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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
In all fairness, I will make their/there mistake from time to time and I know the science I publish is of very reliable, high quality. But of course, you don't need to rely on my opinion. I allow my data to speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Anyone can write or type the wrong thing, but would a there/their mistake survive editing and proofreading and sneak into your published work? I am going to assume that it would probably not.
 
DOC said:
Dr. Oz and The Blue Zones
Click to expand...

Didn't they open for Aerosmith back in the 80s?


Nicoya Peninsula in Costa Rica is located deep in the rainforest. Dr. Oz traveled to the first blue zone and showed how he traveled to this location. There are hundreds of centurions. Dan showed Dr. Oz showed how the people lived their lives. They hiked a long ways off the road, and were being rained on to get to the where all these centurions lived. They interviewed a man that is almost 108 years old. Dan said that the water is important because it has hard water, and because of the calcium and magnesium builds strong bones. There are no nursing homes, they live with there family. There is no electricity.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Apart from the lack of documentation, I thought you were saying earlier that people didn't live so long these days. Are these people in the rainforest that are living so long Christians, by the way? What is (or was, when they were young) the infant mortality rate in these communities? Maximum life span hasn't changed greatly over the years; average life span has greatly increased as infant mortality has been almost eliminated.

ETA: There's a more literate report here. Note that another 'hot spot', which is probably supported by better documentation, is in that godless place, Japan...
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The Bible says God is perfect and just, so Christians believe God will give everyone a perfect and just judgment.
Click to expand...


Circles are perfect.

CircularArgument.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sorry to interrupt the discussions of the longevity of centurions in the Amazons. And how 'hard water' produces hard bones.
But back to Luke for a moment.

DOC, for some reason, can't get sir William Ramsay's name and title straight. In his last reference to the man he still calls the writer Sir Ramsay. Does this mean DOC simply doesn't read what has been written over the last 130 pages of thread (which I have, by the way, read in it's entirety. As have done many others, though they may prefer not to admit to such a thing) or that he/she simply can't take in criticism or amendment.

In any case, I think I've discovered the original citation DOC uses in connection with sir William, who died in 1939.

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Bible/Luke.html

If this has already been posted up, sorry to be repetitive.

The real interest in the matter, at least as far as I'm concerned, stems from the fact that DOC hasn't come up with a more recent academic source for confirming Luke as a serious historical writer.
As the article at the link I've posted shows, even recent apologists rely on this venerable academic's conclusions, published in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (not to be confused with Roman army officers).
Why is that?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
...Of course in modern society, he would be arrested and spend time in jail, which is what I would agree with. But back then it would probably be unlikely to send a slave to jail for beating other slaves so other punishments were done to get the point across not only to the slave but other slaves...
Click to expand...
Sounds an awful lot like moral relativism to me. What was okay in that time and in that culture is not okay today.
 
pakeha said:
In any case, I think I've discovered the original citation DOC uses in connection with sir William, who died in 1939.
Click to expand...
I can't say since it's actually a very common apologetic Argument from Authority. I've noted it on several apologetic sites but that's irrelevant, it is truly telling that DOC and many apologists can't even find a well respected modern archeologist or biblical historian to back up this claim.
 
amb said:
Doc, what is it about Luke that fascinates you?
Click to expand...


I suspect it's the appeal to irrelevant authority that DOC likes, since he has repeatedly said that Luke was a physician. The fact that at the time medicine was little better than a collection of anecdotes, folklore and mysticism, and the scientific method would not be invented for another 16 centuries makes him even less of an authority than he might otherwise have been.
 
A physician in the year 20-100 AD would not be much better than a modern homeopath.
 
paximperium said:
I can't say since it's actually a very common apologetic Argument from Authority. I've noted it on several apologetic sites but that's irrelevant, it is truly telling that DOC and many apologists can't even find a well respected modern archeologist or biblical historian to back up this claim.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, paximperium.
Still, I feel curious about what contempory scholars write up on Luke as an historian.

added:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+historical+accuracy&cd=5&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es

I found the above amusing, especially the mention of sir William being cited in 2009.
 
Last edited:
From googling the name earlier, it seems like he is a favourite of many apologetists.

Sure, his research is one hundred years out of date so he is essentially scholarly irrelevent, but it is such a great story! The atheist, blinded by the evidence, converts. There is a Pauline quality to that...
 
DOC said:
The article was a writer speaking about a TV show episode which included a Doctor, the article by the writer was not a scientific report.
Click to expand...


Oh wow!
The episode "included a Doctor"!
That must mean the 'fact' you trotted out is correct, right?

This is a skeptic forum, DOC.

Facts must be able to stand on their own merits, not on who regurgitated them.
If the best you can do to defend your 'facts' is to say they came from a T.V. show featuring a Doctor, well, next time just don't bother posting the 'fact' at all.

And after a few minutes of Googling, it seems this Doctor Oz fellow isn't exactly a credible source. To put it politely.

I've no doubt he's a fine surgeon, but he's also way off into La La Land with the alternative medicine crowd.


I'm surprised that you still haven't learned that the skeptics on this forum WILL check on the facts you trot out, DOC.

Next time you find a fact to support your cause, double check it and assess the source. If the source is secondary, or is a quack, then leave the fact behind. Because, as you must have noticed (you can't be that blind to reality, can you?), you will get torn apart every time you post a suspicious fact.
 
Back to the Oprah article Yrreg introduced:
Dr. Oz said that we have a chemical called gremlin that tells us when we are full. It takes 20 minutes to get that full feeling. He suggests waiting a half an hour before you eating dessert to decide if you are truly hungry.
Click to expand...
A chemical named gremlin?
 
Mojo said:
I suspect it's the appeal to irrelevant authority that DOC likes, since he has repeatedly said that Luke was a physician. The fact that at the time medicine was little better than a collection of anecdotes, folklore and mysticism, and the scientific method would not be invented for another 16 centuries makes him even less of an authority than he might otherwise have been.
Click to expand...

Luke - a physcian??

Poppycock.

The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were given as "authors" in the late 3rd century. It seems that the New Testament was written about that time in Alexandria by persons unknown, then re-written by Eusebius ( and "staff") in Caesaria at the orders of Constantine I, instigator of the First Counvil of Nicea 325CE.

Hope I have not repeated earlier posts. I ave just come onto this discussion.
 
DOC said:
The article was a writer speaking about a TV show episode which included a Doctor, the article by the writer was not a scientific report.
Click to expand...

Your evidence is an article by someone who watched an episode of Oprah. Really.

I have to ask: Are you under the impression that you're being too convincing, and for some reason you feel the need to make people take you less seriously? Because that's the only explanation that makes sense.
 
eccles said:
Medicine in Egyptian times c 3100 BCE was surprisingly sophisticated. The real "father" of medicine was not Hypocrates, but Imhotep. Vizier, Architect and Doctor to Pharoah Zoser of the Stepped Pyramid fame in Saquara.

em hotep
Click to expand...

That's because he was an alien. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom