles. And Historians simply refer mostly to Washington as Washington -- they don't always call him president Washington or General Washington. I'll try to get to your other points in your lengthy response later.

.

 

[DOC]

Since you have previously admitted that you do not read the long posts, here it is again with the key parts highlighted (my bolding).

I don't read all of the very long posts if they're too long (just like I'm sure some others don't). I do read some however.

So Geisler's own source describes Luke's work as propaganda and liable to distortion.

He used the man's opinion (that dealt with the overwhelming historiocity of Acts) that he agreed with and didn't use the man's opinion (when the man tried to make an external judgement) that he didn't agree with -- so what. I agree with people all the time about certain things and disagree with them about other things.

As I said, if you try to bring this argument up again as support for your position, I will continue to call it, and you, deceptively dishonest.

You can call it whatever you want. The 87 highly detailed facts are good evidence that Luke is exactly what several academics have called him -- a first rate historian; and I will continue to bring it up if it serves a response I make.

 

[six7s]

Here they are from pgs. 256-260 of the book cited in post #1. It takes a while for them to download:

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

DOC... you're on dial-up, right?

A test a few minutes ago showed that I'm currently getting a meager yet dial-up-blitzing 3.48Mbps (download)

Anyhoo... despite over 20 minutes having elapsed since I followed your link to the Geisler nonsense, there is still NO WAY apparent to see any pages of that book

Yet again, my trust in your research skills has been undermined...

Stop digging!

 

[X]

He used the man's opinion [...] that he agreed with and didn't use the man's opinion [...] that he didn't agree with -- so what.

"so what?" indeed.

Are you familiar with the term "bias"^WP, DOC?

Geisler's bias led him to accept an arguments that fitted with his preferred notions, while ignoring arguments that did not.
You've just admitted that Geisler takes only statements that support his predetermined conclusion, whether said conclusion is correct or incorrect.
That is not honest.
It is very dishonest.

 

[Hokulele]

He used the man's opinion (that dealt with the overwhelming historiocity of Acts) that he agreed with and didn't use the man's opinion (when the man tried to make an external judgement) that he didn't agree with -- so what. I agree with people all the time about certain things and disagree with them about other things.

No, Geisler quote mined Sherwin-White's opinion to make it sound as if S-W supported him. It is fundamentally dishonest and any decent researcher would heap scorn on such a practice.

You can call it whatever you want. The 87 highly detailed facts are good evidence that Luke is exactly what several academics have called him -- a first rate historian; and I will continue to bring it up if it serves a response I make.

My bolding. Name two.

 

[Greediguts]

For anyone who wants to see the 84 facts that DOC keeps bringing up, you can view them at Theologyweb, just scroll down a little....

 

[six7s]

For anyone who wants to see the 84 facts that DOC keeps bringing up, you can view them at Theologyweb, just scroll down a little....

Thanks for the link...

I wonder... is it just a knee-jerk reaction on my part or is it truly absurd to suggest that Luke is credible simply for getting some geography right?



Is the criteria for 'authoritative source of theology' met by the F section of the local Yellow Pages simply listing most florists accurately?

 

[Mojo]

If it doesn't work for you do a Google book search and punch in -- Geisler 10 reasons --

I get this:

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist‎
by Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh - Religion - 2004 - 447 pages
Page 275
11 The Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth " Why
... There are at least ten reasons we can be confident that the New Testament
...
No preview available - About this book - Add to my shared library

 

[paximperium]

I believe it is US specific only. Google restricts its bookscans to US users only due to copyright. I can see it without any problems.

 

[six7s]

I believe it is US specific only. Google restricts its bookscans to US users only due to copyright. I can see it without any problems.

Possibly... for some titles... by no means all

Anyhoo... the 84 reasons suck

 

[L The Detective]

Hey DOC, you never answered my question. Please note, it's a bit different from six's question, so I would really like an answer. I am stating what from my point of view seems to be your position, and asking you to clarify if I have summarized it correctly. Here it is again:

DOC, correct me where I'm wrong. You're saying that the Bible is "the most moral teaching ever known to man", but also that it can't be taken at face value, and you need to remember that some morals in the Bible are only correct for their time, or that Jesus needed to make some moral concessions in order to get his overall point across.

Is this what you think?

So I'm looking for a simple yes or no, and if the answer is no, please clarify what you actually think. I understand lots of people are asking you questions, so I'll just wait patiently until you answer mine. Thanks in advance.

 

[wollery]

From the website Greediguts linked to;

In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records. As we have seen, such a bias is illegitimate. This is a theistic world where miracles are possible. So it makes much more sense to believe Luke's miracle accounts than to discount them. In other words, Luke's credentials as a historian have been proven on so many points that it takes more faith not to believe his miracle accounts than to believe them.

You just can't argue with logic like that!

 

[DOC]

For anyone who wants to see the 84 facts that DOC keeps bringing up, you can view them at Theologyweb, just scroll down a little....

Well, thanks for that. And Luke is not the only one who is highly detailed -- Gospel writer John who some might say is the most metaphysical of all the Gospel writers shows his detailed side also. The site you sited also lists 59 highly detailed facts written by John. Here are 15 of those 59 listed:

These details begin in John's second chapter and comprise the following list:

1. Archaeology confirms the use of stone water jars in New Testament times (John 2:6).

2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention (2:8).

3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well (4:6).

4. Josephus (Wars of the Jews 2.232) confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time (4:9).

5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. (There=s a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.) (4:46, 49, 51).11

6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem (5:1).

7. Archaeology confirms the proper location and description of the five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda (5:2). (Excavations between 1914 and
1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it=s unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure Ais in Jerusalem,@ implying that he=s writing before 70.)

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention (5:31); a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus= divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel (6:15).

10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee (6:18).

11._?Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up (6:53).

12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention (6:66).

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a Agood man@ and the other that he Adeceives people,@ would not be the two choices John would have made up (7:12); a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention (7:20).

15. The use of ASamaritan@ to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (8:48).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

 

[paximperium]

Well, thanks for that. And Luke is not the only one who is highly detailed -- Gospel writer John who some might say is the most metaphysical of all the Gospel writers shows his detailed side also. The site you sited also lists 59 highly detailed facts written by John. Here are 15 of those 59 listed:

These details begin in John's second chapter and comprise the following list:

1. Archaeology confirms the use of stone water jars in New Testament times (John 2:6).

2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention (2:8).

3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well (4:6).

4. Josephus (Wars of the Jews 2.232) confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time (4:9).

5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. (There=s a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.) (4:46, 49, 51).11

6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem (5:1).

7. Archaeology confirms the proper location and description of the five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda (5:2). (Excavations between 1914 and
1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it=s unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure Ais in Jerusalem,@ implying that he=s writing before 70.)

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention (5:31); a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus= divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel (6:15).

10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee (6:18).

11._?Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up (6:53).

12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention (6:66).

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a Agood man@ and the other that he Adeceives people,@ would not be the two choices John would have made up (7:12); a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention (7:20).

15. The use of ASamaritan@ to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (8:48).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

The Empire State Building is located in New York City.
The Statue of Liberty is located in New York City.
The Eiffel Tower is located in Paris.
Radioactivity can cause mutations.
The World Trade Centers were destroyed in a terrorist attack.
There was widespread anti-arab sentiment after 9/11.
He met Ronald Reagan, a real US president.
He met Barack Obama, a real US president.
The distrust of abnormalities is well known among the population.

All of these and many more are shown and even realistically drawn weekly. How could anyone make these things up?
Therefore Spiderman is real.

 

[paximperium]

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention (5:31); a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus= divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a Agood man@ and the other that he Adeceives people,@ would not be the two choices John would have made up (7:12); a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

Hey, DOC do you actually believe these specific claims that you spammed? Hmmm?

 

[Lothian]

The Empire State Building is located in New York City.
The Statue of Liberty is located in New York City.
The Eiffel Tower is located in Paris.
Radioactivity can cause mutations.
The World Trade Centers were destroyed in a terrorist attack.
There was widespread anti-arab sentiment after 9/11.
He met Ronald Reagan, a real US president.
He met Barack Obama, a real US president.
The distrust of abnormalities is well known among the population.

All of these and many more are shown and even realistically drawn weekly. How could anyone make these things up?
Therefore Spiderman is real.

You missed an important 'class' of evidence.

Spiderman let a burglar go free stating it was the police’s job not his to stop crime. That burglar went on to kill his uncle. This is an unlikely invention, painting spiderman in a bad light. It just would not be made up if it was not true.

 

[paximperium]

You missed an important 'class' of evidence.

Spiderman let a burglar go free stating it was the police’s job not his to stop crime. That burglar went on to kill his uncle. This is an unlikely invention, painting spiderman in a bad light. It just would not be made up if it was not true.

Peter Parker is also a bungling student who is bad with people, gets pushed around often and is generally a loser. This casts him in a bad light therefore it is true.

The absurdity of a nerd such as Parker marrying Mary Jane, a supermodel is unlikely to have been made up.

The crusade of mainstream media against outsiders and vigilantes is realistic and therefore could not have been made up.

The Hobgoblins use explosive Jack-o-lanterns as weapons. Jack-o-lanterns exists therefore the Hobgoblin is real.

 

[joobz]

He used the man's opinion (that dealt with the overwhelming historiocity of Acts) that he agreed with and didn't use the man's opinion (when the man tried to make an external judgement) that he didn't agree with -- so what. I agree with people all the time about certain things and disagree with them about other things.

DOC, IF Gesiler was an honest person, he would have quoted the whole statement and explained why the source was wrong about acts. Instead, Geisler quoted only the "good bits" to show that some academics agreed with his interpretation. To take only half of the opinion is a lie of omission.

I'm very shocked to think that you don't know this.

You can call it whatever you want. The 87 highly detailed facts are good evidence that Luke is exactly what several academics have called him -- a first rate historian; and I will continue to bring it up if it serves a response I make.

Yup. Luke's a historian. So, we must take what he writes at face value and assume it true. Therefore, Jesus condoned slavery, as Luke wrote. Jesus condones the beating of slaves who didn't know they were doing wrong, as Luke wrote. (Luke12:41-48)

 

[DOC]

The Empire State Building is located in New York City.
The Statue of Liberty is located in New York City.
The Eiffel Tower is located in Paris.
Radioactivity can cause mutations.
The World Trade Centers were destroyed in a terrorist attack.
There was widespread anti-arab sentiment after 9/11.
He met Ronald Reagan, a real US president.
He met Barack Obama, a real US president.
The distrust of abnormalities is well known among the population.

All of these and many more are shown and even realistically drawn weekly. How could anyone make these things up?
Therefore Spiderman is real.

Facts 8,11,12,13,and 14 would not be analogous to your point.

Also there is an element that disputes John is the author. I've brought in a website earlier that gives evidence why John should be considered the author. But besides that, many of the 59 facts show the author of John was obviously very familiar with Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. He would also have to have known certain things that existed before 70ad. He would also likely be very well versed in the Greek language and the gentile customs since the Gospel of John was more for the Gentiles than the Jew. All this points to the eyewitness apostle John being the author. John knew the area around Jerusalem very well before 70ad and also obviously knew Greek and the gentile mind since he lived in the Greek speaking city of Ephesus later in his life. Yes, these facts point to the eyewitness apostle John as the author of the gospel that's been attributed to him for about 2000. years.