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

[joobz]

This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

http://searchwarp.com/swa413755.htm

appeal to authority fallacy....check.

Logic 101 grade = D.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, but some evidence has been given for why we can conclude Gospel writer Luke was a first rate historian. Go to this site and scroll down to the 84 detailed facts of Luke.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

If we know he got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles he reported on (in the same matter of fact style he reported the 84 facts) right.

DOC, the fact that I report easily verifiable facts about the route between Paris and Lyon doesn't give any credence to my story that I was attacked by dragons on my journey from Paris to Lyon.

 

[six7s]

Yes, but some evidence has been given for why we can conclude Gospel writer Luke was a first rate historian. Go to this site and scroll down to the 84 detailed facts of Luke.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

If we know he got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles he reported on (in the same matter of fact style he reported the 84 facts) right.

DOC, please STOP lying for your messiah!

You have spammed this thread with that crap often enough to know - by the replies - that your 84 detailed facts amount to nothing more than a steaming pile of bovine excrement

See Google Results 1 - 10 of about 74 from forums.randi.org for DOC 84 detailed facts Luke

Here's a posting you made in May this year:

9)the fact that the author of Gospel of Luke, who has been called one of the world's great historians by a famous (formerly secular) archaeologist, reports 35 of Christ's miracles in the same matter of fact tone that he correctly reported 84 highly detailed facts (that have been historically and archaelogically verified)

The replies are, as per usual, damning

 

[Simon39759]

This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

http://searchwarp.com/swa413755.htm

He must be wrong then.

The tradition points at him being a Greek; his alleged place of birth would make him a Greek, even his writing style, far superior to the other Gospels, would suggest him being an educated Greek.

Amusing how you stick to the Christian traditions as being flawless when it suits your argument (the martyr's story; the Gospels' authorship) and discard them when they oppose your argument...

DOC, the fact that I report easily verifiable facts about the route between Paris and Lyon doesn't give any credence to my story that I was attacked by dragons on my journey from Paris to Lyon.

Interior peripheric toward 'Quai d'Ivry'.
Continue until you find the exit toward Nantes/Lyon/A6b ... Take it.
Follow the highway which merges into the Autoroute du Soleil. Keep on following it for about 300 km.
Turn left onto the A6 toward Lyon.
Continue on the A6 for about 150 km.
Take the A6/E15 exit toward Lyon.

You should get about downtown Lyon, it's around a 4h and 30 minutes drive.
Be careful, the right-most lane is reserved for car-pool and Leprechauns.

More info.

 

[pakeha]

When shall we start acclaiming you as the new "Luke"?

I wonder when DOC will actually post up some evidence the NT writers told the truth which hasn't been debunked repeatedly.

 

[Akhenaten]

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

The whole point of the Reverend Professor Houlden's quote is that there is no way for any of us to know what Christ said or what the apostles did or what happened to them.

I asked what you thought of the quote; I didn't ask for another sermon.

This question will return to haunt you from time to time. Prepare ye the way.

Christopher Columbus was not perfect but my posts in the Columbus thread speak for themselves, I'm not going to repeat them all here.

Are you going to start that rubbish again? I'm not anywhere near sick of pointing out how embarrassing this kind of post is to your cause. Stay tuned.

Yes, but some evidence has been given for why we can conclude Gospel writer Luke was a first rate historian. Go to this site and scroll down to the 84 detailed facts of Luke.


If we know he got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles he reported on (in the same matter of fact style he reported the 84 facts) right.

If you cross drivel with piffle, you get driffel. Enjoy your new word. You will be seeing a lot of it.


We were actually beginning a discussion of the evidence mentioned in the OP and which you have so far, for all your dozen or so posts, failed to produce. Why did you feel the need to interrupt?

 

[Akhenaten]

Another generalized opinionated post that offers no information, and no specific examples. Why don't people just let my 1200 posts stand for themselves instead of continually trying to influence others with such generalized opinions and no specifics.

You just don't get it at all do you DOC.

Your 1 296 are indeed out there for all to see.

They are, almost without exception, driffel.

I have demonstrated to you myself that you have failed to convince anyone.

I continually try to influence others with generalized opinions and no specifics in order to make my case. Look how well it works:

Which, in case you're unaware, is based on this:

Your 1 296 posts are a Happy Hunting Ground for me DOC. Please don't stop.

 

[Waterman]

This rabbi says Luke was a Jew:

< Link removed because I can't post links yet>

OK I'll try, to respond to this one. The bolded lines below are taked straight form the list referred to in DOCs Link. I stripped the url tags bucause i haven't I can't use them yet. Here are the top 10 highly detailed facts.

Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)

The author of Luke was aware of the layout of the world at the time and was either a traveler or talked to people who had traveled. While this strikes me as most likely true it does not deserve the superlative 'highly detailed' nor does it appear exceptional. Don't a lot of the stories in various other mythologies make correct references to real world places?

2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)

See response above to #1

3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)

See response above to #1

4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)

I had to look that up, so the author of Luke was familiar with grammer. He was supposedly literate (and an author no less) so why this is considered a 'Highly Detailed Fact' is beyond me.

5. the correct language spoken in Lystra Lycaonian (14:11)

The author of Luke was aware of the languages spoken in the parts of the world that he traveled to or heard about. Any personal at all who happened to be there would know this. Why this is considered a 'highly detailed fact' is not clear.

6. two gods known to be so associated Zeus and Hermes (14:12)

The author of Luke was familiar with the local mythology and why wouldn't he be. Hmmm... If Tacitus's reference to the local lore regarding Moses (which predated his presence there which makes it lore not 'history') is evidence for the 'truth' of that story. Then shouldn't this be considered 'supporting evidence' that Zeus and Hermes are real as well?

7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)

See response above to #1

8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)

See response above to #1

9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)

See response above to #4

10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace (16:11)

See response above to #1, note teh use of the word conspicuous, wouldn't imply that it was commonly know at the time.

All I see here is that the author was familiar with the geography and languages that was present at that time. All this points to is that the stories originate from a time period that was reasonably close. This ONLY attests to the AGE of the stories and not necessarikly to all the statements that fall within them.

The best story tellers will take a story and weave in local elements to increase the impact and make it feel more real and increase the emotional impact. But that don't mean that the events described actaully occured. My father has told the same ghost story many times at various locations and it is always set, in an old farm house that use to stand on this very site.

 

[zooterkin]

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel.

I take it you've never taken the time to examine exactly how you know this. Especially given:

He never said hey write all this stuff down.

 

[six7s]

OK I'll try, to respond to this one. The bolded lines below are taked straight form the list referred to in DOCs Link. <snip/>

Bravo!

Well done Waterman and welcome - you have passed the initiation test and now qualify for life membership of the 'Perpetually Optimistic Naysayers of Doc's Superstitious Crap and Ulterior Motives' club

 

[Simon39759]

OK I'll try, to respond to this one. The bolded lines below are taked straight form the list referred to in DOCs Link. I stripped the url tags bucause i haven't I can't use them yet. Here are the top 10 highly detailed facts.
Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
The author of Luke was aware of the layout of the world at the time and was either a traveler or talked to people who had traveled. While this strikes me as most likely true it does not deserve the superlative 'highly detailed' nor does it appear exceptional. Don't a lot of the stories in various other mythologies make correct references to real world places?
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
See response above to #1
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)
See response above to #1
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
I had to look that up, so the author of Luke was familiar with grammer. He was supposedly literate (and an author no less) so why this is considered a 'Highly Detailed Fact' is beyond me.
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra Lycaonian (14:11)
The author of Luke was aware of the languages spoken in the parts of the world that he traveled to or heard about. Any personal at all who happened to be there would know this. Why this is considered a 'highly detailed fact' is not clear.
6. two gods known to be so associated Zeus and Hermes (14:12)
The author of Luke was familiar with the local mythology and why wouldn't he be. Hmmm... If Tacitus's reference to the local lore regarding Moses (which predated his presence there which makes it lore not 'history') is evidence for the 'truth' of that story. Then shouldn't this be considered 'supporting evidence' that Zeus and Hermes are real as well?
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
See response above to #1
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)
See response above to #1
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
See response above to #4
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
See response above to #1, note teh use of the word conspicuous, wouldn't imply that it was commonly know at the time.
All I see here is that the author was familiar with the geography and languages that was present at that time. All this points to is that the stories originate from a time period that was reasonably close. This ONLY attests to the AGE of the stories and not necessarikly to all the statements that fall within them.
The best story tellers will take a story and weave in local elements to increase the impact and make it feel more real and increase the emotional impact. But that don't mean that the events described actaully occured. My father has told the same ghost story many times at various locations and it is always set, in an old farm house that use to stand on this very site.

Luke is generally considered to be a recruit of Saint Paul and to have followed him on his evangelic travels.
That is the Christian tradition and that is what can be gathered from reading the 'Acts of the Apostles' and, I believe, the majority of scholars believe that to be likely and credible.
So, this reasonably accurate knowledge is normal and to be expected and mark Luke as a reasonably credible chronicler and a historical source (but not as an historian). It also does not necessarily translates to other part of the Acts and it certainly does not translate to the events of the Gospels that Luke has never been supposed to have attended to begin with. In fact, it is likely that Luke heard about Jesus from Paul, which, let's remember, never met the guy himself. At best, Luke would have been three persons removed from the original stories...

 

[Waterman]

Luke is generally considered to be a recruit of Saint Paul and to have followed him on his evangelic travels.
That is the Christian tradition and that is what can be gathered from reading the 'Acts of the Apostles' and, I believe, the majority of scholars believe that to be likely and credible.
So, this reasonably accurate knowledge is normal and to be expected and mark Luke as a reasonably credible chronicler and a historical source (but not as an historian). It also does not necessarily translates to other part of the Acts and it certainly does not translate to the events of the Gospels that Luke has never been supposed to have attended to begin with. In fact, it is likely that Luke heard about Jesus from Paul, which, let's remember, never met the guy himself. At best, Luke would have been three persons removed from the original stories...

Thanks for that information, I am not a biblical scholar and know little of the history other than what I have gleaned form lurking here. But based on what you are saying here. When it comes to Local knowledge geography and languages he had first hand knowledge of the events and may very well be accurate. However when it comes to the life and Jesus he was not a witness but recorded what was relayed to him by Paul about the events. Making any Jesus accounts in Luke hearsay.

I will wear my P.O.N.D.S.C.U.M. badge with pride.

 

[DOC]

You have repeatedly referred to the number of Christians in the world, and how man posts you've made, as evidence for your claims.
Showing you have no concept of why "Argument from Popularity" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

Yes, I have talked about the number of Christians and the number of posts I've made. But I noticed you didn't leave any examples where I allegedly said they were evidence for my claim that the NT writers were telling the truth. And if you do try to give an example. give the post number where I explain myself.

You have made many posts where your conclusion in no way follows from your statements.
Showing you have no concept of what a non sequitur is nor why it is considered fallacious. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

I noticed you didn't leave any examples.

If, as you claim, you have taken a course covering these concepts, then it is patently obvious to anyone reading this thread (except you) that you are failing utterly to apply critical thinking skills to your apologetics.

Give some examples

Somewhere between your brain and your writing, the reasoning part of your brain gets bypassed.

Thank you for your opinion. Why don't you give some post #'s where this is the case, so we can analyze your no example opinion.

No information, you say?
Did you read my post?
My point was very clear, and is there for everyone to read.
As for not posting specific examples, well, your "1200 posts stand for themselves".

Your right so why don't you just let them stand instead of giving generalized no example opinions.

I was spoilt for choice, and didn't feel like spending the time digging.

If you're going to attack someone you should spend some time digging to give examples. Any troll can go into any thread and make general statements with no examples. When someone just talks in generalities when attacking it's difficult to respond to which is probably why some people in here do it. People should just let the posts stand for themselves. A red flag for all of this is when someone leaves a long attack post while not responding to any particular post nor giving examples or post #'s.

If anyone wants examples, read the last 5 pages of this thread. They abound.

Better yet read all 1200 of my posts

And for the record: I wasn't trying to influence others. I was trying to influence YOU.
I was/am attempting to get you to start thinking about what you preach, instead of only thinking what you preach.
So that you can actually make effective posts people will respect and think about, instead of the low-grade garbage you've been spewing these last few years.

So then you think these threads with over 100,000 hits each are low grade garbage?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

 

[Simon39759]

Thanks for that information, I am not a biblical scholar and know little of the history other than what I have gleaned form lurking here. But based on what you are saying here. When it comes to Local knowledge geography and languages he had first hand knowledge of the events and may very well be accurate. However when it comes to the life and Jesus he was not a witness but recorded what was relayed to him by Paul about the events. Making any Jesus accounts in Luke hearsay.

I will wear my P.O.N.D.S.C.U.M. badge with pride.

That's the way I see thing.

Also, that he did participate to the travels do not preclude for certain episode to be added to embellish a skeleton of truth ( as it has been done by others).

Finally, does the P.O.N.S.C.U.M acronym actually stands for anything?

 

[babbits]

From another sourse perhaps.

Well Tacitus knew of him and his demise, or did he invent it?

Well, it's a very suspect passage. For one thing, Tacitus was trying to 'nail' Nero for the burning of Rome. So why would he muddy the waters by mentioning that Christians also had been blamed for the fire?

The criticism of the authenticity of such external 'verifications' of biblical claims is very old. The reason is that there were schisms in Christian dogma from the very outset of Christianity.

That is why Josephus and Tacitus are suspect.

But surely the point is, it is not the existence of Jesus as a historical figure that is in doubt; but instead, the identity of Jesus: son of man, or son of god? And Tacitus and Josephus don't make any claims about that.

So no proof there.

 

[DOC]

You have repeatedly referred to the number of Christians in the world, and how man posts you've made, as evidence for your claims.
Showing you have no concept of why "Argument from Popularity" is a fallacy. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

Yes, I have talked about the number of Christians and the number of posts I've made. But I noticed you didn't leave any examples where I allegedly said they were evidence for my claim that the NT writers were telling the truth. And if you do try to give an example. give the post number where I explain myself.

You have made many posts where your conclusion in no way follows from your statements.
Showing you have no concept of what a non sequitur is nor why it is considered fallacious. If you did, you wouldn't use it.

I noticed you didn't leave any examples.

If, as you claim, you have taken a course covering these concepts, then it is patently obvious to anyone reading this thread (except you) that you are failing utterly to apply critical thinking skills to your apologetics.

Give some examples

Somewhere between your brain and your writing, the reasoning part of your brain gets bypassed.

Thank you for your opinion. Why don't you give some post #'s where this is the case, so we can analyze your no example opinion.

No information, you say?
Did you read my post?
My point was very clear, and is there for everyone to read.
As for not posting specific examples, well, your "1200 posts stand for themselves".

Your right so why don't you just let them stand instead of giving generalized no example opinions.

I was spoilt for choice, and didn't feel like spending the time digging.

If your are going to attack someone you should spend some time digging to give examples. Any troll can go into any thread and make general statements with no examples. When someone just talks in generalities when attacking it's difficult to respond to which is probably why some people in here do it. People should just let the posts stand for themselves. A red flag for all of this is when someone leaves a long attack post while not responding to any particular post nor giving examples or post #'s.

If anyone wants examples, read the last 5 pages of this thread. They abound.

Better yet read all 1200 of my posts

And for the record: I wasn't trying to influence others. I was trying to influence YOU.
I was/am attempting to get you to start thinking about what you preach, instead of only thinking what you preach.
So that you can actually make effective posts people will respect and think about, instead of the low-grade garbage you've been spewing these last few years.

So then you think these threads with over 100,000 hits each are low grade garbage?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

And what about these?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87993

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87993

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, I have talked about the number of Christians and the number of posts I've made. But I noticed you didn't leave any examples where I allegedly said they were evidence for my claim that the NT writers were telling the truth. And if you do try to give an example. give the post number where I explain myself.





I noticed you didn't leave any examples.




Give some examples




Thank you for your opinion. Why don't you give some post #'s where this is the case, so we can analyze your no example opinion.




Your right so why don't you just let them stand instead of giving generalized no example opinions.



If you're going to attack someone you should spend some time digging to give examples. Any troll can go into any thread and make general statements with no examples. When someone just talks in generalities when attacking it's difficult to respond to which is probably why some people in here do it. People should just let the posts stand for themselves. A red flag for all of this is when someone leaves a long attack post while not responding to any particular post nor giving examples or post #'s.



Better yet read all 1200 of my posts

Ironic that you would ask for examples and then provide one immediately afterwards, no?

So then you think these threads with over 100,000 hits each are low grade garbage?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

Yes

 

[six7s]

So then you think these threads with over 100,000 hits each are low grade garbage?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

The Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins thread? Yes! PURE garbage!

Why?

Don't you?



If not... try (re?)reading post #2

1. "Science" doesn't claim that we come from a single one celled organism.
2. I'm willing to guess that 91.432342% of all atheists know that science doesn't claim that we all come from a single one celled organism. The remaining athiests are still too busy filling their diapers with poop to weigh in on the subject.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

Oh dear... how sad...

That thread - [Ed] Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2 - begins with a mod warning, followed by an argument from stupendous ignorance and ends with you getting a yellow card!

This is to all extent and purposes just a rehash of a previous thread, I will leave this one open and close the "original" however any further such breaches (which you have been previously warned about) will result in further action which may include suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom.

 

[Cleon]

So then you think these threads with over 100,000 hits each are low grade garbage?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120745

Your contributions are low-grade garbage. Some of the responses are informative, witty, and funny.

And what about these?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87993

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87993

"Those" are links to the same thread, DOC.

 

[six7s]

Finally, does the P.O.N.S.C.U.M acronym actually stands for anything?

It's more of a backronym... and there's a D in it

...the 'Perpetually Optimistic Naysayers of Doc's Superstitious Crap and Ulterior Motives' club

​