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

[pakeha]

And I say it hasn't been rebutted, so if people want to make up their own mind they will have to read the thread and not take my or your word for it.

Indeed they will. It would be nice if DOC actually responded to those posters who have taken the trouble to resource Sir William's findings and conclusions (bravi tutti).
The trouble, as I see it, is that it is becoming obvious, in fact painfully so, that DOC's main sources (McDowell, etc.) have been overtaken by modern critical analysis and can't/won't acknowedge the fact.

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.

I'd appreciate seeing a source for this claim, please.

And if you can't see that Josephus being close to the Roman emperor and even owing his life to that emperor must be considered when using a Josephus writing against Christianity, well then, you can't see that. But as stated, even if Josephus was correct, that doesn't mean Luke was wrong.

Ah, back to that 'Brokeback Mountain' scenario between Vespasian and Josephus (he of the Josephus Problem).
I love it as a possible storyboard for a movie, I do indeed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make it as history, as DOC well knows, from the posts I and others have made here.
Hmm. I wonder if this 'fiction' features in home-schooling material.

 

[zooterkin]

"Could have been" is not evidence. Even if there had been a census, do you have any evidence that people being counted were ever made to return to some ancestral village rather their home?

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, you're agreeing with me that there's no evidence for any census where people had to return to some ancestral village?

ETA: I've just realised my statement had a missing word, which I think was obvious, but apologies if you misread it. It should have been:

"Could have been" is not evidence. Even if there had been a census, do you have any evidence that people being counted were ever made to return to some ancestral village rather than their home?

 

[pakeha]

Hi, zooterkin.
For more on the 'Census'

A last paragraph in John Elder's book cites another papyrus concerning the conduct of a census. This is the one quoted by McDowell, above.Although there is no reference in the text, this appears to be London Papyrus 904 (from A.D. 104), an edict of G. Vibius Maximus. It asks people to return to their *current* place of residence to enroll. The fantastic element of Luke's census is the implication that Joseph, being of the family of David, had to return to Bethlehem, his supposed ancestor. We have no idea of the residence of this "royal line" since the time of David; Jesus' ancestors may not have resided at Bethlehem for a thousand years. This papyrus, describing the practices of the census in Egypt, may have little bearing on customs in Syria and Judaea.Since there are no footnotes, none of the assertions can be checked, and for the use of scholarship, Elder's book is useless.

From:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+Census+papyrus+Luke&cd=5&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es

The entire article is well worth reading, actually.
Well, it's interesting to me because this is the first time I've come across these attempts to shoe-horn historical accuracy into Luke, poor old guy.
Why even bother to fudge and twist history to accomodate a belief in the 'enerrancy' of Luke?

 

[zooterkin]

Some skeptics want to believe Josephus was right about a census but was wrong about Moses being in Egypt.

Again, your choice of words is peculiar. They don't want to believe. It's a matter of weighing the evidence; Josephus talking about something that happened within living memory of people around him is completely different, and more likely to be based on truth, than him retelling the thousand year old stories about Moses. If you can't see that, then it's not surprising you have difficulty with more difficult concepts.

And if you can't see that Josephus being close to the Roman emperor and even owing his life to that emperor must be considered when using a Josephus writing against Christianity, well then, you can't see that. But as stated, even if Josephus was correct, that doesn't mean Luke was wrong.

Try to focus, DOC. When Josephus is writing about something which happened in the lifetime of the people around him, it means it is possible that he had access to first or second hand accounts, and contemporary documentation, and his word may carry some weight. When he is retelling thousand year old myths, then, unless he has access to an unmentioned source, that's all he is doing, and he cannot be used as any sort of validation for those stories.

What his motivation is in either case, and therefore whether what he writes is knowingly incorrect, is something entirely different, and not the point that was being addressed.

ETA: It's not a matter of whether Josephus is right or wrong; it's whether what he says has any relevance, whether what he says can count as evidence. In the case of the census, it could (whether it actually does is another matter); in the case of Moses, I don't see how it can (barring the existence of some independent text that he was working from in addition to what we call the Old Testament, and there is no mention of that).

 

[Ignatowski]

The exact moment I read this post "Wild World" started playing on the music channel.

Coincidence?

You decide.

 

[pakeha]

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

Very true and thanks for the reminder that DOC never provided a working link for the Geisler tome.
Anyway, I went around to read and I have to agree with Hokulele that it is a piece of circular logic.

However, superfine, triple-dyed circular logic. The complacent assurance of the author is almost disarming:

Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.

 

[DOC]

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

Quote:
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

__________________

What is your point, that just proves there was another census besides the one Josephus mentions and that helps my position.

 

[Hokulele]

What is your point, that just proves there was another census besides the one Josephus mentions and that helps my position.

And yet, we still have no evidence that the resurrection happened.

None.

 

[DOC]

And this is different from Heaven's Gate and Jonestown because Christ wasn't present to pressure or influence them, they could of just walked away after Christ died. Whereas the leaders of the those other 2 were present when the followers died and the followers deaths didn't happen at different times and in different locations. ...

And this still is an argumentum ad populum, DOC.
Faith or belief simply isn't evidence of anything.
Reported actions, even martydom, based on faith are proof of nothing more than the faith, if even that.

If one believes the story in the Bible, the 11 of 12 apostles weren't basing their willingness to die on faith, they were basing it on what they saw with their own senses. All 11 of the apostles who were martyred saw the resurrected Christ according to the Bible, that's not faith, that's seeing with your own eyes.

And argumentum ad populum has nothing to do with my point that the apostles death occurred at different times and places over a long period of time whereas the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate incidents happened all around the same time and same place. It is much more unlikely for followers to keep up their zeal over a long period of time and when not supported by other followers or their leader. This shows apostles (who by the way demonstrated cowardice and uncertainty before the reported resurrection) must have seen something incredible to make them change course.

Geisler puts it this way regarding the resurrection in his book cited in post #1 pg. 296:

"How else can you explain why scared, scattered, skeptical cowards suddenly became the most dedicated, determined, self-sacrificing, and peaceful missionary force the world has ever known."

 

[Hokulele]

If one believes the story in the Bible...

And this is precisely why the argument relies on circular reasoning. If you can only prove that the bible is true by assuming the bible is true, you haven't proven anything at all.

 

[DOC]

And yet, we still have no evidence that the resurrection happened.

None.

There might not be definite proof of the resurrection (just like there is no proof that life came from non-living chemicals) but there is plenty of evidence for it:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[Hokulele]

There might not be definite proof of the resurrection <snipped the off-topic blather> but there is plenty of evidence for it:

Nope, it is all circumstantial at best, completely wrong at worst. And as you have been told before, if you want to talk about abiogenesis, the Science sub-forum is thataway.

It is pretty sad how you keep trying to derail your own threads whenever you are shown to be wrong.

 

[DOC]

And this is precisely why the argument relies on circular reasoning. If you can only prove that the bible is true by assuming the bible is true, you haven't proven anything at all.

Nobody is forcing you to believe the 33 Christian sources and 10 non-Christian sources.

 

[Hokulele]

Nobody is forcing you to believe the 33 Christian sources and 10 non-Christian sources.

You mean all of the sources which fail to provide any evidence for the resurrection?

 

[pakeha]

...And argumentum ad populum has nothing to do with my point that the apostles death occurred at different times and places over a long period of time whereas the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate incidents happened all around the same time and same place. It is much more unlikely for followers to keep up their zeal over a long period of time and when not supported by other followers or their leader. This shows apostles (who by the way demonstrated cowardice and uncertainty before the reported resurrection) must have seen something incredible to make them change course. ...

Thanks for the heads up, DOC.
I went around to recheck definitions and you have a fair point there:

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

From Wikipedia.

You have a fair point, there, indeed.
So, yes, you could argue that rather than having your false logic being labeled
argumentum ad populum, it should be dismissed as 'an appeal to tradition' or even just a good old red herring.
Shall we go with the red herring or appeal to tradition?
Either way, you've promised us sources for the 'confirmation' of Luke's fictional Census other than Ramsay and Geisler. And we're still waiting. Ramsay's 'find' has been descredited in this context for long enough to merit being decently forgotten, one would think. And Geisler... well, his circular argument is hilarious, but little else.

As for the Christian martyrs=proof of Resurrection
Other martyrs=deluded heathens
argument,
it's one that's been tried out before. Geisler's hilarious 'reasoning' for it has been posted up on this thread and on this very page.
And you've essentially repeated it in this post.
You're aware it hardly glorifies Christ to repeat catchphrases as arguments.
In fact, this particular one reads like a catchphrase from a preacher. Is it an original from Josh McDowell? Or just a traditional preachers' catchphrase?

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[pakeha]

There might not be definite proof of the resurrection (just like there is no proof that life came from non-living chemicals) but there is plenty of evidence for it:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Amazing to read the webpage DOC cited as evidence.
Here's just one extract (just one) for those who can't be bothered with reading the whole page:

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

One could be forgiven for wondering if DOC has actually read his own source.

That '24,000 copies of the NT' claim has been shown up as being completely misleading, and, in my opinion, verging on malicious deception.
I am astonished that a Christian would lie about this so stupidly and openly and that even since 1992 McDowell hasn't corrected these misleading affirmations. Preaching based on what look like outright deceptions is justified if it's in the name of the Lord?

It's become clear, through the researches of posters here (not including DOC, oddly enough) that sir William Ramsay has been much misquoted to begin with and that his claims to fame (the Antioch Stones) are actually a classic of misinterpretation and dismissed as 'wishful thinking'.

But DOC already knows this because obviously DOC reads the posts in this thread. So why go back to McDowell as a source, even knowing, as is pretty clear from reading this thread, that McDowell, as far as we can see from the material posted by DOC, misquotes, misleads and misdirects in the name of the Lord?

And then, in another post, we get this as 'evidence' of a resurrection from DOC:

Nobody is forcing you to believe the 33 Christian sources and 10 non-Christian sources

OK, sounds vaguely familiar.
Obviously we'll pass on the Christian sources and go for the 10. I didn't see a link for this; naturally DOC will post one.

 

[wollery]

OK, sounds vaguely familiar.
Obviously we'll pass on the Christian sources and go for the 10. I didn't see a link for this; naturally DOC will post one.

He already has, many times.

Do the names Josephus and Tacitus ring any bells?

Not one of his non-Christian sources is even close to contemporary.

 

[tsig]

snip
that's not faith, that's seeing with your own eyes.

snip

So the apostles had no faith?

Why don't we all get the same evidence the apostles did?

 

[amb]

__________________

What is your point, that just proves there was another census besides the one Josephus mentions and that helps my position.

How does it help your position? There is no historical evidence that there was a census at Jesus supposed birth day, or shortly after.