• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
When someone like Gospel writer Luke (whom a famous (once secular) archaeologist said should be included among the world's great historians) talks about Stephen twice and states he was stoned for his faith then that is historical evidence -- and thus it takes more faith to believe it wasn't true than to believe it was true.
Click to expand...
So all you have is the writing from someone who you believe may be someone named Luke based on unsigned copies of writings as your "evidence"? Am I correct that all you have is ONE single unverified source based on no original documentation?
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
What a long winded way of stating YES.

And we can add more DOC confessions:


So why should anyone believe anything in your book again?
Click to expand...

Because among other things there are more "Non-Christian" written sources (10) that Christ/Christians existed during that time then there are written sources that the Roman emperor Tiberius Caesar (9) existed at that time. And this is true even if the Gospels were signed by Moe, Larry, and Curly.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Because among other things there are more "Non-Christian" written sources (10) that Christ/Christians existed during that time then there are written sources that the Roman emperor Tiberius Caesar (9) existed at that time. And this is true even if the Gospels were written by Moe, Larry, and Curly.
Click to expand...
Sure. There were Christians during that time...just as they were Druids, Oracle of Delphi, Taoist, Shintoist etc etc etc. So Zeus, Odin, Amaterasu, etc etc etc. all must be real.

So DOC continues to agree that:
So are you conceding that your Bible was written decades after the fact based on old "memories"(at best, more likely old stories) which research shows to be inaccurate and prone to confabulation by authors who did not sign their writings AND WHICH NO KNOWN ORIGINAL EXAMPLES OF ANY WRITING IS KNOWN TO EXIST?
Click to expand...
I've never agreed with DOC so much before...except I don't believe Moe, Larry of Curly existed during that time.
 
paximperium said:
Sure. There were Christians during that time...just as they were Druids, Oracle of Delphi, Taoist, Shintoist etc etc etc. So Zeus, Odin, Amaterasu, etc etc etc. all must be real.
Click to expand...

You must have forgotten Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ and Tacitus' mention of Crestus {Christ). And you don't have to mention that most scholars (not all) believe that a "part" of one of Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ was an interpolation because I already know it.
 
http://www.faithbasedonfacts.org/main/?q=node/84

Hokulele said:
You still have no concept of primary sources, do you?

ETA: I didn't ask for a link to someone putting words in Ramsay's mouth. I asked for the quote itself.
Click to expand...

Well below are the sources. You will notice the book with the Ramsay's quote was published in 1915 but Ramsay died in 1939. It would be logical to assume that Ramsay would complain of any false quote attributed to him. I know of no such complaint. And Ramsay had 24 years to complain.

Original source: Sir William Ramsay The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), page 222

Original source: William F. Albright; “Retrospect and Prospect in New Testament Archaeology,” in The Teacher’s Yoke, E. Jerry Vardaman, ed. (Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 1964), 288ff
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
You must have forgotten Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ and Tacitus' mention of Crestus {Christ). And you don't have to mention that most scholars (not all) believe that a "part" of one of Josephus' 2 mentions of Christ was an interpolation because I already know it.
Click to expand...
You must have forgotten that those statements are 1)a forgery and 2)mentions Christians and their beliefs.

Actually just about all scholars believe that. Idiots and hacks such as Geisler are not scholars.

Yawn. So DOC has already fessed up to the credibility of the Bible.
1)Written decades after the events supposedly happened.
2)Unsigned and written by unknown authors.
3)No original whole copies of any of these writings.
4)Contradictory with each other and sometimes even with itself and sometimes often completely false.
5)No extra-Biblical sources that back up any Christians claims of magic man except for forgeries, statements of Christians and their beliefs.
6)Evidence of whole sections being copied from each other which shows that several of these gospels are based off others.

What else?
 
DOC said:
http://www.faithbasedonfacts.org/main/?q=node/84



Well below are the sources. You will notice the book with the Ramsay's quote was published in 1915 but Ramsay died in 1939. It would be logical to assume that Ramsay would complain of any false quote attributed to him.
Click to expand...
If you want to be logical, wouldn't it be logical to assume that an archaeologist praising the accuracy of a writer would refer to the writer's knowledge of things such as locations of towns, cities etc. As you link says "William Ramsay spent decades in the Holy Land digging". It is not logical to assume that the archaeologist was referring the accuracy of claims of dead people coming to life.
 
DOC said:
http://www.faithbasedonfacts.org/main/?q=node/84



Well below are the sources. You will notice the book with the Ramsay's quote was published in 1915 but Ramsay died in 1939. It would be logical to assume that Ramsay would complain of any false quote attributed to him. I know of no such complaint. And Ramsay had 24 years to complain.

Original source: Sir William Ramsay The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), page 222

Original source: William F. Albright; “Retrospect and Prospect in New Testament Archaeology,” in The Teacher’s Yoke, E. Jerry Vardaman, ed. (Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 1964), 288ff
Click to expand...
I love Google.
It's not there.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HC...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA222,M1

So the primary source says nothing of the sort. Care to try again?

EDIT: Ooops. It is the wrong book. It just has the same title. I'll keep looking.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
We might not know with 100% certainty who wrote the gospels, but I have claimed that the evidence (some of which I brought in) supports that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the most likely authors of the Gospels that have been attributed to them for 2000 years.
Click to expand...

Actually no, it's been a long time that scholars have known that the gospels weren't authored by those who's name is on the title.

DOC said:
if in fact they didn't sign them because all we have is many many copies of the originals
Click to expand...

Actually we don't have copies of the originals. We have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies (etc..) of the originals.

And not a single one of those copies agrees with any other single one of those copies 100%. Out of 5700 manuscripts in Greek, no two agree.
 
No hit on:
Luke+great
Luke+historian

Care to check on your sources again DOC?

EDIT: Ooops. It is the wrong book. It just has the same title. I'll keep looking.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
You must have forgotten that those statements are 1)a forgery and 2)mentions Christians and their beliefs.

Actually just about all scholars believe that. Idiots and hacks such as Geisler are not scholars.

Yawn. So DOC has already fessed up to the credibility of the Bible.
1)Written decades after the events supposedly happened.
2)Unsigned and written by unknown authors.
3)No original whole copies of any of these writings.
4)Contradictory with each other and sometimes even with itself and sometimes often completely false.
5)No extra-Biblical sources that back up any Christians claims of magic man except for forgeries, statements of Christians and their beliefs.
6)Evidence of whole sections being copied from each other which shows that several of these gospels are based off others.

What else?
Click to expand...
6a) Evidence of vast tracts being plagiarised from the myths and legends of other cultures
 
DOC said:
http://www.faithbasedonfacts.org/main/?q=node/84



Well below are the sources. You will notice the book with the Ramsay's quote was published in 1915 but Ramsay died in 1939. It would be logical to assume that Ramsay would complain of any false quote attributed to him. I know of no such complaint. And Ramsay had 24 years to complain.

Original source: Sir William Ramsay The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), page 222

Original source: William F. Albright; “Retrospect and Prospect in New Testament Archaeology,” in The Teacher’s Yoke, E. Jerry Vardaman, ed. (Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 1964), 288ff
Click to expand...
Doc,

I think I have found Ramsay's conclusion
You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice
Click to expand...

I think the bolded part pretty much makes clear that any claims of accuracy does not include rising from the dead, walking on water, being born of a virgin etc....
 
Last edited:
kurious_kathy said:
There is no way the Apostles would have lied, they were called and chosen to start the church of Christ and it's still growing today because Jesus is very much alive. It's a Spirit thing, you could only understand if you had Jesus yourselves.
Click to expand...

You're making Jesus sound like a bad yeast infection.
 
kmortis said:
Well, c'mon, be fair. There IS a city of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate did exist. the Romans did control the Middle East. And a group of believers following an obscure Judean prophet did come into existence.

Whether it was THE Jesus and not A Jesus (kind of like being A Bob as opposed to being THE J.R. "Bob" Dobbs) is a different story. I tend towards the "A Jesus" theory, myself. I find it totally plausible that an itinerant preacher named Jesus existed around that time period and he gained a following. Add in a couple of charismatic leaders and a healthy dose of sociological pressure and you got yourself a newly formed religion. No supernatural being necessary.
Click to expand...

It's the Joe Smith / Brigam Young thing. One a visionary the other pragmatic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom