• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
To be honest you should have said who some opinion intermixed many fables and falsehood, such as the census story or the birth in Bethlehem or the guiding star!
Click to expand...
Sure. So where is this so-called evidence for a resurrection again?
 
DOC said:
To be honest you should have said who some opinion intermixed many fables and falsehood, such as the census story or the birth in Bethlehem or the guiding star!
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll be right to it, as soon as you'll have proven that Alexander's stories of visiting the Amazones are false.
 
DOC said:
Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.
Click to expand...
What was that full quote again?

Oh yeah:
“The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. 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.”


In other words, Ramsay even asks us to ignore where Luke completely made crap up.
 
DOC said:
To be honest you should have said who some opinion intermixed many fables and falsehood, such as the census story or the birth in Bethlehem or the guiding star!
Click to expand...


Actually we have evidence of these intermixed fables and falsehoods; evidence that has been attested at various places throughout this thread.

Or would you like to rename this thread Opinions by someone who thinks the New Testament writers told the truth?
 
six7s said:
Likewise :)

sonofgloin, please note that my earlier invitation for you to furnish evidence was/is sincere
Click to expand...

Thanks to all who found merit in my recanting the statement I made, but it is not to be applauded, it was more for my benefit than others, such as most actions and words we employ to justify ourselves to ourselves. The Spearian adage "to thine own self be true" has been a mantra of mine since I came to understand the worth of the statement, and I attempt to comply with it to the best of my frail ability.
 
Fabulous Far-stretched Fairy-tales?

Fundamentally Flawed Fiction?

Flaming, Falling, Flying-machine (of a reasoning).




Fabulous, Flaming Frenchman! (ok, not relevant, so what?)
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
Which does not make it true.

DOC, this is precisely why people keep calling you out on your fallacies. You have yet to provide a shred of proof you understand why statements like this are completely unconvincing.

Show us the evidence, primary source evidence, that led Ramsay to this conclusion. Without that evidence, this is simply an assertion, not a fact.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you have read all the posts in this thread?

Your statement is false, I have provided 84 "highly detailed" facts written by Luke in just the last 16 chapters of Acts that classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer identifies as having been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. Obviously information like this (that includes archaeological evidence) would be part of the reason archaeologist Ramsay who spent 15 years doing research in biblical lands made his statement.

For those who haven't read these 84 facts, go to the following URL and scroll down to the list of these 84 facts written by gospel writer Luke. It also later lists 59 "highly detailed" facts gospel writer John correctly got right.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
You may "add" but no one gives a rat's ass as to your recommendations.
Click to expand...


DOC said:
So you don't believe in miracles but you can read the minds of the 180 posters in here. Statements like yours show a very angry bitter person.
Click to expand...


Well, it seems that paximperium might want to consider the MDC. The figures are in!


Spreadsheet here!


Total Number of posters: 220

Number with unstated conviction: 6

Number stating lack of conviction: 214

Number stating conviction: 2​


My scribes have consulted with the Great Mathematician, Simon39759. who has numbers in his screen name, and arrived at a method of determining Doc's success.

It is known as the Standardized Doc Unconvincingness Index (DIC)*

In this case:

DIC = 2/214 = 0.0093

Where a DIC of 1.0 would = some credibility.​


Hmmm. That's a very small DIC. One notes that paximperium has a PIC of 107.


* acronyms are like that, OK?



Mark Alan Sauer - 7 October 2008 said:
I can't even read these posts "cover to cover".
Click to expand...


I can.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Are you sure you have read all the posts in this thread.

Your statement is false, I have provided the 84 "highly detailed" facts written by Luke in just the last 16 chapters of Acts ...
Click to expand...
Funny that you just look at that book, because the gospel of Luke contains a ton of unsubstantiated nonsense.

E.g., Census story, Ressurection,....
 
All glory to Pharao.

Although, I think that a DIC of 1 would be a great credibility, as it means that everybody agrees with you.
50% seems closer to realistic.


Looking at the data I can't help but remark that Doc should have been excluded, after all, one can hardly argue that he convinced himself. It was his opinion from the beginning and the quality of his argument has nothing to do with it.
I also notice how the one person actually agreeing with Doc was a surprising 'one shot' poster. That's weird...
 
DOC said:
Are you sure you have read all the posts in this thread?
Click to expand...


Can you define appeal to authority and appeal to popularity?

Your statement is false, I have provided 84 "highly detailed" facts written by Luke in just the last 16 chapters of Acts that classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer identifies as having been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. Obviously information like this (that includes archaeological evidence) would be part of the reason archaeologist Ramsay who spent 15 years doing research in biblical lands made his statement.
Click to expand...


And what about all the errors Luke makes? People have already discussed several of the major issues (geneaology, census, Paul's conversion, Paul's actions after his conversion). How about a new one?

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

So, not only was it possible that Luke was a plagiarist, but a clumsy one at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom