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

[shadron]

Sir Ramsay was reporting on Luke's writing in Acts. It seems that Sir Ramsay, an eminent scholar on Asia Minor and pre-christian civilization, wrote that after walking Paul's walk (as recorded by Luke) and seeing exactly what Luke was saying he saw. He therefore says that Luke is a great Historian. I think what he really meant is that Luke was a great diarist, or observer; he spoke of his surroundings with accuracy, or perhaps he decided that since he could diarize well, he would do as well with historical recording and interpretation.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to similarly repeat that same sort of reseach with Luke's gospel. The happenings it records were at least 30 years in Luke's past, probably more, and all he had were a few eye witnesses (himself not included - this is not Luke the apostle) and the extant writings, such as Mark and Q. There is no doubt that his record coheres fine with those while taking a decidedly pro-Pauline non-mystical stance, as he likely would have had little to write about without them. Whether it is accurate in any instance or not is simply a guess.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
Because I would think a perfect God has more depth than that.

And here is why you OP continues to fail miserably.

You and some others in here try to score points in a debate with such emotional/shock opinionated wording. And a lot of times it comes with no reasoned explanations like above. It's the lazy man's debating method,

And didn't Einstein say (paraphrasing): "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

 

[paximperium]

You and some others in here try to score points in a debate with such emotional/shock opinionated wording. And a lot of times it comes with no reasoned explanations like above. It's the lazy man's debating method,

I'm sorry if it was not obvious enough for you. No one is "debating" you DOC. They gave up a long time ago. People are making fun of you. You are are source of amusement. Nothing more.
You "think" is not evidence, therefore you are a failure in backing up your OP. As usual.

And didn't Einstein say (paraphrasing): "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

Yes he did, but he actually backed it up with evidence and reasoning. Where's yours?

 

[babbits]

Doc says:

"So the downfall of slavery in the West owes a lot to Christianity. "

Ummm. Sort of. Mainstream Christians were shamed into it.

But the incentive came from the new humanist ideals of the Enlightenment. The same ones that inspired the concept of democracy.

There was little or no incentive to end slavery on the part of Christians before then. In fact, the majority of Popes approved it -- as long as the slaves were 'heathens' or heretics.

Some of the Roman Catholic Scottish rebels (1745) were sold as slaves in the sugar trade in the West Indies. The children of blacks and Jacobites were prized because of their mulatto skin, which brought a good price in the slave markets.

There was one good pope, Gregory XIV , in 1591, who spoke against the enslavement of Indians in South America . He didn't just speak against it. Talk's cheap - especially pious talk. He threatened to excommunicate slave owners who didn't free their slaves!

So even a pope could be a good man in some respects!

 

[Hokulele]

Because I would think a perfect God has more depth than that.

So it is just a gut feeling rather than a reasoned response?

Not being a robot, like you would be if God programmed you never to do evil.

How would you distinguish between a robot programmed to response like a human and a human?

Are you kidding?

Not at all. You are claiming that love without free will isn't "real", and your god requires love to be "real". There are two major problems with this assertion of yours.

1) Earlier, you also claimed that people who weren't exposed to your version of god would be treated with justice. So apparently your version of god doesn't require any sort of love after all.

2) There is plenty of evidence that love can be a product of an almost complete lack of free will. Read up on the Stockholm Syndrome.

Which then brings up the question again, why ido you believe free will is required for love to be "real"?

 

[DOC]

Sir Ramsay was reporting on Luke's writing in Acts. It seems that Sir Ramsay, an eminent scholar on Asia Minor and pre-christian civilization, wrote that after walking Paul's walk (as recorded by Luke) and seeing exactly what Luke was saying he saw. He therefore says that Luke is a great Historian. I think what he really meant is that Luke was a great diarist, or observer; he spoke of his surroundings with accuracy, or perhaps he decided that since he could diarize well, he would do as well with historical recording and interpretation.

Yes, but the physician Luke spoke of Christ's miracles and other miracles performed by apostles in the same matter-of-fact diarist's way that he talked about the many minor detailed facts we know he got right. It is only because of a supernatural bias that people accept the numerous highly detailed facts he got right and not the miracles.

 

[paximperium]

Yes, but the physician Luke spoke of Christ's miracles and other miracles performed by apostles in the same matter-of-fact diarist's way that he talked about the many minor detailed facts we know he got right. It is only because of a supernatural bias that people accept the numerous highly detailed facts he got right and not the miracles.

Reality is biased against fantasy.

 

[Simon39759]

How would you distinguish between a robot programmed to response like a human and a human?

Interesting question; I am sure you could write a great novel or fil a great movie on the subject.

 

[wollery]

Yes, but the physician Luke spoke of Christ's miracles and other miracles performed by apostles in the same matter-of-fact diarist's way that he talked about the many minor detailed facts we know he got right. It is only because of a supernatural bias that people accept the numerous highly detailed facts he got right and not the miracles.

Which is utterly irrelevant. The things Luke noted which are held up as historical fact are things that he would have witnessed first hand on his travels.

He was writing about 30 years after the death of Jesus, so the areas he visited, the customs of the people, and the languages would have been identical to how they were when Jesus was alive.

On the other hand, he could not possibly have been a first hand witness to the miracles he details. He must have relied on second, third or even tenth hand accounts.

This renders any comparison between the accuracies of his descriptions of the areas he visited and Jesus miracles utterly useless.

Of course he could describe, accurately and in great detail, places that he visited. Anyone can do that.

I could tell you a hell of a lot about what the North London area of Wembley was like in the early 1980s, because that's where I grew up, but if I were to also tell you about something unlikely that happened there in the 1950s you'd ask how I knew, and also most likely ask for more than just my word. It wouldn't matter how matter of factly I stated it, because there's no way I could know, first hand, what happened 20 years before I was born. I would only be relaying what other people had told me. So my description of the area and my account of the unlikely event are on a completely different footing, in terms of reliability.

And that's the problem you have with Luke. I have no problem in stipulating that his descriptions of the places he visited are accurate. Why shouldn't they be? He visited those places! But his descriptions of Jesus miracles are at best second hand, and therefore unreliable.

 

[joobz]

And didn't Einstein say (paraphrasing): "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

Which part of Jesus' imagination are you must impressed with:
His supposed inabiliy to argue against slavery or his support of beating slaves?

 

[DOC]

Which part of Jesus' imagination are you must impressed with:
His supposed inabiliy to argue against slavery or his support of beating slaves?

So then you must believe Pastor Martin Luther King was wrong to publish a book on his Christian sermons being his grandparents were slaves? And please answer this question.

 

[joobz]

So then you must believe Pastor Martin Luther King was wrong to publish a book on his Christian sermons being his grandparents were slaves?

What do you mean by wrong? I'll be happy to answer, if you can better explain what you are asking.


Do you have any explanation for jesus' pro-slave beating stance? Why was this in the bible? Why would jesus be against something (slavery) while still using it as an explanation as to how our relationship to god should be?

 

[X]

Explain, all you gave was a link to a thread?

You are the last person with license to complain abot that, DOC.
At least he linked to it.
A considerable portion of your avoiding answering difficult questions has been merely to refer to posts where you dodged the issue in the ppast, without even providing links.
So, why do you hold Paximperiumm to a higher standard than you hold yourself to?

I disagree, so it looks like people will have to actually read the thread.

And any troll who has never read one word of a thread can go into any thread and tell the thread creator that his/her arguments have been demolished or torn to threads -- It means nothing.

I'll save people the trouble of reading Geisler's reasons.
Mostly to save them wasted effort.

Geislers "reasons" depend on Geisler's own opinion of events. There are no real facts to be found anywhere in them

 

[DOC]

Sir Ramsay was reporting on Luke's writing in Acts. It seems that Sir Ramsay, an eminent scholar on Asia Minor and pre-christian civilization, wrote that after walking Paul's walk (as recorded by Luke) and seeing exactly what Luke was saying he saw. He therefore says that Luke is a great Historian. I think what he really meant is that Luke was a great diarist, or observer; he spoke of his surroundings with accuracy, or perhaps he decided that since he could diarize well, he would do as well with historical recording and interpretation.

Yes, but the physician Luke spoke of Christ's miracles and other miracles performed by apostles in the same matter-of-fact diarist's way that he talked about the many minor detailed facts we know he got right. It is only because of a supernatural bias that people accept the numerous highly detailed facts he got right and not the miracles.

Which is utterly irrelevant. The things Luke noted which are held up as historical fact are things that he would have witnessed first hand on his travels.

He was writing about 30 years after the death of Jesus, so the areas he visited, the customs of the people, and the languages would have been identical to how they were when Jesus was alive.

On the other hand, he could not possibly have been a first hand witness to the miracles he details. He must have relied on second, third or even tenth hand accounts...

Yes, but the physician Luke, who was Paul's traveling companion and the author of the Book of Acts, could have very easily been a 1st hand witness to these miracles performed by the apostles which are recorded in the Book of Acts.

From the article: The Miracle Narratives in the Acts of the Apostles
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.



INDIVIDUAL MIRACULOUS PHENOMENA
A. Resuscitations from the Dead
1. Peter raises the disciple Tabitha 9, 36-42
2. Paul raises the young man Eutychus 20, 9-12
B. Miraculous Cures and Exorcisms
1. Peter heals the lame man at the Temple gate 3, 1-16
2. Ananias cures Saul of his blindness 9, 17-18
3. Peter heals the paralytic Aeneas 9, 33-35
4. Paul cures the lame man of Lystra 14, 7-9
5. Paul stoned and miraculously healed at Lystra 14, 19
6. Paul exorcises girl possessed of divining spirit 16, 16-18
7. Paul heals Publius’ father of dysentery 28, 7-8
C. Miraculous Penalties or Afflictions
1. Ananias and Saphira struck dead at Peter’s feet 5, 5-11
2. Saul struck blind on the road to Damascus 9, 8-9
3. Herod suddenly slain by an angel 12, 23
4. Paul temporarily blinds the sorcerer Elymas 13, 9-12
D. Nature or Cosmic Miracles
1. Violent wind at the Cenacle in Jerusalem 2, 2-6
2. Shaking of the assembly building in Jerusalem 4, 31
3. Prison doors open for the Apostles 5, 17-25
4. Philip snatched by the Spirit of the Lord 8, 39
5. Peter liberated from prison by an angel 12, 5-11
6. Chains fall from Paul and Silas 16, 25-30
7. Paul shakes off viper from his arm 28, 3-6


II.

COLLECTIVE MIRACULOUS PHENOMENA
1. Many signs and wonders done by the Apostles in Jerusalem 2, 43
2. Apostles perform signs and wonders among the people 5, 12
3. Peter’s shadow cures many in the streets 5, 15
4. Multitudes from outside Jerusalem are healed 5, 16
5. Stephen works great signs and wonders 6, 8
6. Philip cures crippled and possessed in Samaria 8, 6-8, 13
7. Miracles worked by Paul and Barnabas on mission journey 14, 3
8. Great signs and wonders done among the Gentiles 15, 12
9. Miracles worked through objects touched by Paul 19, 11-12
10. Paul heals all the sick brought to him on Malta 28, 9

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_004.htm

So we have the physician Luke (who was a traveling companion of Paul and who Sir Ramsay says is one of the world's great historians) reporting the above apostles' miracles in the same matter of fact manner that he reports 87 highly detailed facts that we know are true.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls."

That sounds a lot like relativism to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

Because I would think a perfect God has more depth than that.

And here is why you OP continues to fail miserably.

"Well, I would think, but I've got this book, so I don't need to."

 

[shadron]

Yes, but the physician Luke spoke of Christ's miracles and other miracles performed by apostles in the same matter-of-fact diarist's way that he talked about the many minor detailed facts we know he got right. It is only because of a supernatural bias that people accept the numerous highly detailed facts he got right and not the miracles.

It is evident that he traveled with Paul on his journeys, which Acts chronicles. It is also self evident that he did not personally witness the miracles. How do you square that with "matter of fact" reporting?

In any case, style is not the issue. Content is.

Yes, but the physician Luke, who was Paul's traveling companion and the author of the Book of Acts, could have very easily been a 1st hand witness to these miracles performed by the apostles which are recorded in the Book of Acts.

Are you implying he witnessed the miracles in the gospel? Life expectancy in the Roman empire was likely 35, though that is weighed down by high child mortality. The majority who made it to 15 died by 50. He would have had to be 55 minimum to have witnessed the miracles personally as a 20 year-old. But he wasn't a Hebrew peasant, or even a Hebrew ruling class. He was a Greek-educated physician, probably from Paul's area of Tarsus. No one, to my knowledge, says he was present with Christ during his life unequivocally.

As for second hand, you don't actually know what they told him; he doesn't report it, he only reports some filtering of what they said. It was thirty years (minimum!) later; memories fail, and people fail, particularly in that age in that part of the world). Are you saying that witnesses to every one of those miracles appeared, 30 years later, and reported their stories? None were trained observers (in the sense that we know such today). All could well be reporting confirmation biased data.

Courts do not accept hearsay for a reason. And they're growing to not very much like eye witnesses, either, again for a reason.

I'm not arguing about what he saw and/or wrote about in Acts, but rather his gospel. Stay on track here.

 

[joobz]

If I was to make a list of things that charlatans and cult leaders claim to do it would be the following

INDIVIDUAL MIRACULOUS PHENOMENA
A. Resuscitations from the Dead
1. Peter raises the disciple Tabitha 9, 36-42
2. Paul raises the young man Eutychus 20, 9-12
B. Miraculous Cures and Exorcisms
1. Peter heals the lame man at the Temple gate 3, 1-16
2. Ananias cures Saul of his blindness 9, 17-18
3. Peter heals the paralytic Aeneas 9, 33-35
4. Paul cures the lame man of Lystra 14, 7-9
5. Paul stoned and miraculously healed at Lystra 14, 19
6. Paul exorcises girl possessed of divining spirit 16, 16-18
7. Paul heals Publius’ father of dysentery 28, 7-8
C. Miraculous Penalties or Afflictions
1. Ananias and Saphira struck dead at Peter’s feet 5, 5-11
2. Saul struck blind on the road to Damascus 9, 8-9
3. Herod suddenly slain by an angel 12, 23
4. Paul temporarily blinds the sorcerer Elymas 13, 9-12
D. Nature or Cosmic Miracles
1. Violent wind at the Cenacle in Jerusalem 2, 2-6
2. Shaking of the assembly building in Jerusalem 4, 31
3. Prison doors open for the Apostles 5, 17-25
4. Philip snatched by the Spirit of the Lord 8, 39
5. Peter liberated from prison by an angel 12, 5-11
6. Chains fall from Paul and Silas 16, 25-30
7. Paul shakes off viper from his arm 28, 3-6


II.

COLLECTIVE MIRACULOUS PHENOMENA
1. Many signs and wonders done by the Apostles in Jerusalem 2, 43
2. Apostles perform signs and wonders among the people 5, 12
3. Peter’s shadow cures many in the streets 5, 15
4. Multitudes from outside Jerusalem are healed 5, 16
5. Stephen works great signs and wonders 6, 8
6. Philip cures crippled and possessed in Samaria 8, 6-8, 13
7. Miracles worked by Paul and Barnabas on mission journey 14, 3
8. Great signs and wonders done among the Gentiles 15, 12
9. Miracles worked through objects touched by Paul 19, 11-12
10. Paul heals all the sick brought to him on Malta 28, 9

So all we have is a list of things that make the bible equal to common myths meant to inspire cult followers.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes if God wants to create robots. But I would have to assume a perfect God didn't want to create robots programmed not to sin. He wanted to give us the gift of perfect free will.

He also could have programmed us to love Him and our neighbor but then that wouldn't have been real love.

So, it's up to us whether we love him, but if we don't, we get punished?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, but the physician Luke, who was Paul's traveling companion and the author of the Book of Acts, could have very easily been a 1st hand witness to these miracles performed by the apostles which are recorded in the Book of Acts.

This is your entire argument, as if etched in a circle on a pomegranate. Round and round it goes . . .