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

[Elizabeth I]

If you did quote the above 8 times I notice you rarely if ever give all of the following:
the source, page number, and URL, where we can read it for some reason. That seems to lead to the conclusion for me anyway that there is cherry picking going on. In other words you don't want people to read his statement in context.

You would know all about that, wouldn't you? You practically invented the practice.

 

[Mojo]

No, and the US whose official national motto is "In God We Trust" shows that. But some would say the US has been declining lately.

Since around 1956, perhaps?

 

[paximperium]

Since around 1956, perhaps?

Violent crime has plummeted in the Washington area and in major cities across the country, a trend criminologists describe as baffling and unexpected.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/20/politics/washingtonpost/main5174305.shtml

 

[Paulhoff]

Since around 1956, perhaps?

1957, McCarthyism time and all.

Paul

 

[Lothian]

If you did quote the above 8 times I notice you rarely if ever give all of the following:
the source, page number, and URL, where we can read it for some reason. That seems to lead to the conclusion for me anyway that there is cherry picking going on. In other words you don't want people to read his statement in context.

Doc you quote Ramsay so often I presume that you have his books and are familiar with his arguments. I should have guessed that you have simply name dropped without ever reading anything he has written.

You can find the above quotes with page numbers in my post here.

And I was not lying because your statement is false. Ramsay nowhere says

"there is no evidence for the essential parts of the Christian fable and that the only way to believe it is through faith."

those are your words not his.

It might be his opinion (other historians disagree) that "the birth" {I would assume he means this to be the virgin birth) and "divine nature" can not be reasoned reasoned by historical rules or principles, but that doesn't mean there is zero evidence. There are other kinds of evidence. A lack of a body is evidence. A empty tomb is evidence. The tremendous growth of Christianity by peaceful means in a brutal dangerous environment is evidence. 31 Christian sources and 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ is evidence. It might not be proof but it is evidence. There is also The Moral Argument, The Cosmological Argument, etc. So there are other evidences besides historical.

We all paraphrase, but your paraphrasing in my opinion did not give an unbiased description of what was said.

Why don't you read his works? You have come to a conclusion that I have given a biased, cherry picking of his work, yet you confess to not knowing where the quotes come from. Why don't you read what he said then if you can find evidence that I have cherry picked post it.

Until then we can stick my paraphrasing or his words which say the same thing.
"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." The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament 236 Lines 8 to 13

 

[joobz]

Probably for the same reason a low end tabloid that reports aliens voted for Bush is not taken as serious as articles about the election in the Washington Post. They both are contemporary informational papers talking about the same election. But the public as a whole perceives one account is more authoritative than the other.

Certainly. But, of course, that's not what we have here. We have a set of accounts that describe Jesus as a prophet, and a set that describe him as the son of god. Indeed, It seems the tabloids were the ones that the committee decided to believe.

 

[Niggle]

Excuse me for sticking my freshly varnished oar into this discussion, but why is anyone bothering to argue with someone who can't tell the difference between opinion and evidence and who uses passages from the Bible as proof of the veracity of the Bible?

Move on..... there really is nothing to see here.

It's kinda like watching a train wreck. You just can't look away.

 

[Lothian]

Doc. Just to pick up on a comment of yours. You pick out three pieces of evidence that the NT writers told the truth/

The tremendous growth of Christianity by peaceful means in a brutal dangerous environment is evidence. There is also The Moral Argument, The Cosmological Argument, etc. So there are other evidences besides historical.

The Growth of Christianity is not evidence that it is true.
The Moral Argument & The Cosmological Argument are theories not evidence.

You clearly do not understand what evidence is. That is why you have the mistaken belief that there is evidence that the NT writers told the truth and why you have been unable you convince anyone here.

 

[DOC]

You would know all about that, wouldn't you? You practically invented the practice.

Then it should be very easy for you to name 5 times I've done it since I've left well over 1400 posts. That would be about one instance every 290 posts. I really don't think you'll be able to name 5 though.

 

[DOC]

The Growth of Christianity is not evidence that it is true.

It is not complete all encompassing evidence that it is true and I never said it was complete evidence but it is partial evidence that supports the truth of Christianity. It is not proof, but it is evidence.

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The rapid growth of Christianity by peaceful means in the brutal dangerous Roman occupied territory where 11 of 12 apostles were martyred (according to Wikipedia) helps me (along with other evidence and factors) in forming a judgement that the resurrection and Christianity is true. Since this information helps me in forming my judgement it fits the definition of evidence.

You clearly do not understand what evidence is.

Yes, I do, it is a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement.

 

[Lothian]

It is not complete all encompassing evidence that it is true and I never said it was complete evidence but it is partial evidence that supports the truth of Christianity. It is not proof, but it is evidence.

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The rapid growth of Christianity by peaceful means in the brutal dangerous Roman occupied territory where 11 of 12 apostles were martyred (according to Wikipedia) helps me (along with other evidence and factors) in forming a judgement that the resurrection and Christianity is true. Since this information helps me in forming my judgement it fits the definition of evidence.

Absolute Rubbish. The rise of Christianity (it was not non-violent) tells us nothing about the resurrection.

It is like saying that the rise of popular music proves Elvis is not dead.

 

[Lothian]

You clearly do not understand what evidence is. That is why you have the mistaken belief that there is evidence that the NT writers told the truth and why you have been unable you convince anyone here.

Yes, I do, it is a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement.

To an extent. You put far too wide a definition on 'Thing' or 'things'. The thing or things need to be objectively related to the thing you are trying to prove.

There is no relation between people believing in the resurrection and it actually happening 1000's of years before.

You have cause and effect totally the wrong way round.

 

[Mojo]

It is like saying that the rise of popular music proves Elvis is not dead.

It doesn't?

 

[X]

[re: cherrypicking]
Then it should be very easy for you to name 5 times I've done it since I've left well over 1400 posts. That would be about one instance every 290 posts. I really don't think you'll be able to name 5 though.

Your repeated Ramsay quotes about Luke's veracity. There's more than 5 of those.
You intentionally leave out his caveats in order to imply that he thinks all of Luke is of excellent historical quality.

And since you obsess with links or refuse to believe it happened...



1)

And as we already know Gospel writer Luke has been called one of the worlds great historians by Sir William Mitchell Ramsay.

We also know Sir William Mitchell Ramsay said there is no evidence for the essential parts of the Christian fable and that the only way to believe it is through faith.

This thread however is about evidence, you have yet to provide any.

The first sentence is false, as well as the second.

Wrong.


The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament - Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1915)


"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."

"We know that Luke was right in the external facts, because the records have disclosed the whole system of the census ; but as to the inner facts, the birth and the divine nature of Jesus, there can (as said above) beno historical reasoning, for those are a matter of faith, of intuition, and of the individual human being's experience and inner life."

"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"

As I Said "Sir William Mitchell Ramsay said there is no evidence for the essential parts of the Christian fable and that the only way to believe it is through faith."

If I hadn't quoted the above 8 times before in this thread (search Lothian & Essential if you do not believe me) I would accept you are just ignorant of the author you continuously misquote. However, the fact that you continue to repeat lies leads me, and I am sure others, to the conclusion that it is not just ignorance that makes you lie. As you repeatedly ask, I am happy to leave your words out there for all to see.

2)

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

Except for all that irrelevant magical parts.

3)

So I've listed 4 reasons why Luke could have been right. So nothing has been "proved" regarding the census. And when you have 4 reasons why Luke could have been right you have to give the man who has been called a great historian {Luke} the benefit of any doubt.

The man who called Luke a great historian said there is no evidence for any of the supernatural events in the bible. Can we trust him and end this thread?

Where exactly did he say there is no evidence of any supernatural events. Which post did you show this.

The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) page 235
"The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."

and

page 89
"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"

and

Page 254
"We know that Luke was right in the external facts, because the records have disclosed the whole system of the census ; but as to the inner facts, the birth and the divine nature of Jesus, there can (as said above) be no historical reasoning, for those are a matter of faith, of intuition, and of the individual human being's experience and inner life."


and page 236
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

4)

And Ramsay never said there is no evidence for the supernatural parts of the bible.

He said "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."

What he is saying is the generality fits. There were Romans. There were prophets the geography is about tight but for the interesting parts of the bible; the supernatural; son of god; zombie bits there is no historical evidence. You can only find that through faith. There is no evidence for the important bits. Never mind Jesus's father he said there is no evidence that his mother was Mary.

5)

Perhaps I could refer you to the most famous historian, archaeologist and Christian to come out if this thread. Sir William Ramsey devoted his life to studying the bible and its truth and he said the supernatural aspects in the bible should be ignored and could not be trusted.

I noticed you didn't leave a source for this. I doubt he used the wording "ignored" and "not to be trusted" unless he possibly said this before his 15 year expedition.

Here is something he did say however about Luke, who is the generally accepted author of the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke.

"Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 222.

where the eclipses are above (from memory) I believe he says something like "as far as science leads" but that in no way implies that these should be ignored outside of historical science.

Doc, I do apologise I have quoted it a few times in the past and I am happy to do so again.

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

Contrary to your view it makes quite clear that Luke can only be believed where he stays within the limits of science. Supernatural is outside science, so virgin births, resurrection etc. is out I am afraid.

Well, that was fun.

And before you go crying off to the mods that this is off-topic, DOC (as you've done more than once in the past after people responded to one of your "challenges" and made you look bad), remember that this was something YOU requested!

Or, in the common vernacular: You asked for it!


ETA: Wow. Should've just let Lothian field this challenge...

 

[six7s]

It's kinda like watching a train wreck. You just can't look away.

I reckon that this thread is more like the bus in Speed, with DOC playing the Dennis Hopper role... if this thread drops below 50 debunks per delusion, DOC will detonate teh interwebs

 

[amb]

It doesn't?

Elvis is dead? But, but, I saw him at Burger King just last week.

 

[DOC]

{The rapid Growth of Christianty after the supposed ressurrection} is not complete all encompassing evidence that it is true and I never said it was complete evidence but it is partial evidence that supports the truth of Christianity. It is not proof, but it is evidence.

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The rapid growth of Christianity by peaceful means in the brutal dangerous Roman occupied territory where 11 of 12 apostles were martyred (according to Wikipedia) helps me (along with other evidence and factors) in forming a judgement that the resurrection and Christianity is true. Since this information helps me in forming my judgement it fits the definition of evidence.

Absolute Rubbish. The rise of Christianity (it was not non-violent) tells us nothing about the resurrection.

If there was a guy named Bob and he told his followers he was the son of God and he would rise from the dead. Would you say there was a greater chance for rapid growth of the "religion of Bob" if he rose from the dead and appeared to his followers. Or if he did not rise from the dead and did not appear to his followers?

I maintain that if your answer is there is a greater chance for growth if he did indeed rise from the dead, then when we are told there was great growth of the religion of Bob after his death, that fact would increase the likelihood that Bob did rise from the dead more than if we were told the religion of Bob did not grow after his death. Since that fact increases the likelihood of the Resurrection, it can be considered partial evidence. How much weight you want to give that evidence is subjective. But to say it has no weight as evidence would be incorrect. I think some skeptics are terrified to give any weight at all to something that might increase the likelihood of the resurrection and I think that hurts their image as being unbiased searchers looking for the truth.

It is like saying that the rise of popular music proves Elvis is not dead.

I would estimate there is 100% chance that popular music would be around whether Elvis was alive or not. But when you think about it the existence of Christianity doesn't even make sense without the Resurrection. Therefore, the fact that it does exist 2000 years later, and is the largest religion in the world, can be in itself partial evidence for the resurrection. Even though this fact is obvious when you think about it, most people never consider it.

 

[Astreja]

I maintain that if your answer is there is a greater chance for growth if he did indeed rise from the dead, then when we are told there was great growth of the religion of Bob after his death, that fact would increase the likelihood that Bob did rise from the dead more than if we were told the religion of Bob did not grow after his death.

Not necessarily. All it would take is a bit of sleight-of-hand to make it appear that someone rose from the dead. (A twin brother, for instance, claiming to be the dead man.)

 

[DOC]

Not necessarily. All it would take is a bit of sleight-of-hand to make it appear that someone rose from the dead. (A twin brother, for instance, claiming to be the dead man.)

Yes, but the likelihood of Bob being being raised from the dead is still greater if we know his religion grew fast then if we were told it did not grow.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, but the likelihood of Bob being being raised from the dead is still greater if we know his religion grew fast then if we were told it did not grow.

That's not accurate, Doc.

2000 years ago, the world was not as connected as it is now. Fables and tall-tales were the norm - and they were believed, in their own times, to be factual.

Hearsay is still that, hearsay. Regardless of how many people believe it, it's still hearsay. Hearsay is not, in any way, valid proof/evidence for anything. It can lend credence to other existing evidence, but if we have no hard evidence, then we are forced to discard the hearsay as nothing more than rumors.