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

[DOC]

And what is your source of Ramsay saying "why would Luke lie"?

A complete lack of reading comprehension is proven again

Your statement makes no sense -- I simply want him to tell me the source of Ramsay saying why "why would Luke lie" what's so hard about you understanding that?

 

[paximperium]

You know, I vaguely remember seeing that in a documentary on the History Channel.

Oh yeah...I remember the Pope, five million scholars and fifty Nobel Prize laureates saying that it is true.

 

[six7s]

I guess if joobz can talk about slavery a 100 times I can talk about this 25 times:

These people didn't think the claims were unsubstantiated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

There is a significant difference in the two approaches:

• joobz persists, in a sincere, honest and forthright manner, to question practices and beliefs that are detrimental to peace, harmony and understanding.
  
  I get the impression that if/when you or anyone can prove joobz to be wrong, a sincere and honest apology will accompany a prompt and frank acknowledgment that will encourage others to think and see the Universe with increasingly clarity

In contrast

• You, supported by tales of your merry band of martyrs and other woo, persist in lying for your messiah and, in so doing, promote a culture of ignorance, superstition, oppression and persecution.
  
  It is obvious that whenever you and your fellow delusionists are proved to be wrong, you simply trot out yet another half-baked and dishonest excuse aimed - presumably - a perpetuating the myth that those who blindly accept your messiah as their lord and saviour are somehow 'special' in the Universe, free to use and abuse any and all resources

These people didn't think the claims were unsubstantiated

Fixed that for you

 

[DOC]

Yes

So why does a man who wrote this --

Luke Chapter 3 (King James Version)

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;


-- sound like a man who makes stuff up to you?

 

[Lothian]

Regarding the part I bolded in the 1st sentence, Sir W. M. Ramsay found archaeological evidence that Quirinius could have indeed directed a census at the time of Christ's birth. I've already talked about this. And what is your source of Ramsay saying "why would Luke lie"?

Have you actually read any of Ramsay's works?

And you should leave a reference for the Ramsay quote or at least a post # when the reference was given before especially if it was given many pages ago.

I am shocked you are not familiar with this quote where Ramsay says there is no evidence of Jesus's birth or divinity as you have quoted the book several times yourself. It is on page 254 of The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.

 

[paximperium]

Your statement makes no sense -- I simply want him to tell me the source of Ramsay saying why "why would Luke lie" what's so hard about you understanding that?

To return to Luke's accound of how he wrote his Gospel, Luke tells us that by the times he writes, "many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us." He was familiar, therefore with many stories of Jesus' life. Some of these he evidenceltu considered inferior quality. He selected from among the many stories in circulation those which fit his particular purpose and which suited his standrds of credibility.

The Layman's Guide to the New Testament By William M. Ramsay; Pg. 28

The great majority, however, believe that Mathew and Luke already knew Mark's Gospel and made use of it when they wrote.

The Layman's Guide to the New Testament By William M. Ramsay; Pg. 30

HEY DOC GUESS WHAT? I JUST FOUND A COPY OF "LUKE THE PHYSICIAN AND OTHER STUDIES IN RELIGION" by Sir William Ramsay. Let's see what he really says about the census story.

 

[six7s]

Have you actually read any of Ramsay's works?
I am shocked you are not familiar with this quote where Ramsay says there is no evidence of Jesus's birth or divinity as you have quoted the book several times yourself. It is on page 254 of The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.

Available (in 'preview*' format) online at
http://books.google.com/books...?q=The+Bearing+of+Recent+Discovery+on+the+Trustworthiness+of+the+New+Testament
Praise be to teh Google

------
ETA
* not ALL pages are available... but p254 is

 

[paximperium]

Hahahaha...here is what Ramsay says about the dating of the Census.

But the testimony of the Tertullian is now confirmed by Colonel Mackinlay's argument that the Enrolment took place in the proper year of B.C. 8; and this date may now be accepted provisionally as the only one which has all the evidence in its favour.

Luke the Physician and other Studies in the History of Religion; William M. Ramsay; Pg 246

 

[Moss]

Well, the major problem I see with William Mitchell Ramsay is that his texts are at least 70 years old and may not reflect the current knowledge.

Edit: And the words of Raymond E. Brown: "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."

 

[paximperium]

Well, the major problem I see with William Mitchell Ramsay is that his texts are at least 70 years old and may not reflect the current knowledge.

Most definitely. If DOC and apologists can only drag the works of a pretty reasonable and intelligent theistic scholar from 100 years ago to support his nonsense, DOC's "scholarship" is really out of date but I'm betting he has never read anything from Ramsay and has never done any of his own scholarship, just regurgitate crap from terrible apologists like Geisler and Demsky.

Reading through Ramsay's books was a special kind of pain. He uses absurdly dry and archaic language..oh wait, that's standard academic writing. Nevermind.

 

[Cleon]

I guess if joobz can talk about slavery a 100 times I can talk about this 25 times:

These people didn't think the claims were unsubstantiated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

And the relevance of that would be...?

 

[paximperium]

Sir W. M. Ramsay found evidence in his 15 years of research that Egyptians, who were part of the Roman Empire, had to return home for their census.

So?

Egypt was a province and part of the Roman Empire.
The Herodian Kingdom was a client state; not a province.

 

[Hokulele]

These people didn't think the claims were unsubstantiated:

<parade of delusionals snipped>

I thought you said Wiki is an atheist site, and therefore you can't trust it as a source.

 

[Hokulele]

When you can come up with a convincing argument that doesn't sink your own, you mean? Well, thinking it through would be good, carry on.

As well as answering the queries for promised evidence, of course.
It would be a shame if DOC were tempted to hare off after Muslim martyrs rather than staying oon topic, wouldnt it.

Don't bother, we already did the Muslim martyr bit on page 14. The correct answer is "circular reasoning".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4140210#post4140210

 

[Moss]

Dead people who just happen to believe in some incident (and got either horribly murdered for that or invented to have a steady flow of pilgrims) are certainly proof that the incident happened.


Hey, why are you looking at me that skeptical?

 

[Akhenaten]

So why does a man who wrote this --

Luke Chapter 3 (King James Version)

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;


-- sound like a man who makes stuff up to you?

So why does a man who wrote this --


And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: "Seest thou not how herein this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war on thy province?"

But Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor.

And the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less, some well nigh as great as themselves, and they laboured together in the ordering of the Earth and the curbing of its tumults.


-- sound like a man who makes stuff up to you?

 

[Z]

So why does a man who wrote this --


And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: "Seest thou not how herein this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war on thy province?"

But Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor.

And the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less, some well nigh as great as themselves, and they laboured together in the ordering of the Earth and the curbing of its tumults.


-- sound like a man who makes stuff up to you?

You're wasting your breath. As far as DOC is concerned, ancient writers just WOULDN'T use the same literary conventions and techniques as modern ones; when a modern one does it, it's fiction; but if an ancient one does it, it must be fact. Worse still, don't DARE suggest that ancient writers might be creating political or religious fiction for less-than-honest motives... what blasphemy!

But, yeah, for any thinking man, it's obvious that all these little 'keep it real' moments are merely meant as a literary device to 'ground the fiction' - to give it an air of authority and authenticity, to give a false sense of reality to a fantastic tale.

Not to DOC, though, who is apparently an expert on all literary conventions from time immemorial.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're wasting your breath. As far as DOC is concerned, ancient writers just WOULDN'T use the same literary conventions and techniques as modern ones; when a modern one does it, it's fiction; but if an ancient one does it, it must be fact. Worse still, don't DARE suggest that ancient writers might be creating political or religious fiction for less-than-honest motives... what blasphemy!

But, yeah, for any thinking man, it's obvious that all these little 'keep it real' moments are merely meant as a literary device to 'ground the fiction' - to give it an air of authority and authenticity, to give a false sense of reality to a fantastic tale.

Not to DOC, though, who is apparently an expert on all literary conventions from time immemorial.

No sweat, Z. Doc's had me on ignore since Jesus was doing the supper club circuit in Jerusalem.

I'm just here to make up the numbers and quote Tolkien as appropriate.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[pakeha]

Regarding the part I bolded in the 1st sentence, Sir W. M. Ramsay found archaeological evidence that Quirinius could have indeed directed a census at the time of Christ's birth. I've already talked about this. And what is your source of Ramsay saying "why would Luke lie"?

And you should leave a reference for the Ramsay quote or at least a post # when the reference was given before especially if it was given many pages ago.

Well, obviously this isn't the first time I've given a quotation and source on the subject of the Antioch Stones (thanks to Lord Emsworth, as I recall) and I'll repeat it as necessary:

As we've seen, the stones (and there are two, not one) only report that Quirinius was a Duumvir, not a governor, and not in Syria, but well outside that province. And they give hardly any reliable clues as to the date. Only pure speculation can set the date between 9 and 4 B.C., and what little argument could be advanced for a date between 6 and 1 B.C. actually goes to prove that Quirinius was fighting a war in Galatia at the time (see box below) and that refutes the possibility that he was governing Syria (see below), so there is in the end no evidence in these stones regarding any Syrian governorship of any date.

From:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch

I think it's clear that modern research has pretty much shown Sir William Ramsay's 'discoveries' (read how they were found) have no significance whatsoever in the task of NT 'verification'.
However, until someone explains this to Josh McDowell and cie, I suspect from time to time we'll be receiving this lame allusion.
No worries.

 

[pakeha]

Well, the major problem I see with William Mitchell Ramsay is that his texts are at least 70 years old and may not reflect the current knowledge.

Edit: And the words of Raymond E. Brown: "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."

That's true only if you calculate from the year of the 1953 reprint.
The original printing of Ramsay's 1912-13 discoveries (the Antioch Stones) was in 1915.

All the 'bibical study' sites which count on this source as evidence of Luke's accuracy are relying on opinions and conclusions which even the Bibical Archeological Review now discounts out of hand.
But DOC already knows this, as it has been pointed out repeatedy here.