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

[Lothian]

And let's let people read a lot of pages. And they should scroll down to the table of contents of the book and see all that archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay has written about:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Those people outside the US will not be able to read the info from the above URL so I guess you'll have to find some other way to read the book:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
By archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay

Doc,

The index tells you very little. For example you would not know from the index that Ramsay says that there is no evidence that Mary is Jesus's mother.

Do you have a copy and have you read the book?

 

[DOC]

Doc,

The index tells you very little. For example you would not know from the index that Ramsay says that there is no evidence that Mary is Jesus's mother.

I disagree, the Table of Contents of this Url (coming from a famous archaeologist) tells volumes (including information about where to find out what Ramsay says about Luke's census):

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[pakeha]

And let's let people read a lot of pages. And they should scroll down to the table of contents of the book and see all that archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay has written about:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Those people outside the US will not be able to read the info from the above URL so I guess you'll have to find some other way to read the book:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
By archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay

Is it possible DOC hasn't woken up yet?
1915.
A lot has happened in bibical archeology since 1915.

 

[Fitter]

I disagree, the Table of Content of this Url (coming from a famous archaeologist) tells volumes (including information about where to find out what Ramsay says about Luke's census):

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Doc,

The index tells you very little. For example you would not know from the index that Ramsay says that there is no evidence that Mary is Jesus's mother.

Do you have a copy and have you read the book?

Hi there DOC, you seem to have overlooked the second part of Lothian's post. I have bolded it to help you out.

Cheers,
Fitter

 

[joobz]

I disagree, the Table of Content of this Url (coming from a famous archaeologist) tells volumes (including information about where to find out what Ramsay says about Luke's census):

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

fail.
a title doesn't equal content.
http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com./

 

[pakeha]

I followed the link and some, not all of the pages were available.
Page 285 was there, where Sir William makes his identification and translation of the Antioch Stone.
By a curious coincidence, it is precisely this identification which has been debunked years back.

 

[DOC]

Hi there DOC, you seem to have overlooked the second part of Lothian's post. I have bolded it to help you out.

I'm gave people a URL to find large portions of Ramsay's book. I haven't read the whole book, but I've read enough to know Ramsay gives important evidence about the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts. The title of the book says a lot:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament

 

[DOC]

Is it possible DOC hasn't woken up yet?
1915.
A lot has happened in bibical archeology since 1915.

So if Ramsay makes a hundred discoveries and one is shown wrong than the other 99 are worthless?

 

[pakeha]

From what I could see, Sir William dedicates an entire chapter to Rhoda, the slave girl.
And another one as to why any medical miracle mentioned in Luke should be taken with a grain of salt.

In any case, DOC doesn't seem to have read or taken in my earlier posts.

 

[pakeha]

So if Ramsay makes a hundred discoveries and one is shown wrong than the other 99 are worthless?

DOC, the pertinent discovery, the one on 285, is the identification of the person spoken of on the Antioch Stone.
You understand what that's about, of course.

I'd ask about the 99 strawmen DOC set up, but it's obvious there weren't 99 other discoveries; the author wouldn't have needed to pad out a book talking about the conclusions reached after 15 years of digs in the area with a chapter about Paula the slave girl if there more.

Reading the book, though, does go to show just how far archeology has evolved since 1915. It's period piece, however, not a base for any sort of serious discussion and I wonder why Josh McDowell relies on it so heavily.

 

[paximperium]

Reading the book, though, does go to show just how far archeology has evolved since 1915. It's period piece, however, not a base for any sort of serious discussion and I wonder why Josh McDowell relies on it so heavily.

He has yet to take up my challenge to produce one of Ramsay's claims concerning Jesus' miracles, resurrection or god claims because he I really doubt he has ever read anything by Ramsay.

 

[joobz]

And the thousands of slave owners thoughout history (and probably most never read one word of the bible) were human beings too.

many of whom claimed god and jesus gave them the right to.
So, in other words, your "absolute Authority" is amazingly relative.

 

[Akhenaten]

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...ss+of+the+New+Testament.#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Those people outside the US will not be able to read the info from the above URL so I guess you'll have to find some other way to read the book:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
By archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay

Have another guess, Mr Expert.

 

[pakeha]

Well, DOC has taken this thread from claiming there's evidence the NT writers were telling the truth to documenting Sir William Ramsay's views, published in 1915, on Luke's treatment of Paula, the slave girl.
I don't think the whimsical, if not comical elements of this discussion has been lost on anyone-
the empassioned yet off-topic defense of slavery
DOC actually providing a link to the work which is the lynch-pin to his, or rather Josh McDowell's, argument
which work turns out a charming period piece, indeed
and
DOC leaves the building.

What was fascinating to me in this entire exchange was that DC would prefer to be shown as a profoundly ignorant 'josher' than actually think for himself.
He could not let go of Josh McDowell's arguments nor 'evidence'.
This makes me wonder at what price that ghostwriter of Josh McDowell's was able to expose his doubts about YEC publicly and start writing extremely interesting articles.

Still, that chapter on Paula, the slave girl, is a must-read.

 

[zooterkin]

What if someone rationalizes in their mind slavery is perfectly OK because they believe in the dogma of "might makes right" and couldn't give a damn about empathy, then who are atheists to say this person is wrong since atheists do not have any absolute authority like God to base their claim on.

Got any evidence that god exists? Scared of having to think for yourself?

 

[Lothian]

I'm gave people a URL to find large portions of Ramsay's book. I haven't read the whole book, but I've read enough to know Ramsay gives important evidence about the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts. The title of the book says a lot:

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament

and what does it say on the trustworthiness?

Start with the order and method where Ramsay says

"arguments regarding the trustworthiness of the ancient authors generally cannot be dissociated from a certain element of subjectivity, and made purely scientific. We must therefore frankly acknowledge that a thoroughly scientific character cannot be given to the present or to any similar argument regarding historical trustworthiness. The case is stated as it appears to the writer, and others will judge for themselves; but it seems then necessary to premise a statement regarding his bent and attitude of mind, so that readers may be in a position to judge what allowance to make for his prejudices and proclivities and personal bias. In the main part of the book there is no attempt to follow a strictly scientific order, because, as has just been said, the subject is not susceptible of strictly scientific treat.

So right at the start Ramsay says that the following is not scientific and that it is subject to his bias, As you keep reminding us he was a Christian.

However this qualifier and fact that he was a Christian does not mean that he did not explicitly state where evidence was lacking.

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.

So what are the surrounding facts in the bible story that can be proved and what are the essential elements that can not? As Ramsay admits there is no evidence that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Given Mary can not be proven the virgin and holy Ghost story fails the evidential test. As does the trek to Bethlehem for the alleged census.

While you may get excited by the index this book does not help you. Show me where in the book Ramsay gives evidence for any of the supernatural events in the bible.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not a moral relativist.

You have certainly suggested that Jesus was a moral relativist.

In response to a question from joobz:

Is that the same Luke who has Jesus condoning slavery and the beating of slaves for violating rules that were unaware of?

...you replied:

I've already given a lengthy response to your point about the beating of slaves in post in post #2752:

...and linked back to a post that said:

Jesus was speaking in ways the people of that brutal period could understood and would remember. The beating of some slaves was probably normal in that brutal society, just like the severe beating Jesus would eventually receive was normal in that day.

There is no doubt about it, in Christianity (according to the bible) if you disobey God's will (and do not sincerely ask for forgiveness) you will be punished, and Jesus does a good job of getting that point across in a way the people (some of whom might only hear him speak once) will remember.

But if you also break God's laws and you are unaware of what you are doing you are still going to receive a punishment. For example if you disobey God's laws by being sexually promiscuous and are not aware of what you are doing is wrong, you might get an STD or you might get the person pregnant and suffer that way. Your punishment won't be as great as it you knew it was wrong but you will still be punished in some way. A price always has to be paid for unforgiven sin -- either a big price or a small price depending on the circumstances.

It is would seem obvious that it would be much more important for Jesus to get his point across about God's rules and disobeying those rules with regards to the individuals listening than to spend a lot of time on a deeply ingrained social and economic policy like slavery that as I've pointed out before would probably do more harm than good to abolish immediately in that time and place of history.

You were arguing that Jesus condoned slavery, and the beating of slaves for violating rules that they were unaware of, because they were part of the norms for the time. In other words, he was a moral relativist.

 

[eccles]

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament

Here is a link to a free download site. I am downloadint the book as a 34MB PDF file. It can be downloaded as a text file. I don't know how long it will take. I have ADSL+2 20mbps speed. I took about 7 minutes at that speed. Now more bloody stuff for me to read.

http://www.archive.org/details/bearingofrecentd012048mbp



Robert

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the link, eccles.

 

[DOC]

You were arguing that Jesus condoned slavery, and the beating of slaves for violating rules that they were unaware of, because they were part of the norms for the time. In other words, he was a moral relativist.

I never argued Jesus condoned slavery and the beating of slaves, you must have me confused with joobz.

And please put all slavery references in joobz slavery forum. And by the way I"ve already shown that Luke 12:47 talks about servants not slaves. The word doulos that was used in the Greek was translated over a hundred times in the bible and it never was translated as slave only servant, or bondsman -- mostly as servant.