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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
I noticed you didn't leave a source for this. I doubt he used the wording "ignored" and "not to be trusted" unless he possibly said this before his 15 year expedition.

Here is something he did say however about Luke, who is the generally accepted author of the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke.

"Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 222.

where the eclipses are above (from memory) I believe he says something like "as far as science leads" but that in no way implies that these should be ignored outside of historical science.
Click to expand...
Your memory is faulty (I think intentionally)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4713194#post4713194

The quote that you are referring to states:
"
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. "

See the bolded section. IT's clearly stating that when it comes to fantasy (e.g., The ressurection, walking on water,...) Luke isn't any better than any other book of fiction.
 
Simon39759 said:
Why, yes, that and 'messiah', as people have mentioned before, did not mean the same thing for them that it does for Christians.

Anybody that was perceived as doing God's work, for example, by having a common enemy with the Jewish people, could receive the title as did the pagan king Cyrus.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the Jews believe anyone doing God's work are Messiahs?
 
DOC said:
I noticed you didn't leave a source for this. I doubt he used the wording "ignored" and "not to be trusted" unless he possibly said this before his 15 year expedition.

Here is something he did say however about Luke, who is the generally accepted author of the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke.

"Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 222.

where the eclipses are above (from memory) I believe he says something like "as far as science leads" but that in no way implies that these should be ignored outside of historical science.
Click to expand...
Doc, I do apologise I have quoted it a few times in the past and I am happy to do so again.
William Ramsay said:
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...
Contrary to your view it makes quite clear that Luke can only be believed where he stays within the limits of science. Supernatural is outside science, so virgin births, resurrection etc. is out I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Your memory is faulty (I think intentionally)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4713194#post4713194

The quote that you are referring to states:
"
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. "

See the bolded section. IT's clearly stating that when it comes to fantasy (e.g., The ressurection, walking on water,...) Luke isn't any better than any other book of fiction.
Click to expand...

Why don't you and Lothian let Ramsay do his own talking. The statement you bolded was talking in terms of the procedures of historical study and in no way implies what Lothian (in his unsourced post) claimed Ramsay said which was:

Lothian said:
...he said the supernatural aspects in the bible should be ignored and could not be trusted.
Click to expand...
.
 
Just so it doesn't get forgotten:
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...

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915)

I just wanted it to be clear Sir William Ramsay published this statement in 1915 although the book was reprinted in 1953.
 
DOC said:
Here is a source of their voyage to Egypt together:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N7...page&q=Josephus Titus Alexandria trip&f=false

Josephus also claimed Vespasian was the Messiah from the Bible when he was originally captured by Vespasian -- looks like flattery got him everywhere.
Click to expand...

Indeed, DOC, Josephus was quite a guy- The Josephus problem turned my stomach when I read it for the first time. And the marriages.
Still, it's clear Josephus didn't voyage to Egypt with Vespasian as though they were friends on hols - Josephus accompanied the newly proclaimed Emperor's suite in his march to Alexandria, as an 'acredited' prophet. During which visit Vespasian was aclaimed as having healing powers.
 
DOC said:
Are you saying the Jews believe anyone doing God's work are Messiahs?
Click to expand...

Well, there isn't a check-list that I am aware of.
But, yes, indeed, the title of 'Mesiah' just means 'annointed'. It just means that God took this particular person and rub his special oil all over his bulging muscles, going over his glistening chest in a slow, delicate motion and... well, maybe not THAT homoerotic in the OT...

But, yes, it just means that God choose to have his will enacted through this particular person.
Now, there seems to be an implicit expectation that these actions would need to be consequent enough to warrant the title (God doesn't get out of his butt for just any occasions) and the title is often reserved to kings and sovereign.
 
DOC said:
Why don't you and Lothian let Ramsay do his own talking. The statement you bolded was talking in terms of the procedures of historical study and in no way implies what Lothian (in his unsourced post) claimed Ramsay said which was:

.
Click to expand...
I didn't alter Ramsay 's point. He said you can only trust Luke where he stays within the bounds of scientific knowledge. The key is the word provided. He has clearly qualified the extent to which Luke can be trusted.

I am happy to rely on Ramsay's own words. He makes the exact same point that has been made to you in this thread.

"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) p235.

That Bethlehem existed does not mean a virgin gave birth there.
 
Last edited:
Quote by William Ramsay
"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"


Lothian said:
Contrary to your view it makes quite clear that Luke can only be believed where he stays within the limits of science. Supernatural is outside science, so virgin births, resurrection etc. is out I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Then why do so many websites say Ramsay converted to Christianity:

From the article: The Bible and Archaeology How Archaeology Confirms the Bibilical Record by by Mario Seiglie:

"After a quarter-century of work, Ramsay was awestruck by the accuracy of the book of Acts. In his quest to refute the Bible, Ramsay discovered many facts which confirmed its accuracy.

He had to concede that Luke's account of the events and setting recorded in the narrative were exact even in the smallest detail. Far from attacking the biblical account, Ramsay produced a book, St. Paul, the Traveller and Roman Citizen, which supported it.

Eventually, William Ramsay shook the intellectual world by writing that he had converted to Christianity. Ironically, this man who set out to refute the Bible, found himself accepting the Bible as God's Word because of his explorations and discoveries. For his contribution to biblical knowledge with his many books, he was knighted also."

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn04/biblearchaeology.htm
 
Last edited:
Maybe his conversion to Christianity was unrelated to Luke's evidential value?

He found Luke to be of significant historical value and, for unrelated reason 'found God'. Maybe he had a heat-stroke while in the Syrian desert. That'd do it for some...
 
DOC said:
Quote by William Ramsay
"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...
If you read his work rather than apologist propaganda you will note that he believes through faith. He accepts that there is a lack of solid evidence and faith is the only route to God.

"this does not prove that Mary was the mother of Christ, as Luke describes Him, and as John and Paul saw Him and believed in Him.

The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence. That truth exists and moves on a higher plane of thought....

No man can make historical investigation and historical proof take the place of faith...

The Christian religion is a matter of living, not of mere intellectual knowledge ; and " the just shall live by faith "

Ramsay simply says what many people here have been saying to you. There is evidence that someone called Jesus existed and the locations are credible but there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible. To believe that you need faith.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, all who have contributed to re-establishing sir William Ramsay as a thinking man, rather than a quote mine for Christian apologists.
Perhaps it's a small point; after all, I predict Christian sites will continue to abuse the memory of sir William Ramsay for years to come, though I'd love to be proved wrong on that.
Even so, the mosaic of his thoughts and beliefs as revealed here shows a man, one who accepted his faith as being independant of factual evidence.
And that was in 1915.
 
DOC said:
Why don't you and Lothian let Ramsay do his own talking.
Click to expand...
until you actually start using prime sources for quotes (e.g., obtain the original full quote and not a quote mined form), your statement is laughable.

DOC said:
The statement you bolded was talking in terms of the procedures of historical study and in no way implies what Lothian (in his unsourced post) claimed Ramsay said which was:
Click to expand...
It's clear your interpretation is (once again) wishful thinking and not factual.
 
Hokulele said:
Which is pretty much Elizabeth's point. The whole purpose of this thread is to show evidence for believing the New Testament. Arguably, the most important themes in the New Testament are that Jesus was the son of God, and died and was resurrected. To date, the evidence that has been provided in this thread may support the idea that Jesus existed and influenced some people, but the same can be said of Robin Hood.

There is no good evidence for the supernatural claims.

(But I know that you knew that already. ;))
Click to expand...

There is little evidence that he existed historically as well.
 
Simon39759 said:
Well, there isn't a check-list that I am aware of.
But, yes, indeed, the title of 'Mesiah' just means 'annointed'. It just means that God took this particular person and rub his special oil all over his bulging muscles, going over his glistening chest in a slow, delicate motion and... well, maybe not THAT homoerotic in the OT...

But, yes, it just means that God choose to have his will enacted through this particular person.
Now, there seems to be an implicit expectation that these actions would need to be consequent enough to warrant the title (God doesn't get out of his butt for just any occasions) and the title is often reserved to kings and sovereign.
Click to expand...

And to think, I was so close!

Bulging muscles: check
Special oil: check
Homoerotic OT: check

I guess I'll just have to go around saying, "Missed it by that much!"
 
pakeha said:
Thanks, all who have contributed to re-establishing sir William Ramsay as a thinking man, rather than a quote mine for Christian apologists.
Perhaps it's a small point; after all, I predict Christian sites will continue to abuse the memory of sir William Ramsay for years to come, though I'd love to be proved wrong on that.
Even so, the mosaic of his thoughts and beliefs as revealed here shows a man, one who accepted his faith as being independant of factual evidence.
And that was in 1915.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, quote-mining is all they have to shabbily prop up their belief system and thus it will continue indefinitely (or until the rapture, whichever comes first).
 
You're probably right, BobTheDonkey.
Sorry to get so carried away.
I'm new to the world of Fundie reasoning and this slimey dishonesty in the name of Christianity appalls me still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom